<%BANNER%>

An Investigation of the Co-Construction of School Identities

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0041950/00001

Material Information

Title: An Investigation of the Co-Construction of School Identities Collaborating with Fourth-Graders in the Supervision of Prospective Teachers
Physical Description: 1 online resource (254 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Delane, Darby
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2010

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: collaboration, cop, discourses, equity, failure, identity, inclusion, justice, marginalization, par, pds, supervision, tracking
Teaching and Learning -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Curriculum and Instruction (ISC) thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: 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 AN INVESTIGATION OF THE CO-CONSTRUCTION OF SCHOOL IDENTITIES: COLLABORATING WITH FOURTH-GRADERS IN THE SUPERVISION OF PROSPECTIVE TEACHERS By Darby Claire Delane August 2010 Chair: Elizabeth Bondy Major: Curriculum and Instruction Through the current uses of high stakes testing designed to measure state definitions of ?learning,? chronic inequities are being perpetuated in the public school systems by organizational practices that sort students. Tracking both in and between classrooms legitimizes the social inequalities of the larger society by segregating and denying educational equality (Darling-Hammond, 1999; Fine & Weis, 2005; Gay, 2005; Oakes, 1999), creates social identities defined by school failure that limit life chances (Fine, 1991), and disables the social and economic conditions needed to uphold a democratic society. The Professional Development School (PDS) movement was designed to address this kind of inequity reproduced in schools. My research sought to identify and disrupt school identities associated with school failure in a PDS, an educational context in which I supervise prospective teachers. I wanted to know how the school identities and performances of three fourth-grade students, marginalized by school sorting practices, would change during and after collaborating as coaches and researchers in a community of practice designed to support the professional development of their two interns. Research was conducted from a social constructionist epistemology and from the theoretical perspective of Participatory Action Research grounded in feminisms. Ethnographic field methods were used, and included participant observation, semi-structured interviews and focus groups, and document analysis. Analysis methods utilized both grounded theory and discourse analysis. Methods and findings that came from the research were organized around two subquestions. First, how did the three students? formal, institutional identities change over the course of the study? Second, how can the process of this change be explained? Chapter 4 describes how the institutional, school identities of the three fourth-grade participants were defined by educators in the PDS at the beginning and at the end of the study. Chapter 5 lays out the journey the three students, two interns, and I took as a community of practice, documenting the change in discourse identities of the three students. Implications from this research are related to collaborating directly with students in teacher action research in the PDS and beyond; teaching children discourses of power; enhancing classroom learning by capitalizing on multiliteracies; engaging children in democratic school reform; preparing children for the 21st century work world; and calling into action the wealth of knowledge generated by literacy-and-identity scholarship.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Darby Delane.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2010.
Local: Adviser: Bondy, Elizabeth.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2010
System ID: UFE0041950:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0041950/00001

Material Information

Title: An Investigation of the Co-Construction of School Identities Collaborating with Fourth-Graders in the Supervision of Prospective Teachers
Physical Description: 1 online resource (254 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Delane, Darby
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2010

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: collaboration, cop, discourses, equity, failure, identity, inclusion, justice, marginalization, par, pds, supervision, tracking
Teaching and Learning -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Curriculum and Instruction (ISC) thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: 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 AN INVESTIGATION OF THE CO-CONSTRUCTION OF SCHOOL IDENTITIES: COLLABORATING WITH FOURTH-GRADERS IN THE SUPERVISION OF PROSPECTIVE TEACHERS By Darby Claire Delane August 2010 Chair: Elizabeth Bondy Major: Curriculum and Instruction Through the current uses of high stakes testing designed to measure state definitions of ?learning,? chronic inequities are being perpetuated in the public school systems by organizational practices that sort students. Tracking both in and between classrooms legitimizes the social inequalities of the larger society by segregating and denying educational equality (Darling-Hammond, 1999; Fine & Weis, 2005; Gay, 2005; Oakes, 1999), creates social identities defined by school failure that limit life chances (Fine, 1991), and disables the social and economic conditions needed to uphold a democratic society. The Professional Development School (PDS) movement was designed to address this kind of inequity reproduced in schools. My research sought to identify and disrupt school identities associated with school failure in a PDS, an educational context in which I supervise prospective teachers. I wanted to know how the school identities and performances of three fourth-grade students, marginalized by school sorting practices, would change during and after collaborating as coaches and researchers in a community of practice designed to support the professional development of their two interns. Research was conducted from a social constructionist epistemology and from the theoretical perspective of Participatory Action Research grounded in feminisms. Ethnographic field methods were used, and included participant observation, semi-structured interviews and focus groups, and document analysis. Analysis methods utilized both grounded theory and discourse analysis. Methods and findings that came from the research were organized around two subquestions. First, how did the three students? formal, institutional identities change over the course of the study? Second, how can the process of this change be explained? Chapter 4 describes how the institutional, school identities of the three fourth-grade participants were defined by educators in the PDS at the beginning and at the end of the study. Chapter 5 lays out the journey the three students, two interns, and I took as a community of practice, documenting the change in discourse identities of the three students. Implications from this research are related to collaborating directly with students in teacher action research in the PDS and beyond; teaching children discourses of power; enhancing classroom learning by capitalizing on multiliteracies; engaging children in democratic school reform; preparing children for the 21st century work world; and calling into action the wealth of knowledge generated by literacy-and-identity scholarship.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Darby Delane.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2010.
Local: Adviser: Bondy, Elizabeth.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2010
System ID: UFE0041950:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text





AN INVESTIGATION OF THE CO-CONSTRUCTION OF SCHOOL IDENTITIES:
COLLABORATING WITH FOURTH-GRADERS
IN THE SUPERVISION OF PROSPECTIVE TEACHERS

















By

DARBY CLAIRE DELANE


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

2010
































2010 Darby Claire Delane





























To Courage









ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This text represents one of many critical junctures in my life. Creating it has

helped me make sense of this extraordinary, miraculous, and tricky experiment called

living. Indeed, the personal is always the political (Hanisch, 2006). My path in this

world continues to be marked by divine beings that have come in the forms of mentors,

teachers, and coaches of all ages, ethnicities, genders, faiths, and paradigms. Each one

of them has helped me design and redesign my own identity as a human being in ways

that would allow me to put service and justice at the center of my work. I can only name

a few of these people here. There are many more.

My first teacher was my mother, and I mean that quite literally. Since the age of

five I have apprenticed alongside of her as she traveled her own journey as a white

southern woman in the field of education first in the 1970s as a special education

teacher (for students then called "emotionally disturbed"), then as a college professor,

and then as a professor-in-residence at an urban professional development school. My

earliest memories include being in her classroom as she taught and loved the children

that the other teachers would not, and hearing her tell my friends and me to never, ever

call anyone a "nigger," or a "retard." These experiences shaped the very core of who I

am as an educator and mother today. Almost forty years later I am privileged to

continue collaborating with her as her one of my most valuable colleagues.

I struggled as a doctoral student in the Academy. I resisted leaving my middle

school classroom for years, believing I would be losing a huge part of myself. Enter

Diane Yendol-Hoppey. She came into my life at precisely the right time and began

helping me see that I did not ever have to choose between my identities as a teacher, a

researcher, a writer, and especially as a learner. Then she proved it. She not only









encouraged me to dig deep and write straight from my classroom she got me

published. She not only encouraged me to explore my talents as a socially conscious

supervisor, coach, and teacher she helped me get a great job that would let me do

these things. It was her job. Diane believed in me. She reached her hand out to me

across the divide between theory and practice and held on tight until I could learn to fly

in that great, blue expanse that lies in between. This is now my new home.

There is no way you are going to be part of Diane Yendol-Hoppey's life and not

bump into Nancy Dana along the way. With Nancy I have forged one of the most

exciting research and writing collaborations of my life. She is one of those people who

can make life into art, and I hang on each and every one of her words so I can learn to

do the same. The way she paints ideas with words liberates my soul. She is

meticulous, she is precise... she is right on. I cannot wait to learn to bring my

scholarship to this level. It has been the highest privilege to partner with her and I hope

she will keep me around for years to come.

Then there is Barbara Pace. How can I even explain what Barbara has done for

my thinking and my practice? Her imprint on me is all through this paper, and I know

she will recognize it. Yes, she is a fabulous teacher. But she has also been one of

those mentors I can literally pass in the bathroom, or down the stairwell, who can, at just

the right time, give me just the right piece of literature... or sometimes just the right

word...so that I can unlock a conundrum that has been buzzing around like a bee

tangled in my hair. I think Barbara is a magician.

I must mention Elizabeth Washington. If only I had a few more lifetimes as a

doctoral student (but I think nine years has been enough)! I have been jealous of my









friends who have gotten to work so closely with this fine scholar and activist. She was

integral in helping me figure out how to use my social studies teacher identity to explore

the new world of elementary education a kind of mysterious and frightening place for a

secondary school teacher like me to find herself. Keeping in touch with my professional

identity as a middle school teacher was absolutely critical to becoming the researcher

and writer I am today, and this part of me still refuses to go gentle into that good night.

She probably does not know this but Elizabeth is the one who taught me that the

practice of democracy is really just a very highly evolved form of love. She made it

acceptable for me to embrace this practice of love in whatever classroom I found

myse If. She is an inspiration.

As a teacher, I worked what felt like 24 hours a day to transform my practice so

that I could promote social justice and first serve the needs of learners, rather than the

demands of policy makers and corporations. However, my classroom, like any

classroom, can only be transformed to the degree that the larger school/district (or

university) community and culture allows it to be. I did not want to accept responsibility

for leading my colleagues beyond my own classroom until I had the opportunity to

encounter the teaching and scholarship of Dr. James McLeskey and Dr. Paul George.

These visionary men taught me that our efforts to emancipate and democratize our

classrooms are limited until schools are structured to facilitate these goals from the

inside out. They helped me build a strong plan for inclusive, heterogeneously organized

classrooms organized by differentiated instruction, and they inspired me to lead my

district and university colleagues to do the same. I am still working tirelessly toward this

vision for education.









The kind of work these men and women have led me to do is not easy. It takes

courage. You have to have angels standing by at all times, and I've got them. Some of

my angels are SuzyColvin, Lacy Redd, Jim Brandenburg, and Kevin Berry. They let

me play, invent, and dream. They protect me and they coach me...and then they let me

be really needy sometimes, which is not the most flattering side of me. In those needy

moments they help me up off the floor and show me I am ok. These are the kind of

educational leaders I am so blessed to collaborate with in my community. I have not

even mentioned all of the public school teachers, principals, and students who keep me

inspired, grounded, courageous, and honest.

It has literally taken a village to socialize me into the profession of higher

education, and this village will continue to shape, guide, and lift me. But I have to

commend one person above all others in her commitment to my growth. Buffy Bondy is

the only person in my doctoral program that stood by me the entire way through from

the very beginning to the very end. This was not always easy to do. Not only was I a

"non-traditional" student, I was kind of a pain at times. Buffy never abandoned me,

even when I threatened to quit and even when I did sort of quit once or twice. Buffy is

my rock. And she is really smart, too. She opened my entire vista to critical pedagogy.

She helped me name my reality one that was not acknowledged by my profession, or

by my culture, in general. She helped me find my voice. She had the courage to keep

listening to me and to help me make my words. She did this when others would not.

Then there is my esteemed colleague and best friend, Farhad Joon, who

continues to light my way through the ambiguities, fears, and loneliness that qualitative

researchers and critical educators inevitably experience. He's the one there with me









late at night when the doubts come up and those powerful old voices demand that I

"behave" and "be a good girl," or when answers will not come fast enough. And he

reminds me that this work that we do can never be "manualized," packaged, or

reproduced. As such this work is spirit, and nothing less.

As I fi nally finish the laboring and I give birth to this dissertation, I celebrate the

birth of my son, Ram who was born exactly one year ago. Rami, as you patiently sit

here on my lap while I type with one hand, I have a strange feeling that the circle of life

is poised to go on. I look forward to all you have planned to teach me. I dedicate all of

my work to you. Doostet daram.









TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S ..................... .................................................................. 4

LIS T O F TA B LES ........... .... ................................. ............ .........13

L IS T O F F IG U R E S .. ......... ... ......................... ...................................................14

A B S T R A C T ........................ .................. .............................................................. ................... 1 5

CHAPTER

1 IN T R O D U C T IO N ........................................................................................................... 1 7

B a c k g ro u n d ............................................ ........... ................................................... 1 7
The Professional Development School Movement ........................................................ 20
Social Justice Scholarship from the Professional Development School (PDS)
Movement ................. ... ................................................... 23
Research Problem and Significance ............. ............................ ..... ............24
Research Question .......................... ....... ..........6........26
Introduction to Participatory Action Research ......................................... .............. 28
K e y C o nce p ts .................30............................................
Dissertation Organization ......................... ......... 32

2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ...................................... ...... ................. 33

In tro d u ctio n ......... ............ ........................................................................ .......... ...... 3 3
What Is Identity? ......................................... 33
Gee's Four Lenses for Identity .................................................................... 35
The Social Construction of School Identities................................... ............ ..... 37
School Identities and School Performance ..................... ..... .................40
Critical Reflection and Inquiry with Children ....... ............................45
Communities of Practice......... ..................................................................... 49
Literacy-and-lde ntity S studies. .......... ..................................... ............. ... 51
Conclusion.................................... 54

3 RESEARCH METHODS ....................... ......... ............... 57

Introduction ............. .......... ............. .... ................... ................. 57
R esea rc h Q uestio n ...... .................................................................. ............... 58
T theoretical P perspective ................................................................ .........59
T he R esea rc h C o nte xt ......... .... ................................................... ........ .. ......... 6 0
P a rtic ip a nt S e le c tio n .........................................................................6 7
The Participants ................................ ......... .................................. 69
The Inner Circle: Our Community of Practice ............... ....... .. ................. 70
The Em bracing Circle: O ur Support Team ...........................................................71









The Many "I's:" M y Situational Subjectivities ............. .............. ......... ................. 72
F re e d o m s a nd L im itatio ns ................................ ....................................... .....................7 7
F re e d o m s .............................................................................................. ........... .. .. 7 8
L im ita tio n s ................................ .......... ............. ........... ................... 7 9
R research M methods ................ ....................................... ... ........... ... 82
P participant O bservation.................................................................. .............. 83
D ata C o llectio n M e thods................................................... .............. .............. 85
O b se rva tio ns ................................................................... ..........................8 6
Semi-structured interviews and focus groups ................. ................. 89
D ocum ent collection ......... ....... ..... ........ .............. ........ 90
D a ta A na lys is .................. ............. .......... ........................................ .................. 9 1
Stage 1: Situating JJK's school identities within the landscape of
fo u rth -g ra d e ....................... .. ........... ...... ........ .... ........ ... ..................... 9 1
Stage 2: Documenting JJK's community of practice (COP) journey and
cha nging ide entities ................ ....... ..... .............. .... ...................... .. .. ..... 93
Stage 3: Situating JJK's school identities at the end of the study ...............95
A nalyzing O bservational Field Notes.......................................... ........................ 95
Analyzing Interviews and Focus Groups......... ................. ............98
A nalyzi ng A artifacts ......... ...... ............ .. .. ...................... ......... ..... .... .... 101
Trustworthiness ............. ..... ... ...... ............... ...................... .... 102
C onclusion............................ .......... .................106

4 CHANGES IN JJK'S SCHOOL IDENTITIES AND PERFORMANCES OVER
T IM E ....... ..... ..... .. ... ......... .. .. ......... ......................................... ........ 1 0 8

Cultural Models for School Identities at Yearling Elementary School ......................109
How Educators Define School Identities................. ...................... 109
First uttered markers by educators ............ ............................. ............... 110
General categories of school identities defined by teachers....................113
How Fourth-Grade Students Define School Identities...................................... 117
The Patrol Student Identity................................................................................. 118
An Initial Composite of JJK's School Identity at the Beginning of the Year...........20
Fourth-Grade Perspectives on JJK's School Identity.................................................124
A Second Composite of JJK's School Identity at Mid-Year .................................. 126
Comparing the First and Second Composites of JJK's School Identity.................. 129
Conclusion.............................................................131

5 EXPLAINING THE CHANGES IN JJK'S SCHOOL IDENTITIES AND
PERFORMANCES OVER TIME ....................................................... .................134

Layer 1: The Story of our COP through Nine Critical Junctures ...................................135
Critical Juncture #1: Initial Interviews with JJK and other Student
C a nd id ate s ........................ ... .. ...... .. ........ .. ....... ............. ..... 13 7
Critical Juncture #2: Selection of JJK as Members of the COP.....................38
Critical Juncture #3: First Formal Teaching Observation................................139
Critical Juncture #4: First Informal Teaching Observation............................... 145
Critical Juncture #5: Second Informal Teaching Observation......................... 147









Critical Juncture #6: Second Formal Teaching Observation........................ 149
Critical Juncture #7: Third Formal Teaching Observation.................................. 156
Critical Juncture #8: Final Conversation in our COP ...................................... 161
Critical Juncture #9: Final Semi-Structured Interview with JJK....................... 64
Layer 2: JJK's Enactments of Situated Identities over Time.................................. 169
A Narrative of JJK's Expanding Identity over Time ...............................................170
Layer 3: Motives behind the PDS Supervisory Role ....... ................................ 175
C onclusion............................ .......... .................178

6 DISCUSSION ............. .... .. ............................. .................... 179

O ve review of the S tudy ..................... .... ... .. .. ....... .. ........ ........... ................. 179
Guiding Principles for Building Student-Teacher COPs for Supervision in the
P D S ................... .. .... .. .. ....................................... 1 8 2
The Critical Role of the Community of Practice ....... ....................................... 194
Creating Belonging and a Space of Resistance .......................................................195
Questions Remaining for Further Study................................. 199
Im plications for PDS W ork and Beyond ......... ....... ........ ....................................... 201
Collaborating with Students in Teacher Inquiry ................................................. 201
Including Children in Discourses of Power......................................................... 202
A ctivating M uliliteracies......................................................................... 203
Doing Democracy and Reform ing Schools......... .......................................... ...204
Preparing Children for the New Work Order of the 21st Century ......................205
Literacy-and-Identity Studies: A Call for Putting Theory into Action................206
C onclusion.................................... .............................. ...... ............ 208

APPENDIX

A EXCERPT FROM FIELD NOTES WITH NUMBERED CRITICAL INCIDENTS.....213

B EXCERPTOF ANALYSIS OF CRITICAL INCIDENTS .................................. 214

C EXCERPT OF TEACHER CONVERSATIONS ABOUT MS. S'S FOURTH-
G RA D E RS ................................ ................................. ...... ............ 215

D MARKERS THAT MAKE UP TEACHERS' CULTURAL MODELS OF SCHOOL
ID E N T IT IE S ..............................................................................2 16

E FREQUENCY OF MARKERS MENTIONED BY EDUCATORS............................219

F MARKERS THAT MAKE UP FOURTH GRADERS' CULTURAL MODELS
(GEE, 2002) OF SCHOOL IDENTITIES AT YEARLING ELEMENTARY
S C H O O L ................. ............... ........... ...........................................2 2 0

G DARBYS MOVES AND MOTIVES DURING CRITICAL JUNCTURE #2:
FORMAL OBSERVATION OF INTERN LESSON..................... .................221

H MOVES FROM CRITICAL JUNCTURE #6 ........................................ .............. 223









I FIRST UTTERED MARKERS BY EDUCATORS OF YEARLING ELEMENTARY226

J RANKING OF CATEGORIES FOR SCHOOL IDENTITY BASED ON
FREQUENCY OF MARKERS USED BYEDUCATORS...................................227

K SOURCES, NOTES, AND DATA USED TO BUILD JJKS INSTITUTIONAL
IDENTITY FO R COM POS ITE #1 ...................................................................................228

L JJK'S MOVES, DISCOURSE PRACTICES, AND ENACTMENT OF SITUATED
ID E N T IT IE S ..............................................................................2 3 0

M ARTIFACT GIVEN TO JJK A DAY BEFORE OUR LASTSEMI-STRUCTURED
INTE RV IEW .............. ................... .. ... ..... ............. 239

N SAMPLE DISCOURSE ANALYSIS EXCERPT FROM JUNCTURE #9 (FINAL
SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEW W ITH JJK) ......................... .....................240

R E F E R E N C E S ............................................................................... 2 4 1

B IO G RA P H IC A L S K ETC H ........... .... ........... ................................ ............................. 254









LIST OF TABLES


Table page

1-1 Espoused principles for social justice and equity in the national PDS
community .............. ....... .... ..... .......... ....... .. ............... 21

4-1 Categories of first-uttered markers by educators ......... .................................... 112

4-2 Categorical breakdown of markers of JJK'S school identity at the beginning
of fo urth g ra d e ................................................................... ............... 12 1

4-3 Categorical breakdown of markers of JJK'S school identity by the middle of
fo u rth g ra d e .......................... ................................. ........ ... ............... 12 9

5-1 Making bids for identity and asserting positionalities (Critical Juncture #9) .......165

5-2 Power and positionality: Turning the conversation with new information ..........166

5-3 Jot notes to expanded notes .................... ..................................... ................. 176









LIST OF FIGURES


Figure page

4-1 Educator's cultural model of the "Successful Student" school identity ..............114

4-2 Educator's cultural model of the "Unsuccessful Student" identity.....................115

4-3 How educators defined JJK's school identities at the beginning of the school
yea r... ................ ....... ....... ............... .......................................... 130

4-4 How educators defined JJK's school identities by mid-year. ................................ 131

5-1 Sample written dialogue between Darbyand JJK. .................... .. ...... ............. 141

5-2 (Boy 1) Data collection and analysis of student participation during parallel
g ro up s ............. .......... ... .. ........... ............................................. 15 3

5-3 (Boy 2). Data collection and analysis of student participation during parallel
g ro ups .............. ........ ... ............ ......................................... 154

5-4 (Boy 3). Data collection and analysis of student participation during parallel
g ro up s ............. .......... ... .. ........... ............................................. 15 4

5-5 (Boy 1): "How are our teachers helping kids behave?"................ .................... 158

5-6 (Boy 2): "How are our teachers creating a climate that promotes fairness?"".... 159

5-7 (Boy 3): "How are teachers making sure kids understand?"............................... 159









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

AN INVESTIGATION OF THE CO-CONSTRUCTION OF SCHOOL IDENTITIES:
COLLABORATING WITH FOURTH-GRADERS
IN THE SUPERVISION OF PROSPECTIVE TEACHERS

By

Darby Claire Delane

August 2010

Chair: Elizabeth Bondy
Major: Curriculum and Instruction

Through the current uses of high stakes testing designed to measure state

definitions of "learning," chronic inequities are being perpetuated in the public school

systems by organizational practices that sort students. Tracking both in and between

classrooms legitimizes the social inequalities of the larger society by segregating and

denying educational equality (Darling-Hammond, 1999; Fine & Weis, 2005; Gay, 2005;

Oakes, 1999), creates social identities defined by school failure that limit life chances

(Fine, 1991), and disables the social and economic conditions needed to uphold a

democratic society. The Professional Development School (PDS) movement was

designed to address this kind of inequity reproduced in schools. My research sought to

identify and disrupt school identities associated with school failure in a PDS, an

educational context in which I supervise prospective teachers. I wanted to know how

the school identities and performances of three fourth-grade students, marginalized by

school sorting practices, would change during and after collaborating as coaches and

researchers in a community of practice designed to support the professional

development of their two interns.









Research was conducted from a social constructionist epistemology and from the

theoretical perspective of Participatory Action Research grounded in feminisms.

Ethnographic field methods were used, and included participant observation, semi-

structured interviews and focus groups, and document analysis. Analysis methods

utilized both grounded theory and discourse analysis. Methods and findings that came

from the research were organized around two subquestions. First, how did the three

students' formal, institutional identities change over the course of the study? Second,

how can the process of this change be explained? Chapter 4 describes how the

institutional, school identities of the three fourth-grade participants were defined by

educators in the PDS at the beginning and at the end of the study. Chapter 5 lays out

the journey the three students, two interns, and I took as a community of practice,

documenting the change in discourse identities of the three students. Implications from

this research are related to collaborating directly with students in teacher action

research in the PDS and beyond; teaching children discourses of power; enhancing

classroom learning by capitalizing on multiliteracies; engaging children in democratic

school reform; preparing children for the 21st century work world; and calling into action

the wealth of knowledge generated by literacy-and-identity scholarship.









CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

Background

Just weeks before this writing, both houses of the Florida legislature passed

Senate Bill 6, a bill designed to eliminate tenure and allow all salaries and contracts of

public school teachers to be driven by the test scores of their students. Senate Bill 6

was ultimately vetoed by the governor. However, this close call represents the current

national political obsession for promoting high-stakes testing as the end-all for defining

the quality of public school teaching, and it is rooted in a social efficiency logic that

upholds that the purpose of schooling is to satisfy the employment needs of an

expanding capitalistic economy (Sleeter, 2005; Wolk, 1998). Under the pressures of

one-size-fits-all accountability practices coupled with ever-increasing responsibilities,

teachers are experiencing an unprecedented intensification of their time, leaving them

little time or energy to retool their skills, continue ongoing learning, or even evaluate the

very curriculum they are mandated to teach (Apple, 1993; Hargreaves, 1994; Sleeter,

2005). Robbing teachers of their time, and their emotional, political, and intellectual

stamina means that the imposed curriculum remains firmly in place. This ultimately

leads to the deskilling of the profession and a profound increase of school dependency

on pre-packaged, mass-produced curriculum that clearly benefits corporate interests

(Hargreaves, 1994; McLaren, 2003; Shor& Freire, 1987; Sleeter, 2005). In addition,

teachers are effectively marginalized from the conversations in which they could attempt

to name and evaluate the complexities of their own situated work, including the

pedagogical relationships among teachers, diverse learners, and the curriculum

(Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1993; 2009).









Through the current uses of norm-referenced testing designed to measure state

definitions of "learning," chronic inequities are being perpetuated in the public school

systems by organizational practices that sort students and punish schools (Darling-

Hammond, 1999; Fine & Weis, 2003). The current standards movement merely

supports individualistic, economic aims for education and has never shown evidence

that closing achievement gaps will also close economic gaps (Sleeter, 2005). In fact,

educational "achievement" among students of color continues to remain low despite half

a century of programs, reform, and funding schemes to change the situation (Gay,

2005).

Standardized test scores are emphasized as a central criterion for tracking

students by so-called "ability" groups, and then placing students into separate classes

(or separate groups within classes) with different curricula (Heubert & Hauser, 1999;

Persell, 2005; Sleeter, 2005). This "solution" supposedly benefits the students in that it

reduces differences between student needs and allows lessons to be homogenized

(George & Alexander, 2003). But excessive tracking, rather than intelligent and

strategic grouping, is dangerous because it conveniently locates "failure" or "deficiency"

within individual students and lowers expectations for student success (Gay, 2005;

Persell, 2005). Tracking actually serves as a system for legitimizing the social

inequalities of our larger society by segregating and denying educational equality,

particularly for Latinos and African Americans who are disproportionally placed in the

lowest tracks (Gay, 2005; Oakes, 1999).

Tracking also benefits only a minority of students, leaving the majority with needs

unmet (McLeskey & Waldron, 2000). This is because less effective teachers are









typically assigned to teach "lower" classes, stigmas are attached to students in these

classes resulting in lowered expectations, and the curriculum often lacks rigor and

relevance to student interests (Darling-Hammond, 1999; George & Alexander, 2003;

Oakes, 1999; Persell, 2005). Furthermore, these common problems associated with

tracking do not even take into consideration the fact that most schools in the United

States continue to be racially segregated, as a whole (Gay, 2005). Fine and Weis

(2005) urge "schools (to) challenge the social stratifications of race, ethnicity, and class

that currently define, and could destroy, America" (p. 1). Their call is particularly

pressing at a time in history when unequal opportunities abound, and where many

schools continue to be deprived of access to stable and high quality resources,

including teachers (Darling-Hammond & Sykes, 2003; The Southeast Center for

Teaching Quality, 2004). These trends have compelled many critics to point out that the

practices imposed on schools have, in fact, disenfranchised more students than ever

before from economic opportunity and social equity (Apple, 1993; Brandt, 2001;

Hinchey, 2004; McLaren, 2003).

Social identities that are developed by tracking and segregation are central to

school failure (Mehan, 2006). Tajfel (1978), in Van Dick, Wagner, Stellmacher and

Christ (2005), defines social identity as the cognitive, emotional, and evaluative

dimensions of membership within a group. This includes how one defines the self as a

part of the group, the emotional meaning associated with being a member of that group,

and the way the group is valued and positioned by those outside of it. Often, poor and

otherwise marginalized children who do not learn to read in school do not do so

because they are without the ability to read. Instead, it is because they are not









members of the "in group" (Gee, 2004). In other words, they do not learn to read

because they are repeatedly excluded from privileged academic grouping where norms

are set by white, middle class values and ways with words (Heath, 1983).

As mentioned, the domination of high stakes testing increases inequity because of

the implications of tracking and sorting practices public schools believe they must

employ in order to keep the school house open and save jobs. But what are the

consequences of school identities generated by testing and sorting, and how do these

school identities shape the quality of teaching and learning that individual children

experience in schools? What are the life-long implications of children's visions of

themselves and their potentials? Such questions demand our attention. If tracking and

ability-grouping create tenacious school identities that promote school failure and

potentially limit one's life chances (Fine, 1991), then we must consider their catastrophic

implications for our democracy (Egan-Robertson & Willett, 1998; Oakes, 2005). We

must also consider their power in destroying the precious national resources of talent,

potential, and innovation needed for the United States to stay competitive in an

increasingly globalized economy.

The Professional Development School Movement

Public school teachers and children have not been the only constituents in

education under assault in the last decades. As a response to the era in politics,

education, and the media provoked by the publication of A Nation at Risk (United States

National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983), a consortium of research

universities with professional education programs, called the Holmes Group, assembled

in 1987 to consider and address the political attack upon university teacher education

programs (Holmes Partnership, 2008). The Professional Development School (PDS)









movement was one major outcome of this dialogue. The PDS movement calls for the

simultaneous and continuous renewal and restructuring of schools, districts, and their

partnering university institutions (Darling-Smith, Bullmaster & Cobb, 1995; Holmes

Group, 1990) through the integrated learning of its stakeholders, including all P-12

students, prospective teachers, and university-, school- and district-based educators.

Stakeholder learning in the PDS is to be anchored by ongoing cycles of inquiry, or the

process by which educators problematize, systematically co-investigate, and then

improve their own practices (Holmes Group, 1986; Holmes, 1990; NCATE, 2001).

In the last two decades the PDS educational community has been formalized by

the principles and aims set out by the Holmes Group (1990), NCATE (2001), and more

recently by the National Association of Professional Development Schools (NAPDS,

2008). In each of these visions for PDS partnerships, there is a primary focus on

student learning and advancing equity for all children (Valli, Cooper & Frankes, 1997).

In Table 1.1 below are excerpts from the principles espoused by each of these three

organizations, articulating this common emphasis.

Table 1 -1. Espoused principles for social justice and equity in the national PDS
community

Principle #3 Teaching and learning for understanding for everybody's children:
(Holmes, 1990) In PDS learning communities teachers can work to overcome the
educational and social barriers raised by an unequal society.

Key Concept #3 Students are always to be placed at the center of PDS partnership
(NCATE, 2001) efforts. PDS partners and candidates examine the curricula of the
university and school programs in light of issues of equity and access to
knowledge by diverse learners.


Essential #1 A comprehensive mission that is broader in its outreach and scope than
(NAPDS, 2008) the mission of any partner and that furthers the education profession and
its responsibility to advance equity within schools and, by potential
extension, the broader community.









In the PDS relationship between schools and universities, there is the expectation

that stakeholders will consciously blend and exchange roles (NAPDS, 2008; NCATE,

2001) in order to meet the unique educational needs of the university and the school, of

which a committed push toward correcting inequity in schools is central (Wiedeman,

2002). While school-based educators agree to develop their roles as teacher

educators, university-based partners are then expected to take more direct

responsibility for P-12 student learning (Yendol-Hoppey, 2005). This has put university

partners in a potentially liberating position. Not only can we engage in traditional

endeavors of research and supervision in the PDS but we are also given creative

license to directly impact academic achievement and equitable conditions for P-12

students while we are there.

In the PDS relationship the voices from schools can be amplified because schools

and colleges of education are able to team together, marshal their resources, unite

under common goals for better teacher preparation, and engage in ongoing renewal for

both school and teacher education through restructuring and inquiry-oriented learning

(Darling-Hammond, Bullmaster& Cobb, 1995). In doing so the PDS has allowed for

new, emic forms of teacher leadership to emerge, such as veteran teachers taking

university teaching and mentoring roles, and university faculty venturing into joint

research with teachers in order to rethink the relationship between theory and practice

(Darling-Hammond, Bullmaster& Cobb, 1995). Such new ways of working together

foster a socialization process for new teachers grounded in critical inquiry, collaboration,

and the idea of teacher-as-designer of practice. Teacher leadership, then, becomes an

expected and assumed facet of the profession (Darling-Hammond, Bullmaster & Cobb,









1995). The leadership element of the PDS mission is critical, as most new teachers in

traditional teacher education programs are not socialized into the profession as agents

of change for school reform (Cochran-Smith, 2004).

Social Justice Scholarship from the Professional Development School (PDS)
Movement

The Professional Development School (PDS) movement has mapped out a great

deal of territory in the effort to improve practice and create solidarity between schools

and teacher education. However, an examination of the last two decades of research

and practice reveals that much of this territory has still been left underexplored or

undocumented. For example, there are no data that focus on the impact of PDS work

on the university supervisor, as research into the unique nature of supervision in the

PDS has evaporated in an era emphasizing accountability for measuring student

outcomes (Clift & Brady, 2005). PDS research has also failed to demonstrate a strong

justification for the value of PDS reform in teacher preparation (Tunks & Neapolitan,

2007), and particularly in the preparation of teachers for urban school contexts (Murrell,

2001). Most concerning is that PDS research has barely heeded the call to investigate

how the PDS promotes social justice for all P-12 learners (Tunks & Neapolitan, 2007;

Weideman, 2002).

Research focusing on the assessment of frameworks, restructuring efforts, and the

implementation of policy and standards has dominated the PDS literature in the twenty-

first century. Only 2% of the research published between 2001 and 2006 has focused

on social justice in the PDS (Tunks & Neapolitan, 2007). A few of these studies looked

at how the PDS can be a context for promoting the voices of teachers in order to shape

teacher preparation and school reform (see Marlow, Kyed & Connors, 2005, and Snow-









Gerono, 2009). Some studies have also examined how PDS partnerships can prepare

prospective and novice teachers for culturally relevant pedagogy and for enacting

agendas centered on social justice (see Cobb, 2001, Cantor, 2002, and Ramalho,

Garza & Merchant, 2009). One promising study looked at how forming inquiry groups

with high school students helped them problematize and take action on school policies,

structures, and cultures that led to inequity (Jones & Yonezawa, 2002). However, none

of the PDS studies look directly at how inquiry-oriented collaboration between P-12

students and educators can directly lead to changes in identity, and how such changes

in identity are directly linked to students' school performance.

Research Problem and Significance

This study looks to identify and disrupt school identities that ensure school failure

and inequity in the PDS. The ability for local schools to respond to the particularity of

needs presented by their learners and to promote equitable access to education and

opportunity is in deep crisis. This has been exacerbated by political and corporate

forces that impose rhetoric and control from well outside the sphere of educational

expertise and certainly away from the front lines of the classroom. The PDS movement

was designed to disrupt the reproduction of inequity at the grass roots level but has

fallen short of documenting evidence for the attainment of this goal. Nonetheless, PDS

collaborative efforts between colleges of education and local school districts still hold

the potential for challenging the negative impact of oppressive policies and for

demonstrating this through research. The PDS partnership presents an unusually rich

opportunity for many intelligent, reform-minded people with diverse perspectives to

reach across traditional barriers and challenge the systematic oppression of teachers

and students. However, educators need to find ways to tailor such work so that it folds









easily into natural, daily classroom practices in ways that do not add to the burdens

teachers, prospective teachers, children, administrators, and field-based university

partners already carry.

Each PDS partnership manifests itself in unique ways, bringing together university-

and school-based partners in countless configurations of collaborative organization that

translate into a myriad of unique projects, roles, goals and outcomes as partners find

the intersections between their goals and pursue them for mutual benefit. For this

reason my study does not present a model for PDS participants to adopt. Rather, it

offers just one example of how to deepen the university-based educator's role in a way

that creates more direct, emancipatory learning experiences for P-12 learners and their

educational teams, and to bring social justice agendas beyond the boundaries of

theories and textbooks within teacher education institutions, and directly into the PDS

classrooms where theory and practice must meet (NCATE, 2001).

In my own case as a university partner in the PDS, I had to determine the most

strategic way to position my work so that I could take more direct responsibility for

promoting equity in classrooms. I did this by examining the shared goals and activities

in the PDS partnership, and then finding where my role put me in the closest physical

and pedagogical proximity with all constituents of the PDS, including school-based

educators, prospective teachers, and with children, in particular. For me this nexus was

located within my tasks associated with prospective teacher supervision. This was the

part of my job that placed me inside the classrooms of the PDS where I conducted

formal and informal observations of their planning, teaching, and evaluation of student

learning.









Putting an equity-driven agenda at the center of prospective teacher supervision

has enjoyed a small conversation in the teacher education literature. In a dissertation

study, Jacobs (2007) worked with university field supervisors of prospective teachers,

some of whom were in PDS contexts, in order to cultivate a coaching stance that

promoted equity in the pedagogical practices and values of novice teachers. In her

review of the literature she found three approaches to the topic of equity-oriented

supervision, including a multicultural approach (see Abt-Perkins, Hauschildt & Dale,

2000; Davidman, 1990; Grant & Zozakiewicz, 1995; Page, 2003), a culturally

responsive approach (see Bowers & Flinders, 1991; Gay, 1998), and a critical approach

(see Smyth, 1985; Zeichner & Tabachnick, 1982). However, no studies in the

supervision literature address how P-12 students can be invited as direct and active

participants in the supervision process.

Research Question

As a middle school teacher, and now as a university-based teacher educator, I

have consistently worked to improve my practice as a supervisor of prospective

teachers in the field by directly and systematically including children and adolescents in

the process of teacher learning through inquiry, and particularly through critical inquiry

into teaching, learning, and public schooling. While I have studied the implications that

this work has had on my learning and practice, the learning of my colleagues, and that

of prospective teachers, I had not, until now, investigated how student-teacher

collaboration in teacher learning related to the school performances and identities of

children and adolescents. In this study I wanted to know how and why the identities and

performances of three "struggling students" might change during and after participating

in a community of practice that supported the supervision of prospective teachers. To









help gain insights into the question, two supporting questions organized the research

process. First, how might these students' formal, institutional identities (Gee, 2000), as

defined by educators in the PDS, change as a result of participating in the supervision

of their interns? Second, how could the process supporting this change in their

institutional identities be explained?

This study focused on the deliberate and purposeful bringing together of children,

their teachers, prospective teachers, and myself in order to engage in critical reflection

and collaborative inquiry into the supervision of two teaching interns so that we could

explore the overlap between theories of teaching and practice (Cochran-Smith, 2004;

Imig & Switzer, 1996). What made this work critical in nature was that it challenged

traditional power arrangements in the classroom. Children who participated in the work,

some of whom were previously marginalized in the classroom and in the system of

schooling in many ways, were being positioned to develop the knowledge, skills, and

dispositions needed to carry a role of "expert" not only in the educational affairs of

other children but in the professional affairs of adults. In reconfigurations of social and

power relationships, students were asked to co-engage in the problematizing of

teaching and learning through inquiry. Essentially, in this process, students were

repositioned as teaching coaches to allow their voices to develop and be heard

(McLaughlin, Carnell & Blount, 1999), and to provide novel avenues for developing

school identities that had previously been unavailable in the traditional social and

pedagogical arrangement of the classroom.

During my regular routines of supervision in the PDS, three student participants

who were not "winning" in the game of testing and sorting in this PDS were recruited to









collaborate with me in the inquiry-oriented professional development of two interns

placed in their classroom as co-teachers. Together, the six of us worked in what

ultimately became a community of practice. In this community we shared a purpose

and distinct set of practices that were guided by the inquiry question, "How can we (the

adults) become better teachers?" Our work together lasted for four months, or over the

course of the fall semester of 2008 when the interns worked in the PDS.

Introduction to Participatory Action Research

This study was framed, organized, and implemented as a Participatory Action

Research (PAR) endeavor, a special form of critical social research. The purpose of

PAR is to improve the quality of life by inquiring into social conditions that constrain

lives. In doing so it seeks emancipation and transformation for all of the participants of

the inquiry, including the researcher (Creswell, 2008; Stringer, 1999; Tripp, 1990).

What sets PAR apart from all other research, including other interpretive forms, is its

mission and propensity for igniting the passions of its participants. Passion fosters

ownership, and ownership mobilizes people to invest their time and energy into the

collaborative effort (Stringer, 2007). The guiding principles of PAR include identifying a

collective project; aiming to both study and simultaneously change discourses,

practices, and organizations of power and cultures; the seeking out of dialectic tensions;

and the expansion of participation by all stakeholders (Glesne, 1999; McTaggart, 1997).

The goal in PAR is that participants come to understand how social and educational

practices are located in particular social, political, and historical contexts that produce

and reproduce these conditions everyday (Kemmis & McTaggart, 2005). In doing so,

PAR facilitates an awareness of not only what is, but what could be.









There are three discernable characteristics of PAR. These include its

participatory, reflexive, and collaborative focus; the upholding of democratic ideals; and

its twin commitments to both the production of knowledge and the raising of

consciousness (Kemmis & McTaggart, 2005; McTaggart, 1997; Schwandt, 1997; Tripp,

1990). PAR focuses on traditionally exploited or oppressed people; addresses specific

concerns named by the community; creates a process whereby education, research,

and action are intertwined; allows for all participants to offer their expertise; and

provides the opportunity for all stakeholders to learn and transform (Tolman & Brydon-

Miller, 2001). PAR emphasizes the politics and power of knowledge production and use

(Schwandt, 1997), so it is critical in orientation. The goal of PAR is to interrogate reality

in order to change it, so it is emancipatory and potentially transformational because it

can change the relationship between theory and practice (Brydon-Miller, 2001;

Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1993; Hendricks, 2006), as well as between individuals, groups,

institutions, and cultures (McTaggart, 1997).

In a PAR project, there is a component of action, or social change that is explicitly

sought. In this case the "action" focused on how three fourth-grade students, identified

by school-based educators as "not school successful," were transforming their sense of

school identities through their participation in a community of practice (COP). In turn,

this contributed to the larger aim for action shared by PDS stakeholders: working for

equity and social justice in the classroom. As members of the "senior class" of this K-4

elementary school, the fourth-grade students who participated in this project had a lot of

time to build their school identities within the historical context of a high-stakes testing

era. These students collaborated directly with me, as well as their classroom teacher,









prospective teachers, and other school support faculty, in supervising their interns. The

three students were invited to take privileged roles in this process, and they were asked

to participate in "making us (all) better teachers." Specifically, these students were

called to assist us in our inquiry into how to improve the teaching (and learning) of

teacher candidates who were expected to respond effectively and equitably to the

needs of all learners in this inclusive classroom.

Key Concepts

Through the course of this dissertation key concepts will be used repeatedly. For

the sake of providing transparency into the meaning and assumptions I embed in the

terms, I have listed some of the most repeated terms and their definitions below.

COACHING: A special form of supervision (never evaluative) usually provided by peers,
to facilitate and scaffold teacher learning and growth (Nolan & Hoover, 2004).

COMMUNITY OF PRACTICE: A group of people who share a concern, a set of problems, or
a passion about a topic, and who deepen their knowledge and expertise in this
area by regularly interacting together over time. In doing so, they develop a
unique perspective on their topic as well as a body of common knowledge and
practices and a shared identity (Wenger, McDermott & Synder, 2002).

DISCOURSE IDENTITIES: The assemblance of specific behaviors, values, symbols, ways of
talking, tools, and other expressions we use to be recognized as a particular kind
of person (Gee, 2000).

INQUIRY: The basic mechanism for professional development and for simultaneous
renewal in Professional Development School partnerships. Inquiry involves
problematizing teaching and learning through the generation of wonderings,
collecting and analyzing data to gain insights into wonderings, and sharing
findings with others (Dana & Yendol-Silva, 2003).

INSTITUTIONAL IDENTITIES: The more formal facets of our social identities forged within
institutional contexts, such as schools (Gee, 2000). Examples of institutional
identities assigned within school contexts might include being "a first grader,"
"ADHD," "gifted," "a good reader," or "a struggling student."

MOVES: Enactments of identity, including, behaviors, words, or the use or creation of
artifacts or symbols that provide evidence of a repositioning of identity, or a shift
from an older to a newer identity.









PROSPECTIVE TEACHERS: Interns from the university whose professional development
and endorsement as teachers are shared by school- and university-based
partners in the PDS.

SCHOOL-BASED PARTNER: PDS collaborators who come from the school end of the
partnership. These can include teachers, students, administrators, and families.
Partners can be engaged in several aspects of the collaborative, including
prospective teacher education, governance, supervision, and research and
inquiry.

SCHOOL IDENTITY: School identities, for purposes of this study, refer to the identities
children hold as people situated in the social institution of public school, and
specifically in terms of how they are highly contextualized in light of social and
academic competencies.

SUPERVISION: This non-evaluative organizational function is aimed at teacher learning
for the end purpose of enhanced student learning. This is not to be confused with
evaluation, which aims to make judgments about competent performances of
teachers (Nolan & Hoover, 2004).

UNIVERSITY-BASED PARTNER: PDS collaborators who come from the university end of the
partnership. These can include university faculty, adjuncts, administrators, and
graduate students engaged in research and inquiry, supervision, and governance
affairs in the PDS.

At many points in the research process I struggled with conceptualizing and

naming the special case of identities for children who are in school. I primarily vacillated

between the two terms of "school identity" and "academic identity," both of which are

used regularly in the literature. I decided to settle on the term school identity. As a

caution this term is not used in the sense of identifying one's membership with or

allegiance to a particular school. Rather, it is used to situate children as people in the

social institution of schooling. School identity, rather than academic identity, offered a

wider spectrum of factors associated with how school-aged children's identities are

constructed, including those that go beyond the markers of school performance, "ability"

or work ethic. School identities allowed a more holistic inclusion of factors drawing

from family, community, and other related contexts (Flores-Gonzalez, 2002). While









school identity is still an adult construction, it treats that domain of an individual's

identity specifically in reference to how the implications of schooling relate to one's self

definition (Meeus & Dekoviic, 1995).

Dissertation Organization

In the following chapters I will explore how the identities and performances of three

"struggling students" changed during and after participating in a community of practice

supporting the supervision of prospective teachers. In Chapter 2 I review the literature in

several areas, including school identities, how school identities and school performance

are related, critical reflection and inquiry with children, communities of practice, literacy-

and-identity studies, and James Gee's (2000) four lenses for studying the sociocultural

nature of identity. Chapter 3 lays out the theoretical perspective framing this research,

the context for the study, the methods used to collect and analyze data, as well as

issues associated with subjectivities, trustworthiness, and limitations. The research

findings are discussed in Chapters 4 and 5. Chapter 4 describes how the institutional,

school identities of the three fourth-grade participants were defined by teachers and

administrators at the beginning and at the end of the study. Chapter 5 lays out the

journey the three students, two interns, and I took as a community of practice, and

traces the change in the discourse identities of the three students from an insider's point

of view. Chapter 6 concludes the report by considering the implications of the findings

for further research and practice that could take place in PDS collaborative. In

particular, I link the findings with the potential of university and school partnerships to

interrupt narratives and practice that perpetuate school failure and to foster more

equitable learning experiences that build, rather than undermine, democratic societies.









CHAPTER
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Introduction

This study documents how the school identities and performances of three

students changed as they became central agents and co-inquirers into the professional

development and preparation of prospective teachers. This chapter provides the

theoretical and conceptual map that framed and informed this work. As is typical of the

critically conscious researcher, I drew from many domains of scholarship in order to

develop the research plan (Willis et al., 2008). First, I will present a sociocultural

definition of and model for identity(ies) that served as the foundation for this study. I wi II

address the implications of the social construction of school identities that privilege

some learners and marginalize others (Lin, 2008). Next, I will outline the relationship

between school identities and school performance, and why the identities of children

should be of deep and abiding concern for PDS educators attempting to make schools

equitable places. I will then review projects involving collaborative inquiry and critical

reflection with children that strongly influenced my stance as a participatory action

researcher in this study. Communities of practice will then be introduced, and how they

might hold the potential for mobilizing emancipatory forms of collaborative inquiry with

children in the PDS. Finally, I will focus on the body of theory that examines the

inseparable relationship among literacy practices, learning, and identities.

What Is Identity?

Researchers in education struggling to find agreement in defining the social

construct of identity (Moje & Luke, 2009), argue that it must be problematized and not

taken for granted (Lin, 2008a), and even go as far as to critique its use as perpetuating









Western, colonialist discourse (Skeggs, 2008). Identity is only one of many ways

human beings make sense of personhood(s) (Egan-Robertson, 1998; Skeggs, 2008).

However, for purposes of this study, it will be used for defining (and being recognized

as) a certain "kind of person," (Gee, 2000, p. 95), and will include all who one believes

one is, as well as who one is perceived to be in different contexts (Gee, 2000). In this

study I stand by postmodern theorists and social constructionists who interpret identity

not as something that is fixed in nature, nor even as an experience located in the

individual. Rather, identity will be treated in this study as an ongoing social construct

assembled together by histories, cultures, and languages, and having a relational, ever-

changing, multiple and sometimes contradictory nature (Lin, 2008; McCarthey, 2001;

McCarthey & Moje, 2002; Mishler,1999; Moje & Luke, 2009; Sarup, 1998). Individuals

can "make bids" (Gee, 2000, p. 109) to be recognized as a certain kind of person but

these identities cannot be sustained without being recognized by others, just as

individuals can be recruited to take on particular identities but ultimately reject the

recruitment effort by his or her community (Gee, 2000). Tatum (1997, in McCarthey &

Moje, 2002) found this to be true, and concluded that students' identities are fashioned

in relation to perceptions held by other people. Research in the area of the social

construction of identity also reveals that language is critical to identity formation and

recognition, because the way we talk about other people (and ourselves) positions us

relative to others (Fairclough, 1995). In fact, identities are always dependent upon and

embedded within discourses that particular identity groups create (Gee, 2000).

Berger and Luckmann (1966) in their seminal publication, The Social Construction

of Reality, discuss how important identity is in negotiating the dialectic between the









"individual animal" and his/her social world (p. 180), by managing competing tensions

between the two. Psychologists and other social scientists have found identity to be

helpful in explaining the way we think about ourselves and others, particularly when

looking at the intersection between things people do, where one is from, and with whom

one is associated (Lin, 2008b). Enciso, Lewis, and Moje (2007) ask how identity can

frame research in education. For example, educational researchers have found the

construct of identity to be a beneficial tool for examining and explaining the reproduction

of inequity in schools (Lin, 2008b). Applications of this kind of research might help us

reform languages used to create stereotypical categories of children in schools and limit

the way children and adolescents are positioned as learners (Lin, 2008b). In order to

study identity in schools, it is important to have an organizational framework for dealing

with the social construction of identity. In my case I found it helpful to use a theory

proposed by James Gee (2000), which will be discussed next.

Gee's Four Lenses for Identity

James Gee (2000) has conceptualized four lenses through which to examine and

interpret identity, two of which became foundational in this study. They include:

Institutional-identities, Discourse-identities, Affinity-identities, and Nature-identities.

These four lenses are inseparable from one another, and all rely on dialogue between

human beings to exist. For example, being called a "good student" in school by peers

and teachers is the function of one's Institutional-identity, or how one is positioned in

formal organizations, such as schools. One's Discourse-identity as a "good student"

includes all of the ways his/her behaviors, values, ways of talking, and the tools s/he

uses are assigned to such an identity. These might include the willingness to publicly

answer questions posed by teachers, the possession and reading of certain kinds of









texts, and the demonstration of behaviors interpreted by those in power as

"compliance." One's Affinity-identity as a "good student" has everything to do with

whom one affiliates with. "Good students" will likely feel most comfortable spending

social time with other "good students." They will likely choose one another as friends

both in and out of school, elect to do projects together, and sit next to one another in the

cafeteria. Finally, a "good student" can be identified by his or her Nature-identity. For

example, teachers in this study often talked about students as "being bright," as if

intelligence was an innate or biologically determined trait. All four of Gee's lenses for

identity build upon and reinforce one another, and all rely on dialogue to exist, sustain,

and change over time. This is why when one may make bids to be defined as a "good

student," this identity must be recognized and endorsed as such by his or her

community.

Gee's four lenses for social identity allowed me to operationalize ways of gathering

and interpreting data from participants who were diverse in age, gender, ethnicity, and

position. While I could have used any of the four lenses to study the school identities of

fourth-grade participants, I focused specifically on documenting changes in Institutional-

and Discourse-identities,1 two of the four lenses for studying identity in Gee's model.

Examining shifts in identity through more than one lens was important because it helped

me gain access to multiple layers of co-construction between individuals and the greater

school community.





1 To ease the reader from this point forward, James Gee's concepts of "I nstitutional-identities" and
"Discourse-identities" (2000) will be written in lower case and without a hyphen: "institutional identities"
and "discourse identities."









The Social Construction of School Identities

School identities, for purposes of this study, refer to the identities children hold as

people situated in the institution of schooling, and specifically including how they are

highly contextualized in light of perceived social and academic competencies. Flores-

Gonzalez (2002) studied Latino children and defined children who possessed a "school

identity" as those who gained satisfaction from being in school. In fact, having a school

identity, or not, meant the difference between being seen as a "good kid" or a "bad kid"

(Flores-Gonzalez, 2002). In this study, however, I use the term "school identity" as an

umbrella for all children in school. I assumed that all children had some form of a

school identity but that it could fall within a range of possible manifestations, ranging

from "school successful" to "not school successful."

What is important to this study is that school identities of children are created,

assigned, and reproduced in ongoing cycles that privilege some and marginalize others

(Flores-Gonzalez, 2002; Lin, 2008). These identities are cast most typically in light of

performance "progress" associated with children's behaviors as readers and writers

(Moje & Luke, 2009), which are "laundered" when schools misidentify and then reward

"class-based cultural advantages," as "natural talents" or "diligence," (Crossley, 2003, p.

43), and then reified as "social facts" (Mehan, 1996, p. 244). Students and teachers

assemble one another's local identities by drawing from traditional roles of the

classroom, the available curriculum, and other resources that position students in

recognizable ways (Wortham, 2004). The implications of these local school identity

assignments are both immediate and far-reaching. For example, how school identities

are defined by participants in schools and enacted by individuals clearly has

implications for who will or will not have opportunities for specialized literacy learning









(McCarthey & Moje, 2002; Moje & Lewis, 2007), the basic currency needed for creating

an identity of school success. Once these kinds of school identities are in place, they

have a tremendous impact on the trajectory of one's life chances (Gee, 2000; Mishler,

1999; Moje & Luke, 2009; Wenger, 1998).

The people, habits, and value systems that comprise school and political

institutions often lead to a collective amnesia about the social construction of school

identities. For example, it is easy in the day-to-day affairs of school to overlook that

school identities, including such formal labels of "ADHD" or "learning disabled," must

rely on ongoing social interaction and dialogue in order to be constructed and

maintained (Gee, 2000; Skrtic, 1995). Through dialogue, labels are essentially recast

as biological in nature (Gee, 2000), which they mayor may not be. For example,

Mehan (1996) followed the transition of a child's school identity from being a "regular"

student to a "handicapped" student. By looking at language used by educators to sort

students, and then by documenting the series of events involved in the educational

testing for and placement into special education, he made the case for how the

student's new identity became institutionalized as a social fact through the interplay

between conversations and the creations of texts. In the quote below, Mehan traces the

actions that thread together the storyline from "regular" to "handicapped," which actually

started with the teacher having a problem:

Essentially, the teacher is calling for help. This call starts the process that
constructs students' institutional identities. These often undifferentiated
appeals become refined and specified in official language as they move
from regular education classrooms to testing rooms and finally to meeting
rooms. Through this process, the child becomes an object. The members
of the committee do not have access to the teacher-student interaction; only
the residue of that interaction is represented in a file, a decentered text. At
the outset, the child was a participant in discourse with his teacher and his









classmates. But, from that point on, the child's contribution to his own
career status drops out. (Mehan, 1996, p. 260)

In another study McDermott (1996) presented evidence for how a child was

"acquired by a disability" (p. 300) through common school discourse practices that

created categories of school identity based on "competency." Bourdieu (1984) would

likely call this an act of symbolic violence because an identity was imposed by powerful

others, and then legitimized without the child's consent. Indeed, social reproduction

demands the occupancy of certain identities that are needed for a culture to continue,

and children are easy targets. As McDermott concludes, "Before any teachers or

children enter schools every September, failure is in every classroomm in America.

There is never a question of whether everyone is going to succeed or fail, only of who is

going to fail" (p. 295). Toohey's (2000) research brought her to the same conclusion

when she said that the classroom community "...somehow arranged itself so as to have

successful and unsuccessful members" (p. 61). This led her to wonder about

McDermott's (1988) original question that sought to deconstruct how schools define

their social realities about how some children are learning "more," while some children

are learning "less."

There is a complex interplay between schools, as institutions, and their

participants who work together to underwrite the system of meaning used to define

types of people, how they will get recognized, and what, as a result, they are

determined to need (Gee, 2000). Institutionalized identities are created from the daily

cycles of teacher's work in the often mundane business of teaching, assessment, and

conversation with colleagues and families, as well as how children evaluate and make

sense of one another's performances in the classroom (Toohey, 2000). However, the









implications are incredibly far-reaching as a student's entire life path is potentially

cemented as a result (Mehan, 2006) of the identity assigned to him or her.

It is important to keep in mind that poorer children are much more at risk of

becoming susceptible to the identities assigned to them by educational and political

institutions, as more privileged students have the time and resources outside of school

to author themselves in alternative ways (Gee, 2002). This difference brings into

question how schools should reconceptualize their practices if their aim is to serve as a

democratizing force in society. A child's socioeconomic class has a significant influence

in the way his or her school identity is formed, and in any subsequent labels used by the

institution to define it (Gee, 2000; 2002). Gee (2000) points out the difference in label

assignments that can occur between a poor (and often black) student, and that of a

privileged, (and often white) student. The unsuccessful behaviors of a poorer and black

student might invoke educators to consider his/her identity as a "special education" or,

at the very least an "at risk" student, who needs a curriculum "at his/her level." On the

other hand, a relatively privileged white student's school identity might be interpreted as

an "intelligent underachiever" who is in need of a more challenging school experience.

In either case a school identity has been assigned, and access to different curricula and

pedagogy has been determined.

School Identities and School Performance

"Students are successful in school to the extent that they are able to adopt and

sustain a school-kid identity" (Flores-Gonzalez, 2002, p. 11), and identity is the missing

link in the research that focuses on the intersection between learning and sociocultural

interaction (Sfard & Prusak, 2005). In addition, because "(l)earning... implies becoming

a different person" (Lave & Wenger, 1991, p. 53), identity cannot be divorced from how









and what one learns in school, or in any other context where learning is expected.

Further, student identity greatly matters in the development of human literacy practices,

including literacies valued in schools. For this reason McCarthey and Moje (2002) urge

educators and researchers to consider identity when examining how students respond

to school practices.

There is a large, eclectic body of research that explores the school performances

of particular students or groups by addressing motivation, self-efficacy, and related

personal attributes. For example, Gordon (1995) found that academically resilient

African American adolescents have strong self concepts, a commitment to extra-

curricular goals, and the ability to articulate what motivates them. Hebert (1998)

compared two gifted black students, one who was identified as a high achiever, and one

identified as an underachiever. The high achiever had a strong sense of self that was

attributed to personal characteristics, including high aspirations, and strong family

support. Similar conclusions drawn by Howard (2003) help explain the academic

identities of African American adolescent boys. Some researchers have further

attempted to define the role that academic identity has in motivation, self efficacy, and

agency (Bandura, 1982; Cokley, 2000), and how, in fact, disidentification with aspects of

self concept can occur when there is a threat to them (Aronson, Blanton & Cooper,

1995; Steele, 1997).

Studies like this that examine the factors that influence the identities of students

can be helpful as educators attempt to unlock the secrets of academic success and

motivation in school, especially for groups of students that teachers and schools

struggle to reach. However, taken alone these research narratives tend to perpetuate









the idea that academic success, and even school identities, are located solely within

individual students. This view disallows the social nature of teaching, learning and

identity development to be explored and harnessed, and in many cases perpetuates a

hegemony that blames individual children for school failure (McCarthey & Moje, 2002),

even when the "causes" are attributed to environmental or physiological factors outside

of the child's control.

Research by Deaux (1993) suggests that motivation combines with social

contexts to shape a myriad of ways in which we define ourselves. Tobin, Seiler and

Walls (1999) found in a study of an urban high-school science classroom that the

earnest efforts of the teacher to create a "transformative curriculum" only met with

student resistance, and concluded that we must address the multiple layers of student

identity if we want to reach learners who are more difficult to teach. Roth et al. (2004)

found the same to be true when they observed that participating in the activity of

schooling led to students and teachers making and remaking their identities in an urban

setting, and that these identities are part of systems of mediated relations that rely on

situated activity. Woodruff and Schallert's (2008) grounded theory study of college

student athletes found that motivation and identity mutually influence one another, and

that dialogue with others was the critical agent of that change. This lends support to

Ryan and Deci's (2002) assertion that our behaviors must be valued by significant

others before we are willing to continue those behaviors, and Gee's (2000) idea that

one's identities cannot sustain without being recognized and endorsed by others.

McCarthey (2001) researched how students' perceptions of themselves as

literacy learners were either deterred or facilitated by the context of classroom practices









which relied on an adopted, mass-produced reading curriculum. She found that ideas

held about students by themselves, their parents, teachers, and peers did influence

identity construction, and that the implicit messages communicated through enacting

the reading curriculum ended up playing a pivotal role in how students identified

themselves as readers, and subsequently as students in school. Wortham (2004)

documented an African American student's shift from "good student" to "disruptive

student," and eventually solidified as "outcast student" through the course of her ninth-

grade year. Like McCarthey's (2001) work, Wortham's study emphasizes how

important it is to consider the complexity of multiple resources teachers and students

use, including the curriculum, to cast the identities of classroom participants. Toohey's

(2000) work in primary classrooms with six English Language Learners brought her to

the same conclusion. By conducting ongoing classroom observations and collecting

narratives from adults, she was able to analyze how practices led to school identities.

She was able to determine how classroom resources were differentially distributed

among classroom participants, and how this led to differentiated access to learning, and

subsequently to differentiated identities. These constructs for school identities were

dependent on ranking systems in schools organized by academic competence, physical

presentation and competence, behavioral competence, social competence, and

language proficiency. Her findings led her to emphasize the need to investigate

strategies very young students use to accept and resist institutional identities, as well as

finding sensitive enough methods of research that can document how young students

make sense of the bids (Gee, 2000) from educators to take on particular institutional

identities.









Finally, Flores-Gonzalez (2002) was compelled to find a pattern that explained

why some urban, Latino adolescents dropped out of high school, others graduated, and

others returned after dropping out. The most significant factor that determined these

outcomes had to do with how adolescents positioned their identities in relation to

school, and she presents how these identities are formed throughout a child's school

career. Through role identity theory, which seeks to explain how our identities are tied

to our positions in groups, she gained insights into why some adolescents developed

successful school identities, while others did not. Flores-Gonzalez (2002) concluded

that "schools are accomplices in a system that thrives on producing inequality" (p. 162)

by offering different kinds of school experiences. In the school she studied, these

different experiences led to the creation of two kinds of students: "School Kids" and

"Street Kids." Latino students who took on the "School Kid" identity tended to graduate

from high school, while those who took on the "Street Kid" identity tended to drop out.

Finally, seven school conditions were critical in fostering the "School Kid" identity.

These included offering students the opportunity to take on the socially appropriate role

of "student;" providing trustworthy social systems of teacher and student support;

creating systems of recognition and rewards; fostering warm, intimate relationships with

teachers and students; offering constant, positive feedback for successful student

performance; allowing students to weave other school-related identities into their school

identities (such as that of "athlete"); and providing the opportunities to explore and

expect viable futures after graduation.

The studies outlined in this section make the case, again, that identity matters

significantly in learning and in school success (Flores-Gonzalez, 2002; Heath, 1983;









Lewis, Enciso & Moje, 2007; McCarthey& Moje, 2002; Mehan, 2006). However, there

are studies that attempt to go further than naming the link between identity and school

success by designing research with a critical action focus. Through collaborative

scholarship and inquiry wth children, these researchers place identity at the center of

investigating equitable school practices. This body of work features researchers and

practitioners who invite students as classroom researchers and co-inquirers, knowledge

generators, and critical participants in schools. What ties this work together is the

transformative nature of the experiences, particularly in how they invite children and

teachers to redraw the boundaries of school identities. Focusing strategically on identity

has important implications for learning and the development of new literacies, and

therefore has the potential to impact academic performance. Some examples will be

discussed next as they had a significant impact on the conceptualization of this study.

Critical Reflection and Inquiry with Children

Reflection, as a meaning making process, threads together a continuous learning

experience and must be done in a shared context, often fusing both personal and

intellectual growth (Rodgers, 2002). Critical reflection is not just concerned with the

effectiveness of outcomes, or even the examination of goals and assumptions but also

with the moral implications for equity. This is because critical reflection situates

personal action within greater socio-political contexts (Ha ton & Smith, 1995; Rodgers,

2002) by emancipating us from the taken for granted routines (Zeichner & Liston, 1996).

Indeed, critical inquiry can amplify teacher and student voices. John Dewey went as far

as to say that the systematic, rigorous and disciplined use of inquiry and reflection with

the support of evidence was a prerequisite for a participatory democracy (Barton &

Levstik, 2004; Rodgers, 2002).









An inquiry stance allows educators and learners to work together to generate

local knowledge, theorize, and interrogate the research and meaning making of others

in communities of practice (Cochran-Smith, 2004). As a stance toward teaching and

learning (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009; Dana & Yendol-Silva, 2003), inquiry generates

practice by providing evidence for judgments, a framework for knowledge construction,

and more transformational learning opportunities than traditional, transmission teaching

can (Barton & Levstik, 2004; Cochran-Smith, 2004). In addition, inquiry and critical

reflection increase equity in student and teacher access to knowledge by promoting the

value of plurality, rather than consensus, through provocative discourse. Finally, inquiry

and critical reflection facilitate novel ways to construct knowledge, offering teachers and

students the chance to explore "situated certainty" (Hargreaves, 1994, p. 59) and

balance the current over-valuing of scientific certainty that school-based and university-

based educators and learners are expected to value, consume and reproduce

(Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1993; Hargreaves, 1994).

Steinberg and Kincheloe (1998) call educators to teach students to become

inquirers in order to both acquire and produce literacies of power. Under this kind of

learning paradigm, children and their teachers can learn new discourses together, and

can therefore carve out new identities by linking new words and concepts to their

actions (Gee, 2004). For example, rather than learning science from a textbook,

children can practice being scientists (Gee, 2009, personal communication) by playing

with its specialized language and ways of defining and valuing reality, and by using its

special props and symbols. By doing science first, and then reading about it, situated

meaning can actually begin to occur among readers, inquirers, and texts.









There are researchers and practitioners who do participate with students, for

example, in ethnographic research and in critical inquiry (see Basu & Barton, 2010,

Egan-Robertson & Bloome, 1998, Seiler & Gonsalves, 2010, Stein, 2001, Steinberg &

Kincheloe, 1998, and Wallace, 2001). Such collaboration between adults and children

can be highly beneficial as a way to democratize teaching and learning; offer the tools

necessary for students to use their communities as curriculum; participate in

redesigning relationships among teachers, knowledge, and texts, and interrupt

traditional positionalities and roles between students and educators. Some of this

collaborative inquiry between adults and children has been specifically aimed at the

study of identity for the purposes of increasing access to learning and shaping

classroom communities. Egan-Roberts (1998) found that eighth-grade students were

enthusiastic about reauthoring discourses about themselves as writers and as young

women when they were given the opportunity to meet with her weekly in a writing club.

Another group of researchers, teachers, and students collaborated in a case study on

the ever-changing identities of students (and teachers) engaged in the socialization

process of schooling (Rothet al., 2004). Yeager, Floriani, and Green (1998) had fifth-

and sixth- graders engage in an ethnographic inquiry to find out what it took to be what

they called an "effective member" in their classroom, as well as in the academic

disciplines they were studying. As a result of participating in this unusual community of

practice, students actively redesigned their relationships with their classroom and with

the curriculum. LaVan (2004) investigated how urban high-school students and their

teacher redistributed power, rules, and roles by collaborating in dialogue sessions to

improve the relationship between science instruction and equity. Doing so fostered a









collective responsibility toward learning by privileging student voice in the classroom. In

this case new solidarity between the teacher and her students occurred, and students

began to value the science curriculum.

Studies like LaVan's (2004) feature the theory and practice of "cogenerative

dialogue" (Roth, Tobin & Zimmermann, 2002; Tobin, 2006), and represent some of the

most powerful examples available today of researchers working alongside secondary

level learners, prospective teachers, and mentor teachers in the classroom for the

express purpose of improving teaching and learning, as well as to facilitate social

justice. Kenneth Tobin and his colleagues, including LaVan, have paved the way

toward a theory that allows students, teachers, and researchers to reorganize their roles

and responsibilities in the urban science classroom. For example, Tobin (2006) studied

the collaboration between an intern, a mentor teacher, and a small group of students

who collected data generated from lessons to resolve contradictions and ineffective

teaching practices. These colleagues work from the conviction that the dysfunctional

state of urban middle and high school science education is not being corrected through

outside mandates, and can only hope to be changed by transforming the relationship

that occurs between teachers, students, pedagogy, and content, through the

mechanism of participatory research (Seiler & Emelsky, 2005). This transformation

involves the willingness of teachers and students to exchange and value one another's

social, symbolic, and cultural capital. By including students as researchers, and by

publishing their findings, previously silenced adolescents and their teachers are able to

address inequity in schools and bring attention to inadequate science teaching (Tobin,

Elmesky & Seiler, 2005).









Why did these researchers include children and adolescents in inquiry into

classroom practices? In a discussion of contributions that ethnographic and

sociocultural research has made to education, Egan-Robertson and Willett (1998)

reiterate that some children get valuable educational opportunities, and some do not,

and this is often related to their cultural, gender, linguistic, or racial background. This is

particularly true when considering the implications for tracking and ability-grouping, and

how students take up a cultural identity associated with the academic "level" they are

assigned, serving to reproduce social inequity. Including children in teacher inquiry and

ethnographic research opens up access to valuable educational opportunities for

students. It also allows educators and students to redefine literacy, classroom

practices, and the whole of education together, opening up new venues for doing

democracy in the classroom and in the world.

Communities of Practice

All of the studies outlined in the previous section documenting changes in

student identities and/or positionalities within classroom literacy worlds can be tied to

one common factor. In each case it can be argued that there was some semblance of

a community of practice (COP) mediating the experience, whether participants were

conscious of this, or not. As articulated byWenger, McDermott and Synder (2002):

Communities of practice are groups of people who share a concern, a set of
problems, or a passion about a topic, and who deepen their knowledge and
expertise in this area by interacting on an ongoing basis... Over time, they
develop a unique perspective on their topic as well as a body of common
knowledge, practices, and approaches. They also develop personal relationships
and established ways of interacting. They may even develop a common sense of
identity. They become a community of practice. (p. 4)

Wenger (1998) and Wenger, McDermott and Snyder (2002) write that we engage in

COPs all of the time in our home, work, and recreational worlds. They explain that









COPs develop in many forms, ranging from long-term to short-term, from synchronous

to asynchronous, between individuals who are near and far, and from unrecognized and

informal to legitimized and even to institutional forms. Further, no matter what form a

COP takes, it will have three aspects: a shared purpose, a sense of belonging, and a

distinct practice. A COP's practice includes its common language, history and stories,

ideas, values, and special tools that make up the dynamic generation of meaning

making the group shares together. In fact, these domains of meaning making are what

connect the group together, illuminating the intimate interrelationship between what one

knows, one's competencies, and one's identity.

COPs bring to light the social embeddedness of learning, allowing us to

challenge older, individualistic ideas of learning (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Toohey, 2000;

Wenger, 1998; Wenger, McDermott & Synder, 2002). In fact, the primary focus of

Wenger's (1998) theory is that COPs function as social and participatory learning sites.

Learning as social participation is not just embedded in the events that the community

sponsors or creates but in the very process of being active in the everyday practices of

the community. Wenger (1998) theorizes that ongoing learning within a COP occurs via

participation that shapes action (learning as doing), how actions are interpreted

(learning as experience and meaning), the sense of community (learning as belonging),

and identities (learning as ever-becoming). It is the profound interconnection between

COPs, their practices, and identity construction (Wenger, 1998) that has caught my

attention as a participatory action researcher in the PDS. This connection has inspired

me to ask if the PDS can be a place where educators can consciously create

communities of practice with students in ways that directly impact school identities not









only to see these new identities translate into successful school performance but to

allow teachers and learners to co-construct new, emancipatory definitions of school

success.

Researching identity is difficult, not only because it is elusive but because

identity, itself, is such a contested construct. Theorists are currently trying to

problematize identity so that educators can better address its social reproduction in

schools (Lin, 2008; Moje & Luke, 2009). Because many camps of scholarship have

historically defined identity in conflicting ways (Lin, 2008; Moje & Luke, 2009), it will be

important to articulate how I am operationalizing the concept of identity for purposes of

this study. I will begin by clarifying identity in relation to the literature base that informs

my praxis as an educator and researcher.

Literacy-and-Identity Studies

School literacy practices are a major site for the construction of identity

(McCarthy & Moje, 2002), and ideas such as academic tracks, race, ethnicity, gender,

and class become the objects of discourse practices that align with and define identity,

setting up boundaries for including and excluding certain children (Egan-Robertson,

1998). Literacy is at the heart of education's promise to provide citizens the symbolic

capital needed to build literate identities and to have the ability to enact this power in

society (Kalantzis & Cope, 2000). The problem is that our literacies are no less than

situated, social practices (Buckingham, 2003; Comber& Cormack, 1997; Kress, 2004;

Luke, 2002), and students do not come to school with the same set of experiences,

literacies, or cultural capital from which to work. Yet schools and politicians continue to

operate on the assumption that they do (Kalantzis & Cope, 2000; McLaren, 2003; Wink,

1997). Different ways of speaking, or discourses, carry different points of view that









reflect different life experiences (Erickson, 2005), and one's use of language, including

the ways one uses English, can profoundly affect one's chances in life (Gay, 2005;

Ovando, 2005). And literacies shaped by white, middle class social protocols and

values are basic prerequisites for gaining access to the typical school curriculum (Gay,

2005).

I have situated the rationale for and design of this study within the body of

scholarship Moje and Luke (2009) define as "literacy-and-identity" studies, a socio-

cultural perspective that has unfolded in three waves over time. These researchers

were able to organize the widely diverse perspectives of this literature base into five

guiding metaphors. These include identity-as-difference, identity-as-self, identity-as-

consciousness, identity-as-narrative, and identity-as-position. There are three

assumptions that underlie all five metaphors and bind together this body of research

(Moje & Luke, 2009). First, all literacy-and-identity studies assume that identities) are

socially constructed. This means that while identities are lived out within the individual,

they require co-construction (and maintenance) to exist, as identity is in an ever

changing dialectal relationship with society (Berger & Luckmann, 1966). Second,

literacy-and-identity scholars generally see identities) as having a degree of fluidity, or

at least pliability, and that individuals experience plural identities that change,

depending on situation and context. Finally, researchers agree that one's identities)

must be recognized by an audience in order to exist and play out.

Moje and Luke's identity-as-narrative and identity-as-position metaphors

resonated with my interpretive experience while I was engaged in this study. When

considering identity-as-narrative, Moje and Luke (2009) point out a tension in the









literature that I also met when designing the methodology of this study. This tension

attempts to define where identity is created and carried out. Is identity located in the

words we use to talk about ourselves and others? Or is identity located in the actions

and interactions we have with ourselves and others? When Sfard and Prusak (2005)

wanted to operationalize the idea of identity for the purpose of designing and conducting

research, they argued that identity is equal to representation. In order to locate identity,

we need to focus on the stories that move back and forth between the individual and the

community. In this perspective the words, themselves, are identity. This is because

words have the power to create reality in the moment that they are spoken, including

that which comes from our actions and the subsequent meanings of these actions.

Wenger (1998) on the other hand, focuses more on defining identity as enactment, or

the ways we play out identities through social behaviors, which does include meaning

made through words. Wortham's (2004) study on how teachers and students co-

constructed the changing identity of a student in a ninth-grade classroom draws from

both theories, a perspective that I also took in this study.

From these social constructionist perspectives identities are always situated

within relationships. Because relationships often include power differentials (McCarthey

& Moje, 2002), such as those between students and teachers, or teachers and policy

makers, it becomes imperative to investigate not just how our words carry our identities

but also how identities are enacted through social relationships (Toohey, 2000). Moje

and Luke's metaphor of identity-as-narrative was a critical part of the theoretical

underpinnings of this study. It allowed me to collect and analyze the words of

participants as they co-constructed stories that wove together their identities over time.









It could even be argued that the speaking and writing of these words became powerful

acts of identity construction. However, this metaphor for studying identity did not, by

itself, have the explanative power to describe howidentities shifted over time, especially

in light of power relationships between adults and children. Moje and Luke's (2009)

metaphor of identity-as-position allowed me to bring in the lens of power and roles that

unfold in and between school identities. In a sense, theorists who study identity-as-

position recognize that at any given time there are at least temporary positions, or

spaces, available for different identities needed in a society, or in a classroom for that

matter, as well as for the relationships between these different positions. These

positions call for people to occupy them to some degree in order for a culture, including

that of a classroom's, to make sense. While individuals can work to successfully

accept, reject (Holland & Leander, 2004; Moje & Luke, 2009), and even reinvent the

identity they are being recruited for (Gee, 2000), the position will continue to hold

definition until it is re-assigned with a new meaning, or possibly extinguished from non-

use. The identity-as position metaphor was especially beneficial to making sense of the

data that came from this study. This was because it allowed me to consider, for

example, the ways certain places, times, and objects were symbolically used by

participants (Holland & Leander, 2004; Moje, 2004a; Moje & Luke, 2009; Wortham,

2004) to define their political identities. These aspects of identity were critical to

understanding how students shifted their identities and school performances over time

as they participated in a community of practice with adult educators.

Conclusion

Keeping in mind that the construct of "competence" is highly situated (Duff,

2002), we are freed up to consider school identities as social constructions, rather than









as social facts. In doing so teachers and learners can begin to deconstruct the labels

and the groupings that are created and used to identify students (McCarthey & Moje,

2002), and the implications that these narrow definitions of children and adolescents

have for their life chances. Targeting school identity is critical for educators in both

school and university contexts if we wish to break the kind of social reproduction in

schools that reinforces inequity (Fine & Weis, 2005; Flores-Gonzalez, 2002; Lin, 2008).

While there is ample research examining how school institutions position different

children (Gee, 2000; Flores-Gonzalez, 2002), some of which has been presented in this

chapter, there is still a great need for research that looks at the relationship between the

perceptions of others, students' self perceptions, and the classroom contexts that

contribute to shaping those perceptions (Gee, 2000; McCarthey, 2001). It is my hope

that this study answers this call, and that as a result we are reminded that no powerful

strategy for impacting equity in schooling and society can be designed or implemented

without taking into consideration the complexities of student learning (Nieto, 2005) and

the sociopolitical structures and systems that shape schooling.

The literature outlined in this chapter continues to lead me, as a PDS university

partner, to this question: If social justice for all P-12 learners is a core feature of the

PDS movement, how can I craft my own professional identity and role so that this goal

can become directly embedded in my daily work? In the PDS one of my multiple roles

includes that of the supervisor for prospective teachers. Could I tailor this aspect of my

job so that P-12 students and I could work directly together in ways that would offer

creative avenues toward school success not available through the standard curriculum?

Could we create communities of practice that allow children to re-author their school









identities through direct collaboration with adult learners engaged in inquiry? These

questions led me to design a participatory action research (PAR) study, which will be

outlined in the next chapter.









CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODS

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to make sense of how including fourth graders in

the supervision of teacher candidates leads to changes in these students' positions

within formal hierarchies of "successful" and "unsuccessful" school identity. This study

addresses a core question shared by stakeholders in this particular Professional

Development School (PDS) which asks how university-school partnerships committed

to the integrated learning of school and university faculty, P-12 learners, and teacher

candidates can promote equity for all learners in public schools (Holmes, 1990; NAPDS,

2008; NCATE, 2001). Findings from this study may also offer a significant contribution

to researchers and practitioners investigating and cultivating social justice within the

context of teacher candidate supervision (Abt-Perkins, Hauschildt & Dale, 2000; Bowers

& Flinders, 1991; Jacobs, 2007; Ladson-Billings, 2001; Zeichner & Tabachnick, 1982).

This research is grounded in a social constructionist epistemology. I operated

under the assumption that identities are not static but are rather creative works in

progress. In light of social constructionism, I define identity as an ongoing authorship

that occurs in the dialectic between the "self" and "others" (Berger & Luckmann, 1966,

Gee, 2000; Gee, 2002). Therefore, I needed to collect data from the natural

conversations and interactions of the participants. This made it important for me to

design a qualitative study (Creswell, 1998; Patton, 2002). In this chapter I present the

theoretical perspective used to frame the work, research methods, how participants

were included, and the context for the study. I will then discuss at length my multiple

roles and subjectivities as a researcher, as well as the freedoms and limitations that









these posed to the research process. Next, I will describe the data collection process

and how data were interpreted. Finally, I will discuss the mechanisms in place to

strengthen the trustworthiness of the study from beginning to end.

Research Question

In the PDS in which I work, two problems of practice have led to parallel

questions that we have historically shared and investigated through inquiry. First, how

do we improve the learning and practices of teachers and prospective teachers?

Second, how can we address issues of inequity in our PDS by improving access to

relevant and powerful learning for all students? These two questions became "two arms

of embrace" surrounding my own research question, as well as the activities we planned

for gaining insights into my question. Therefore, my research question was grounded

within our praxis, or where the reciprocity between theoretical and practical thinking and

actions came together in our daily work in the PDS (Wink, 1997).

For several years I have actively recruited "difficult-to-teach" K-5 students as co-

inquirers in the supervision process in order to promote the professional development of

teacher candidates, veteran teachers, and myself in the PDS. After seeing me do this

for several years, one PDS school-based partner remarked that "something amazing"

was happening. She not only referred to the transformation of educators who began to

redefine their relationships with and perceptions and expectations of "difficult-to-teach"

students. She also referred to the classroom community as a whole, and specifically to

the students who collaborated most directly with us on the supervision team. I wanted

to design a study that would get closer to identifying that "something amazing."

Specifically, I wanted to know how students who collaborated in the supervision of their

teachers' interns changed their identities as students in school, as well as how they









changed their academic and social behaviors. My central research question was: How

and why did the identities and performances of three "struggling students" change

during and after participating in a community of practice supporting the supervision of

teacher candidates? Managing and organizing data collection required the investigation

of two supporting questions. First, how might these students' formal, institutional

identities, as defined by educators in the PDS, change as a result of participating in the

supervision of the interns in their classroom? Second, how could the process

supporting this change in their formal identities be explained? The findings for the first

supporting question are reported in Chapter 4, while the findings for the second

question are in Chapter 5.

Theoretical Perspective

Individuals in teacher research and education are positioned in unique ways

within the power organization of universities and schools, and so we come to the field

with our own agendas (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1993). I was no different. I grounded

my research in a combined theoretical perspective and methodology of feminist-infused,

critical, or participatory action research (PAR). I made this choice because in my daily

practice as a teacher educator I use a lens that acknowledges gendered divisions of

power and authority in public school education (Coffey & Delamont, 2000), particularly

as the majority of classrooms are peopled by women and children but remain in the

"theoretical and administrative custody of men" (Luke & Gore, 1992, p. 2). Organizing

this study as a PAR grounded in feminisms was done to increase an opportunity for the

transformative praxis of its participants by "facilitating and engaging in specific actions

that contribute to human well-being and a more just and equitable world" (Lykes and

Coquillon, 2007, p. 298). This praxis included my own, and allowed me to consciously









name, embrace, and manage my many subjectivities throughout the research and

writing process (Peshkin, 1988).

Two core assumptions undergird my work as a participatory action researcher

operating with a feminist lens. First, I believe that the activity of research should provide

a mechanism for the empowerment of marginalized groups. The primary group

identified in this case was children "otherized" by social constructions of institutional

identities defined by "school failure." The secondary group identified were educators (all

women) operating under increasingly oppressive and isolating conditions in public

schools that seriously undermine their ability to see and define children and learning in

holistic, humane, and emancipating ways. My second assumption is that I expect my

role and work as a researcher to contribute to the decolonizing of the production of

knowledge, a domain traditionally "owned" by researchers who reside far away from the

daily, lived experiences of women and children in the classroom (Cochran-Smith &

Lytle, 1993; Fine, 1994; Harding, 1987). In this study the PAR framework helped raise

the voices of children and teachers because it allowed them to contribute to the

locating, defining, managing, and ongoing interpreting of our shared problems

(Hendricks, 2006; Schensul & Schensul, 1992; Wahab, 2003).

The Research Context

Yearling Elementary is located in north central Florida, and is considered a Title I

school serving pre-kindergarten through fourth grade. It is one of eight PDS

partnerships with the local university. The school is located in a small, rural community

approximately 25 miles from the university, and supports the education of 517 culturally

and linguistically diverse students from lower to middle class backgrounds, with an

increasing number of Spanish-speaking and migrant families moving into the area.









Sixty-six percent of the school population is identified as White, 18% as African

American, 9% as Hispanic, and 6% as multiracial. While 13% of the school population

is identified for special education services, 90% of these students are fully included in

general education as a result of a shared commitment between the school and

university. Over half of Yearling Elementary's students qualify for free or reduced priced

lunch.

Under Florida's school accountability system Yearling Elementary is an "A" school.

Since 2005 Yearling Elementary has participated in a close relationship with the local

university in order to blend professional development, teacher preparation, and school

improvement goals in ways that directly impact learning and achievement of the

students and research interests that we share. The school leadership demonstrates a

unique commitment to these goals. For example, it is not unusual for the principal to

engage in inquiry and to participate in national PDS conferences, or to teach the on-site

seminar for teacher candidates. In addition, the principal and teacher leaders

strategically tailor the work of prospective teachers, who are embraced as part of the

faculty, in order to support school and grade level goals, such as inclusion,

differentiating instruction, and teacher action research.

The supervision for teacher candidates is shared between university and school-

based faculty but is under the direct responsibility of the Site Coordinator at the PDS.

This was the formal role I played at the PDS during this study. As the Site Coordinator I

carried out all of the supervision components expected in the PDS. According to Nolan

and Hoover (2004), these components include action research, peer coaching,

classroom-based supervision and coaching by mentor teachers and university field









advisors, and the forming of collegial seminar groups on the PDS site. In addition,

observations of teacher candidates with pre- and post-conferences, video analysis, and

reflective journaling are employed to address the developmentally unique learning

needs of individual candidates. Formal learning goals for prospective teachers that

were negotiated between the university and school included co-teaching,

accommodating students with disabilities, infusing social studies and democratic

classroom practices into the curriculum, blending theory with practice, naming and

enacting an espoused platform, differentiating instruction to meet the needs of

heterogeneous groups of learners, and developing an inquiry stance for professional

development.

Two co-teaching interns are placed together in each classroom at Yearling

Elementary School. Although this is not their first field experience, it is the first time

they are expected to perform all the planning, teaching, evaluating, collaborating,

political relationship building, and administrative responsibilities of their mentor

teachers. The first half of the semester is a critical time to socialize the interns, helping

them transition theirframe of reference from being a student to being a professional. It

is also critical during this time to help them interpret the classroom and school culture;

broker their relationships with their children and colleagues; collect data on the needs of

their learners; begin to employ accommodations and differentiated instruction; become

clear on their individual professional development agendas; and begin taking increasing

responsibility for instruction and routines. Therefore, during the first half of the semester

I am usually present in each classroom at least 30-45 minutes a day, three to four days

a week. For the remainder of the semester, my classroom presence tapers down as I









conduct observations and coach the interns through their individual inquiry work. At this

time I also shift my focus toward being of instructional service to the interns and their

mentor teacher in order to help them facilitate their unique classroom goals and to

continue supporting and modeling the pedagogical goals for the semester. Throughout

the semester the interns meet with me and other school-based teacher educators for

weekly seminars on the PDS campus, as well as with other instructors in university

coursework taught at the school site.

Within my normal PDS duties for supervision and classroom facilitation, I add

another "ingredient" that became the impetus for this work: I collaborate directly with

elementary school students during formal and informal classroom observations, and in

co-teaching and planning activities with prospective teachers. The purpose of directly

including students in my work is to encourage prospective and practicing teachers to

see children as co-designers of learning activities and assessments and as

collaborators in the reflective teaching process, and to see me model democratic

classroom pedagogy. I put these goals into action in a myriad of ways. I might sit at

lunch with a group of students and their interns to debrief a lesson just taught, ask the

class or specific students for lesson plan input, articulate my own problems of practice

in a classroom level discussion, have children reflect upon their learning experiences

during a lesson or assessment activity, engage interns in "think-alouds" during

instruction for all students to hear and respond to, and invite students to collect data

with me during instruction. I typically seat myself next to different children everyday so

that I can engage in instructional activities from a child's point of view, including gaining

perspectives on a lesson from different physical and social locations in the room. This









allows me to collect data for interns and teachers on the effectiveness of their

instructional tools and pedagogy. I also sit next to children so that my supervision and

coaching tasks and tools are accessible to the children who are interested in my role.

Finally, I sit with children to model for the interns how to "kid watch" for the purpose of

ongoing data collection to support differentiating instruction (Tomlinson, 2001), and how

necessary it is for teachers to immerse themselves in their children's social worlds in

order to build individual relationships and classroom community. While I do not expect

interns to employ these strategies as novice teachers, I continue to model them so that

interns, and the mentor teachers I am helping to develop, can appreciate the power they

have in enhancing teaching and learning in the classroom.

I include children in the supervision process for several reasons, all of which were

true in the case of this study, as well. The first is to shape the classroom communities

of the PDS by modeling and cultivating the idea that an inquiry stance is desirable and

appropriate for all participants, including prospective teachers, children, mentor

teachers, and myself. By having students join me to both research and coach teacher

learning, it becomes normed behavior to publicly name problems of practice, to engage

in ongoing dialogue about the teaching and learning process, to collect data on our

questions, and to make changes as a result of what we learn together. Children are

typically enthusiastic participants in this process and can potentially become quite

sophisticated in inquiring into the complexities of the classroom. The second reason I

collaborate with students in inquiry-oriented supervision is to help prospective teachers

recognize, value, and then strategically partner with students as rich sources of data for

improving the learning conditions of the classroom. Finally, what ultimately drives my









collaborative supervision with students is my personal agenda of improving equitable

conditions in schools by providing service in the classroom. For example, a classroom

teacher who has come to rely on the work I am willing to do may ask me to forge a

relationship with a particular student in order to support his/her social or academic

performance, including that of enrichment or remediation. Or I will notice students that

might have been previously "invisible" to, or even unconsciously marginalized by the

interns, who are only just learning to "borrow" my lens for recognizing and responding to

the rich landscape of diverse learners in the classroom.

It is common for me to work closely with particular children to amplify their voices,

perspectives, concerns, and work products in ways that might not be possible if I were

not a participant in the classroom. In doing so I can more effectively coach and

empower prospective teachers to teach all learners, especially as interns come to trust

me as someone who takes genuine and direct responsibility for student achievement in

their classrooms. In turn, it is typical for prospective teachers to report and enact a

sense of empowerment because they are confronting their fears of "difficult-to-teach"

students in a safe learning context where they know their supervisor (and in many

cases their mentor teacher) is publicly grappling with her own professional

development, as well.

In the case of Ms. S's fourth-grade classroom, the site of this study, it was more

difficult for me to cultivate educator learning that included student collaboration than it

was for me in other contexts. This was because Ms. S was new to the PDS and its

unique goals, had never had interns before, and may have had some apprehension

about my "expertise" and power within the school. All of these new challenges posed a









tall order for any classroom teacher trying to reframe her role as a teacher educator in a

school-university partnership. Additionally, Ms. S was trying to make sense of my

orientation and assumptions as a university supervisor and PDS partner, as was evident

through her questions. This set of challenges was typical in my work with new mentor

teachers. In this case it required me to scaffold and support Ms. S in her own learning

curve, as well as to build at least a working foundation of trust with her. First, I

consulted with and deferred to her regarding how much participation and decision-

making I would have in the classroom. Second, I stayed as open and transparent as I

could regarding my roles and expectations. Third, I was careful to enact my genuine

belief that I had little authority or expertise as a teacher in this classroom, or any fourth-

grade classroom, for that matter. I made a conscious effort to temper any positionality

teachers assigned to me as "an educational expert." For example, I chose to sit on the

floor while writing field notes to physically mark the work I was doing as a researcher as

"lesser," and "informal" in comparison to the regular on-goings of the classroom. In

addition, I always turned my laptop screen toward Ms. S so she was able to see all that

I was writing. Finally, lemailed her often to "check in," and to get her help in making

decisions about how to go about my work in ways that would not disrupt the classroom

routine. As a result, Ms. S took many admirable risks in trusting our work process as it

unfolded, and was gracious in allotting a space for the interns, children, and me to work

together, and a deep, caring relationship developed between Ms. S and me. Had I

been able to continue my work with Ms. S over the course of a full year I am convinced

that we would have broken even more ground in negotiating, and even blending, one

another's work within the context of the classroom.









Participant Selection

During this particular semester I was intimately involved as a PDS university

partner in six diverse, inclusive classrooms where co-teaching pairs of interns were

engaged. Each classroom offered me, as a researcher, plenty of opportunities to locate

students who were not considered "school successful." I ended up selecting the

classroom with the oldest students for two reasons. First, while I experience consistent

success in working with primary grade students as collaborators in supervision, I do not

yet have the research skills to capture and analyze discourse practices of small children

in a way that would help me document, with evidence, changes in school identity.

Second, as an educator with a tremendous passion and concern for middle school

education, I wanted to work with pre-adolescents in order to help them transition

academically and socially into middle school the following year. Once the fourth-grade

classroom context was established as my primary focus, my colleagues and I then took

four weeks to sift out four of the nineteen available students and officially invite them to

become members of our community of practice. This decision was the result of a

complex interplay between ongoing data collection, negotiation, and in-depth

discussions. After losing one female, gifted student of interest because her family was

not comfortable providing consent, I ended up identifying three boys, "JJK," based on a

constellation of factors, These include my observations and analysis of teacher talk

about and interaction with students; focus interview data I had collected on how former

and current teachers situated each student's school performances; individual interviews

with ten students in the classroom; and my own personal observations of classroom

behavior, academic performance, and peer interaction.









In this selection process I had to honor two competing tensions within myself. One

was my commitment as a critical action researcher to democratic inquiry. This meant

that the voices and personal agendas of the educators must have a primary role in the

children chosen, especially as they expected me to take some responsibility for the

academic performance of target students. For example, the principal wanted me to

focus on students who were "below grade level" in reading, according to the

assessment tools in place at the time, as she expected my work as a PDS partner to

directly support the school improvement plan. My other commitment was to the special

issues associated with the learning and growth of the prospective teachers I was

supervising. In this role I wanted to have the ability to select students who posed the

most unique challenges for the interns. Then I could make a plan to support the

development of efficacious novice teachers who could effectively respond to all learners

in this specific classroom context.

I felt I could formally include these three students in the study and continue to

effectively fulfill the many other responsibilities I had in the classroom. Teachers did not

consistently agree on the same student candidates, although individual

recommendations almost always included at least two of the three students that ended

up participating. I did three things to lead to a final decision due to the fact that there

was not perfect agreement among the adult stakeholders. First, I looked at the total of

six students ultimately recommended. I then allowed my own subjectivity as a

supervisor to guide me. I narrowed the number of students to those my data led me to

believe were the most socially and academically marginalized by both adults and

children during instructional time, lunch, and recess. These were the children who, from









my point of view, were not able to fulfill their full learning and social potentials, as a

result. My ability to make this final judgment was only possible because of the relatively

privileged distance I was able to maintain in the classroom as I was free from the

endless layers of responsibilities and decision-making complexities facing the

classroom teacher and the interns.

Choosing these three students allowed me to include students I believed would be

most challenging for the interns to teach without coaching. Second, I had to make sure

at least one student demonstrated strong verbal skills, even though these "skills" were

not readily defined or appreciated by teachers in the same way they were by me! I

expected that these verbal skills would enable him to scaffold his peers in developing

their voices. I hoped that this student would be pivotal in brokering a common, inquiry-

oriented language and approach to looking at the art of teaching and learning, and that

he would help us blend our adult and pre-adolescent perspectives and languages.

Finally, once I had established J, J, and K as the final candidates for participation, I

offered the fourth-grade team and the principal one more opportunity to argue for a

different trio. In the end, the faculty involved in the project expressed wholehearted

agreement with the students chosen, although they also expressed their feelings of

worry that they had not advocated strongly for a girl to be included. This was a concern

I shared, as well, and I assured the teachers I would include girls in the process of

collaborative supervision and inquiry, which I ultimately did.

The Participants

Marking the boundary between people who were considered participants in this

study and those who were not was a difficult feat. Many adults and children associated

with this classroom signed informed consent forms and actively engaged in designing









and navigating the study, as well as in the ongoing generation and interpretation of

data. However, over time there became two rather distinct circles of participants.

Those most intimately involved in the project included those who became the "inner

circle" of our community of practice. Surrounding this inner circle was an "embracing

circle" of educators and fourth-grade students who supported, acknowledged, consulted

with us, and provided an invaluable critical examination of our work over time. For this

reason it is not accurate to say that they were not members of our COP. However, for

purposes of this study, I defined the COP as the six of us who met most regularly over

the course of the semester for the explicit purpose of promoting the professional

development of our two interns.

The Inner Circle: Our Community of Practice

The six members that came to be our COP included three fourth-grade boys,

"JJK," two interns placed in the classroom as co-teachers, and myself. Due to the

parameters of confidentiality, I will not present individual profiles of each of the three

boys. As a group, however, they had all grown up in this rural community, and had

older brothers, sisters, and cousins who had attended Yearling Elementary before them.

They were of both African- and European-American ancestry, and each represented a

different location on the school label continuum of "disability" and "non-disability." All

three of them were passionate about being outdoors or in the woods, where they could

engage in activities popular in rural north Florida, including football, four-wheeling,

hunting, and fishing. JJK gradually assumed variable and complex roles in the

classroom as a result of being in our COP. They were consultants in supervision, co-

inquirers into effective classroom instruction and learning, co-designers of curriculum,









fourth-grade learners, and valuable data sources for both prospective and veteran

teachers, including myself.

Our two interns, Ms. E and Ms. B, were in the final semester of their senior year

at the university. Both were from affluent coastal Florida communities. They were

bright, articulate and passionate about their emerging roles and responsibilities as

teachers. As interns they were required to develop and demonstrate proficiency in co-

teaching, and needed considerable coaching and support in order to successfully meet

this goal. After an in-depth examination of their visions for teaching, we came to

understand that their struggles with co-teaching stemmed from having diametrically

opposed pedagogical and political orientations. This posed an interesting dilemma for

our work in the COP, and ultimately became a rich source for dialogue, negotiation, and

the critical examination of our tensions and practices.

The Embracing Circle: Our Support Team

Our support team included Ms. S, our classroom teacher and mentor to the

interns, and the fourth-grade teaching team. We also had the participation of the

principal, teachers who had taught JJK in the past, as well as Ms. S's sixteen other

fourth-grade students. Ms. S was a fifth-year teacher who had transitioned into the

profession from the business world. She was the team leader for the fourth grade which

included four classrooms and five teachers. They had their own separate building on

campus. All four of these classrooms included students with disabilities and were co-

taught and supported by a special education teacher who shared her time among the

four classrooms. Our principal, a savvy instructional leader, worked directly with us to

help position this study within the normal school routine and educational agenda. She

was also an invaluable, ongoing resource for understanding the historical careers of the









students who participated in this study, and for helping to link the PAR to the school

improvement plan.

Ms. S's classroom of nineteen students represented a heterogeneous group of

general, special, and gifted education students. However, Ms. S's students mixed with

the rest of the fourth grade students for reading instruction, which was grouped by

ability for this portion of the day. Seven of Ms. S's students were considered to be

African- American, eleven were of European-American ancestry, and one student with

an East Indian background had recently moved from the Caribbean. English was the

first language of all the students.

The most emphasized aspect of the curriculum in the classroom was writing.

This was because the first high-stakes writing test in the state of Florida is in fourth

grade. Ms. S's students expressed pride in their work in writing, especially because

their teacher was a teacher leader in the district for supporting writing instruction.

The Many "l's:" My Situational Subjectivities

As this study was embedded in my normal professional and social world, it is

important to understand the complexity of my role as a participant-observer. Different

times and situations demanded multiple subjectivities, or "I's"(Peshkin, 1988) from me.

These "I's" had to be systematically acknowledged as they directly impacted the data

collection and analysis process over time. I experienced these many "I's" as different

identities which allowed me to shift my positions as needed. In naming them publicly I

could alert participants, including myself, as to which hat I was wearing at a given time.

These included: Co-Inquirer with our PDS's twelve interns, University Supervisor, Ms. B

and Ms. E's Teacher and Coach, Middle School Teacher, PDS Partner brokering









standards for teacher preparation within the context of this school's improvement goals,

Change Agent, Peer Co-Teacher, and, finally, a pregnant, first time Mother-to-Be.

Enacting multiple roles and identities is common practice for me as a university

partner in the PDS. However, adding the formal role of "researcher" into the mix initially

posed a challenge for me. It became easier to manage my researcher role when I

incorporated it into my normal identity as "Co-Inquirer" with my interns in the PDS. My

Co-Inquirer role became the primary framework I used for organizing all of the other

roles and responsibilities I had in the classroom and in the school. Being my interns'

Co-Inquirer allowed me enormous flexibility because I could invoke and act upon my

other identities, depending on the context. For example, as a Co-Inquirer my interns

might ask me to collect data on how a particular portion of a lesson was effective for a

certain group of students. If this request was made during a formal observation, I could

easily collect the data for them as their Supervisor by sitting at that group's table and

taking a "close up picture" of an aspect of learning going on there. If this request was

made during a non-observed lesson, I could quickly become their Co-Teaching Peer

and collect the data while being assigned instructional responsibility for that group.

I cultivate this Co-Inquirer identity in my relationship with my interns in the PDS in

order to be able to explicitly model the inquiry process through my own work, and to

demonstrate inquiry as a lifelong stance for all teachers (including myself). This allows

me to blend my supervisory responsibilities with the teaching and learning tasks

associated with the interns' seminar with me, as well as with the other courses

associated with their internship. As my interns' Co-Inquirer, I can also directly serve

their needs by becoming a data collection source for their own inquiries into teaching









and learning in the classroom. I do this to help them develop a lifelong collaborative

stance to inquiry, in which I "work myself out of a job" later by being replaced, or at least

joined, by other colleagues, including their mentor teachers.

As a Co-Inquirer I am able to use my relatively more powerful position as a

Supervisor to elevate and endorse a passion and sense of ongoing "wondering" (Dana

& Yendol-Silva, 2003) into the relationship and into the classroom culture. This makes

my work with interns more dialogic, data-driven rather than emotional or judgmental,

and safe for exploration and experimentation. It allows prospective teachers, mentors,

and students to witness first-hand as I wrestle with my own felt difficulties (Dana &

Yendol-Silva, 2003), which includes the naming and studying of my own dilemmas of

practice. As this inquiry stance gets increasingly more normalized in the classroom

community, it often becomes the impetus for teachers, children, interns and I to

interrogate school practices that diminish equity. This happened in this case, as well,

and allowed me to activate my identity as a Change Agent, another subjectivity that had

to be examined during the course of the research process.

As the interns' Supervisor, I could carry out my responsibility for creating a

learning context for interns that would offer the most access to the goals associated with

the internship, as defined by the university, standards of professional associations, the

state's department of education, and the needs of the students in the PDS. I was also

responsible for coaching and then collecting the evidence of mastery of these learning

goals through a formal observation system, and providing opportunities for remediation

when needed. My identity as "Ms. B and Ms. E's Teacher" was very closely aligned

with that of being their Supervisor. However, this subjectivity had a subtle difference in









that it captured more accurately how the students and mentor teacher made sense of

my role in the classroom. They knew I taught the interns in a separate seminar each

week, and they knew that we were incorporating some of our assignments in the

classroom. The students expressed great enthusiasm for seeing Ms. B and Ms. E's

Teacher with them in the classroom, as well as hearing that their academic performance

as a class had a direct role in helping their interns "get an A in their class."

Again, bringing out this subjectivity as Ms. B and Ms. E's Teacher within my own

work as a researcher and in my day-to-day work in the classroom contributed to a

culture whereby all participants were positioned and encouraged as ongoing learners. I

was no exception. The way we made sense of my stance as a learner came out in my

role as Co-Inquirer, as well as in my self-identification as a "Middle School Teacher."

Naming myself as a Teacher, and frequently drawing from over a decade of history as a

teacher in their district, allowed me to relate with my Yearling Elementary colleagues

and equalize our aims, statuses, and local concerns. Naming myself as a Middle

School Teacher helped me amplify my identity as a learner within this group of

experienced elementary school teaching professionals, a group I was genuinely in awe

of. It helped to insulate me from assumptions people had about me as "someone from

the university." It was common for me to ask teachers and students to help me

understand something happening in a lesson, or to explain to me what the social worlds

of fourth graders were all about, by reminding them that "I was only a middle school

teacher." While I did recognize, embrace, and act upon my own pedagogical expertise

in the classroom, I was sensitive to the contextual dependency of my skill set. I had no

illusions that my skills held any great currency in the teaching of fourth grade, especially









as I had not been in the classroom for two years, and because I had taught a content

area in middle school that was not assessed by high stakes testing.

As a PDS Partner the way I conducted, interpreted, and acted upon research

mattered. This role colored my subjectivities in a very real sense as I was trying to

accomplish many things with the work I was doing. Ultimately it turned my focus and

interpretative lens toward some aspects of the unfolding process of this PAR, and away

from others. My work had to serve my constituents, which included the college, the

school, and the greater PDS research and practice community at large. Serving them, I

limited my focus to two formal concerns shared by these groups, including how PDS

work could impact achievement and equity. This meant that I ignored, and likely did not

even recognize, many other worthy stories that could have been told.

Finally, at the time I was engaged in this study, I was in the first two trimesters of

an unpleasant pregnancy that diminished my sense of professional efficacy in every

way. On the other hand, it also contributed immediately to humanizing my presence in

the classroom as I had to excuse myself often to the restroom, or sit down and take a

breath. Most of all, it was the most critical factor in forging a bond between Ms. S and

me. We spent most of our time talking about pregnancy and what I should expect as a

new mother, and I highly valued her mentorship and support during this time. Being

pregnant helped me feel more a part of the "tribe of teachers" for the first time in my life.

This was because I could now engage and connect with teacher conversations about

pregnancy, birth, and child-rearing topics that naturally wove in and out of daily

conversations about teaching, learning and schooling.









Freedoms and Limitations

Because this study was framed as a Participatory Action Research (PAR)

endeavor, several limitations are posed for the greater research community. PAR

positions the participants of the study, including the anchoring researcher, in ways that

make their political agendas and subjectivities inseparable from the interpretations of

the study's outcomes. Also, action and change are central in PAR. This means that

while researchers study and name phenomena, they are simultaneously and

deliberately influencing social change. This makes the focus and the findings of PAR

an ever-moving target. Finally, the findings from a PAR are highly tied to context, so

they may or may not be easily generalized.

These very same limitations, however, are also what offer the delimitations of this

study. In a PAR researchers can embrace their subjectivities as an integral component

of the research context and allow them to be embedded in the conclusions drawn from

the study. It can be argued that this embrace of subjectivities allows the researcher to

deepen her effectiveness as a participant observer as she is then freed up to bring "all

of herself' into the social agenda setting, the naming of phenomena, and the generation

of solutions. Finally, while the findings from this study may not be reproducible, they

were beneficial to both the immediate and surrounding participants, particularly in

regard to shaping a more equitable educational experience for children. In this way this

study created conditions that emancipated participants in ways that may not have been

otherwise possible.

Other freedoms and limitations inherent to this study deserve a closer look, and

were primarily due to the unique problems and opportunities that presented themselves

by my relationships and positionalities with different participants. First I will discuss









freedoms that these relationships provided. Then I will examine some of the limitations

that relationships presented.

Freedoms

In order to understand how I positioned myself as a participant-observer in this

experience, it is important to highlight my historical relationships with the faculty at this

school. Beyond the university-based relationship with the faculty that I had forged over

time within the PDS partnership, several of my relationships at the school went even

further back. These were woven within prior professional experiences when I had been

a teacher in the community. In addition, some of the newer faculty had been directly

under my university supervision as prospective teachers in other schools. Some were

currently students with me in graduate school, and some were teachers I had taught

alongside years ago in the middle school setting. This included the principal. Not only

had she and I taught together thirteen years before, we also shared the unique

struggles of completing our doctoral programs together while working as full-time

educators. This experience provided a unique bond between us in both the school and

university setting.

For faculty for whom I was "new," these historical relationships served to quickly

position me as part of the school community in ways that may not have been otherwise

possible. For example, in introductory conversations with new teachers, the principal

and other teachers often mentioned that we had taught together, or that we were

students together at the university. I was often referred to by these people first as their

"friend" or "co-worker," rather than the "PDS field advisor." Other key university-based

partners with the school often expressed to me that my historical relationships granted









me social and political access to particularly strategic members of the faculty that they

could not achieve.

Limitations

However, my direct history with some of the faculty, and particularly with the

principal, may have actually hindered my efforts to shape this study as a Participatory

Action Research endeavor. My goal was to share power with stakeholders, such as the

fourth-grade students, the interns, and Ms. S, to determine core questions and to plan

actions taken during the study. However, I worried that my friendship with the principal,

for example, may have inhibited the level of voluntary informed consent that participants

actually experienced. I already knew that educational researchers, regardless of

gender, are historically positioned as having a higher social status than those whom

they study (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1993) and that this issue would be an ongoing

tension I would have to deal with. Not being completely sure how "voluntarily" the

adults and pre-adolescents participated in the study worried me at times, especially as

the goal of a PAR is to diminish oppressive power relations.

I believe I was somewhat successful in addressing and negotiating power with

JJK and the interns, even though I was a true gatekeeper and authority figure for all of

them, to varying degrees. I was also mindful of feminist concerns involving the

possibility of making them objects of knowledge (Eder& Fingerson, 2003). To reduce

these concerns I was careful to use strategies such as self-disclosure, reciprocity, group

interviews, democratizing the research process, using the ideas and specific words of

participants in meaning-making, and embedding the research context within the natural

context (Eder & Fingerson, 2003). Finally, both the interns and the three boys had other

professionals in the building or at the university who frequently checked in with them to









be sure they continued to feel comfortable with their participation in the study.

However, I had a much more difficult time feeling at ease with my researcher's role in

relation to Ms. S. Specifically, I worried about coercion and inadvertently violating Ms.

S's personal sense of boundaries as the classroom teacher. Ms. S had to share her

classroom and instructional decisions with several other professionals throughout the

school day, and I was sensitive about my being yet one more adult asking for a stake in

classroom affairs. Ms. S was beginning her second year at Yearling Elementary, and

she was new to the PDS concept and how it reorganized the traditional roles and

responsibilities in the school. She often commented to her interns that she had never

experienced the supervision process the way she was seeing it unfold at this school.

For example, she was not used to the university supervisor being in the classroom

above and beyond times of formal observations of intern lessons. Nor had she been

introduced to the idea of the university supervisor building relationships with students or

helping out in the teaching.

I worried that she may have felt compelled to consent to this study only because

she thought I was friends with the principal and did not feel she could say no. Because

of the intense demands on Ms. S's time and energy as a fourth-grade teacher trying to

prepare her students for a high stakes test, there was little room for discussing these

unspoken tensions. My hypersensitivity with not stealing Ms. S's valuable time may

have ultimately ended up becoming a barrier to the potential power that Ms. S could

have experienced in this PAR. For example, I did not always get to speak directly to her

about my ideas, or about the thinking behind my actions. Instead, I had to rely on other

methods for communication, such as mentor teacher meetings, or think-alouds with the









interns during instruction, and personal emails to communicate to Ms. S the reasons

behind my actions and plans, and to encourage her to define her own.

Over time Ms. S did appear to trust me more. This happened after two critical

points in our relationship. First, at the beginning of the study she was able to articulate

her boundaries with me. For example, she asked that I only come to the classroom

when the interns were present. Her being able to tell me this was an important

accomplishment because it gave me a chance to show my deference to her authority.

The second critical juncture in the relationship came with my announcing my pregnancy

to her. The pregnancy became a touchstone of commonality that we could talk about

over time. As a mother of two, she told me stories and provided invaluable wisdom and

guidance as I embarked on the journey of becoming a first time mother. By the end of

my time in her classroom we were able to share with one another deeply personal and

even painful experiences regarding pregnancies and children. However, Ms. S

remained quite peripheral to the community of practice that developed among the

interns, JJK, and me. This limited our ability to influence the classroom culture as

significantly as we may have. In turn, this may have reduced the power that the COP

had on impacting the performance and identities of JJK.

Ultimately, the greatest limitation to this study was that it can never be defined as

more than an exploratory PAR. This is for several reasons, some of which have just

been mentioned. First, my role as the site coordinator at the school meant that my

power with interns, children, and even with faculty, was real. Second, children were not

granted access to the initial agenda-setting and design stage of this PAR. Over time,

however, this changed as children went from peripheral to highly active participants and









designers of the research process. However, to demand that teachers and children in

this rural school step too far beyond their comfort zones of traditional school roles and

practices with a high stakes writing test looming would have been unethical and

irresponsible of me. Even more importantly, at that particular time, it would also have

dishonored the context-specific goals of the PDS partnership, itself, of which I was

responsible. Ultimately, the democratic commitment embedded in this PAR was treated

as an unfolding process, rather than as an assumption. Through more cycles of

exploratory PAR at this PDS, the democratic participation of children and their

educators is highly likely to increase as they garner more stamina for risk-taking while

meeting their regular demands.

Research Methods

In this section I will provide a description and rationale for the use of participant

observation to address the research question, and why I worked as an ethnographer

with a feminist lens. Next, I will outline the data collection methods chosen and the

rationale for each one, focusing on the three stages of data collection that occurred.

Finally, I will discuss how data were analyzed and interpreted. I will note, however, that

in order to create the highly dynamic and flexible conditions needed for PAR, there

could be little standardization for methodology or implementation (Creswell, 2008). As

Maykut and Morehouse (1994, p. 123) articulate, "(C)oncomitant action on the part of

the researcher allows the research design to emerge over time, suggesting the direction

for subsequent data collection efforts." That being said, data collection did follow a

planned sequence and framework, driven by the central questions I had at each stage

of the project. Data analysis, on the other hand, emerged in response to the data I was

able to collect as events and unanticipated opportunities unfolded.









Participant Observation

In this study I investigated how student identities were co-constructed through a

COP devoted to collaborating in the supervision of two prospective teachers. The

shared questions of our COP were: "How can ie 'make'better teachers?", and

specifically, "Howcan we help Ms. B and Ms. E teach all students in an equitable way?"

In order to foster the most optimal conditions for data collection in this endeavor, I had

to continue deepening my role as a participant-observer in the PDS. In doing so I would

be able to enhance the intersubjective knowledge co-created between myself, as a

researcher, and the participants with whom I was inquiring (Stacey, 1991), in a way that

would get at issues of equity in the classroom.

Participant observation is used by researchers who partake in the daily lives of

communities so that they can get closer to both explicit and tacit meanings constructed

within a group, and so that they can systematically record and analyze information

gained from observing and participating in the communities in which they work (DeWalt

& Dewalt, 2002). Participant observation was appropriate in this research context

because I was already a key player and an"insider" in the PDS community. Participant

observation allowed me to increase the quality of the data collected, the interpretation of

that data, and the formulation of new research questions (DeWalt & DeWalt, 2002),

some of which will be shared in the final chapter. Through participant observation,

findings are potentially richer than those gathered by methods that do not situate the

researcher within the research. This is because data are contextualized in ways that

would be nearly impossible, otherwise. Ongoing analysis also has potentially more

power with participant observation. For example, in this study ongoing data collection

and analysis in the field provided many insights into what was important to participants,









including the specialized ways that children, young prospective teachers, and seasoned

educators used language in different ways and for different purposes. This allowed me

to craft highly contextualized interview questions, collect the most luminous artifacts,

and better interpret these data relative to my day-to-day experience within the

classroom community (DeWalt & DeWalt, 2002; Glesne, 1999).

Feminist ethnographic field methods were used in this PAR for three reasons.

First, I needed to spend prolonged time in the field to get at the everyday life of

participants. Second, the focus of the research was identity, and third, I knew that my

findings would need to be told in narrative form (Creswell, 1998). As a participant

observer I collected data on participants' behaviors, words, use of symbols, space, and

time, and their interactions. This was done through observations, different forms of

interviews, and artifacts. What made the ethnographic field methods "feminist" is

contestable but I make this argument for three reasons, supported by Buch and Staller

(2007) and Crotty (1998). First, I came to the research question with the intention of

carving out a space for the voices and decisions of women and children (who are within

the realm of women's work), an agenda that I publicly espouse as a stakeholder in the

PDS. Second, my theoretical lens emphasized the relationship between women,

children, and the powerful political forces that act upon them from outside of the

classroom. Finally, in the process of data analysis I was paying specific attention to how

the current No Child Left Behind political agenda pushes teachers, and subsequently

their students, into institutional practices and belief systems that sort children into

narrow, and fairly fixed categories of "winners" and "losers," a practice done without the

active consent of children (and many of their teachers), and that while increasingly









difficult to challenge over time, has real life consequences. In applying a critical action

component in this research, I was continuing a quiet revolution for children, and the

women who educate them, by recognizing that we can learn how to give or reject

consent for the identities and labels that institutions mark us with, and find creative ways

to stretch, reshape, and even disrupt them.

Data Collection Methods

Lykes and Coquillon (2007) write that we are looking for an "approximation of

understanding" (p. 298) when approaching a research question through a participatory,

feminist theoretical perspective, an approximation that resides at the nexus where

feminisms, participation, and action come together. Therefore it is important to select

data collection methods that honor and capture the many different ways of "being and

doing in the world" (Lykes & Coquillon, 2007, p. 301). This meant I needed to find data

sources that considered multiple perspectives and ways of communicating for individual

adults and children, as well as those co-researchers who helped us build meaning

together (Wahab, 2003).

Ultimately, methods were chosen based on how appropriate they were for

recognizing and capturing the problem and phenomenon of focus, as well as how they

facilitated co-discovery (Lykes & Coquillon, 2007). A constellation of different data

collection methods were used to shed light on the relationship between student

collaboration in the supervision of teacher candidates and student identity and school

performances. These included observational field notes and the collection of a wide

range of artifacts which were generated and gathered during semi-structured

conversations occurring both in and outside of the classroom. Semi-structured individual

and focus interviews were also employed.









The decision to use these data forms was based on two reasons. First, because

I would be involved with this classroom for an extended period of time, it was important

to locate methods that were powerful enough to answer the research question but as

unobtrusive as possible to maintain the regular classroom routine. Second, methods

had to be "user-friendly" enough to manage while participants and I simultaneously met

the demands of our other work responsibilities. Observations, interviews, and artifacts

are data forms that are readily accessible and can be incorporated into the structure of

a school day. They are also the collection methods modeled for teachers and

candidates in the PDS as they learn to engage in inquiry. Therefore, these collection

methods had an additional teaching function in our PDS.

Observations

Observations were conducted during semi-structured conversations with

educator participants, such as the third- and fourth-grade teachers, the principal, and

the interns. In every case I recorded field notes, and in many cases these

conversations were also audio-taped to aid my memory. This was especially important

because these conversations often included three or more educators speaking together.

The goal of recording these conversations was to capture critical incidents (Stringer,

2007), or moments where educators used key words, phrases, or labels to describe

"what kind of student (and/or person)" (Gee, 2000, p. 99) students were, and how they

defined their school performances. In my data analysis these words later came to be

called "markers" of student identity.

Observations of students were also conducted during regular school activities,

and during semi-structured conversations, in order to better understand how JJK

enacted school identities while participating in collaborative supervision with me. Again,









learning within communities of practice is embedded in the very process of being active

in the everyday practices of that community (Wenger, 1998). Therefore, it was

important to capture what participants did while they worked out their identities as

collaborators in the supervision of prospective teachers. This led me to the extensive

recording of observations through field notes. Field notes offered a wider cross section

of data than interviews and audio recordings could do alone. This is because

interviews and audiotape, while highly valuable, only capture "snapshots" of subjective

meaning (Emerson, Fretz & Shaw, 1995). In addition, observations were indispensable

because I needed to document shifts in JJK's enactments of identity that occurred

within the interactions they had wth one another. I also found it difficult to structure

interview questions in a way that would lead to how JJK defined their school identities.

While it was both important to use methods that captured how they talked about their

school identities, I put my focus on how JJK "did" their identities (Moje, 2004a; Moje &

Luke, 2009). This required a great deal of observation of their social interactions in the

classroom context, including words they used, behaviors they exhibited, and tools and

symbols they used.

In order to capture enactments of identity in relationship with one another, I

needed to use field notes to record "critical incidents" enacted by JJK (see excerpt of

field notes in Appendix A). In the analysis of these data, critical incidents were later

labeled as "moves." Appendix B provides an excerpt of how field notes were analyzed

for critical incidents. For JJK "moves" were behaviors, words, or the use or creation of

artifacts or symbols that provided evidence of discourse practices that challenged their

previously defined institutional, school identities. For example, if J, J, or K offered









feedback or ideas for the teaching and learning process, this was recorded as a single

discourse move because it indicated how this student was "moving" from a previous

classroom identity not associated with leadership and on to ward repositioning himself in

the classroom as a teacher leader. Sometimes moves were marked as more significant

than others. In the previous example, had this student's feedback been solicited by an

adult, it was marked as a regular move. If the feedback was offered without a cue or

prompt, it was marked as a "more important move." This is because the move was

interpreted as more spontaneous. It would have indicated that the student was

independently generalizing this new aspect of his identity, and making his own judgment

as to when and where it was appropriate to enact it. As such, we believed that it was

"more important" because it likely expressed an increased ease or fluency with this part

of his emerging identity.

All field notes were recorded in three stages. First, "jot notes," (DeWalt &

DeWalt, 2002; Emerson, Fretz & Shaw, 1995), or anecdotal notes of moves and

contextualizing information were recorded. These notes were taken during semi-

structured conversations and observations during classroom-related activities. These

later aided my memory of specific events, behaviors, and keywords or phrases in

conversations that occurred as they related to my research question (Stringer, 2007). I

consciously tried to use the "verbatim principle," or the use of participants' own ways of

talking and labeling categories or ideas (Stringer, 2007). After leaving the classroom I

expanded these jot notes to include a record of the events as they occurred (Emerson,

Fretz & Shaw, 1995; Spradley, 1979), including details about the people, places, acts,

activities, events, objects used, purposes, timing and sequencing, and emotions in









which these events took place. Finally, these jot notes were expanded further into

"meta-notes" that focused on my interpretations and inferences about the observed

events relative to my research question (DeWalt & DeWalt, 2004; Emerson, Fretz &

Shaw, 1995), including the role my contextual subjectivities had in these interpretations.

Semi-structured interviews and focus groups

Adults participated in recorded, semi-structured focus groups with me at the

beginning and at the end of the four-month research period. At the beginning of the

school year teachers were asked to share what they thought I needed to know about

each of Ms. S's nineteen students. At the end of the project teachers were asked "what

next year's middle school teachers needed to know about JJK as incoming 5th graders."

These major interviews acted like "book ends" that contributed to making sense of JJK's

institutional identities at the beginning, and then at the end of the study.

Semi-structured interviews and focus groups were also used with student

participants at the beginning and ending points of the PAR in order to allow them to

reflect on their lives and to share stories that might help me build a picture of their self-

defined identities. These were recorded and transcribed. Interviews were designed to

help bring out student voices regarding "what kind of people and students they were,"

and to learn more about what was important to them in ways I might not have been able

to capture otherwise (Eder & Fingerson, 2003). In addition, since the first interview

occurred before students began collaborating with me in supervision, I was able to

gauge the kinds of discourses and communicative rules that they used (Eder &

Fingerson, 2003). This helped me to better craft our semi-structured conversations that

occurred later because I could start hybridizing their vocabulary and values with the

formal discourses associated with teacher education and supervision. For example,









JJK identified early on in the study the need for teachers to make learning "fun," a word

I used initially in our COP. Later, I consciously code-switched by replacing this word

with "engaging" when I spoke. JJK later appropriated this term, as well, into their

spoken and written language.

Document collection

Finally, the ongoing collection of artifacts was central in capturing moves and key

language that were recorded in field notes and in interviews, as well as to provide ways

for participants to express themselves that were otherwise not available (Mason, 1996).

Artifacts included those gathered from discussions and COP-related activities, such as

graphic representations by students and teachers, lesson materials, journals kept by the

interns, student grades, handwritten notes, emails, work samples, and formal

supervision data collected during observations of prospective teachers.

In this study artifacts were not just powerful data sources for documenting

student identity. Their symbolic use also shaped our identities as members of the COP

(McCulloch, 2004). For example, the fact that JJK knew I saved all of their hand written

notes about their teaching ideas, or the data they collected during observations, helped

them understand how central their roles were in my job as a teacher educator.

Therefore, their production of these artifacts marked their special status in the

classroom. The artifacts they designed and/or used became vital to shaping a new

layer of their school identity in the classroom. They provided evidence of how these

students not only situated themselves as classroom leaders but how they acted upon

this identity, and how they were recognized as such by others.









Data Analysis

The overall goal for analysis was to investigate the relationship between JJK's

collaboration in the supervision of the prospective teachers in their classroom, and how

their school identities and interpretations of their performances were co-constructed

over time. Data analysis occurred in an ongoing, recursive manner and was framed by

the overarching goals for each stage of data collection. In Stage 1 the goal was to gain

the general "landscape" of institutional identities that Ms. S's students represented, and

then to situate JJK's institutional identities within this schema. In Stage 2 the goal was

to document and explain the changes in JJK's discourse-identities (Gee, 2000)

throughout the work we did together in the COP. In Stage 3, I looked again at how

JJK's institutional identities were defined by adults to see if there was any change in this

layer of how they were defined in school. These stages will be explained in more detail

in the following sections.

Stage 1: Situating JJK's school identities within the landscape of fourth-grade

Stage 1 was accomplished by going through transcriptions of focus group

interviews and field notes in order to create a master inventory of "markers," or words

used to identify "kinds of students in school." Appendix C is an excerpt of how field

notes were organized that captured data about students in teacher conversations, and

Appendix D provides the complete list of markers distilled from those interviews and

observations of teacher conversations. In this way I used focused analytic coding by

looking line-by-line for ideas and themes that were framed by my question, "What kinds

of students do we have in Ms. S's classroom (Emerson, Fretz& Shaw, 1995)?" I also

kept track of markers used by individuals to see if certain role players focused on

different aspects of school identity. Markers used by teachers included examples such









as "bright," "struggling reader," or "totally unfocused." Markers used by students

included examples like "bad student," "patrol student," or "smart." While coding all of

these markers, I "memoed" as I went along, allowing categories to distill. For example, I

clustered the markers of "bright" and "being tested for gifted" under the category of

Intelligence. Next, I did a frequency count of the number of markers in each category.

The numbers allowed me to make judgments about the robustness of each category.

The strength of each category became especially important later in defining the two

overarching cultural models (Gee, 2002) of school identities that almost immediately

began emerging from the data. One of these models captured school identity

associated with school success ("School Successful") and one captured identity

associated with school failure ("Not School Successful"). Each of these cultural models

held some categories that the other did not, or emphasized some categories more than

the other did (see Appendix E).

Next I worked to sort each of Ms. S's students by identifying who was considered

to be "School Successful," and who was "Not School Successful." I thought that this

might help me better situate JJK's school identities, as well as how they were positioned

and assigned power within the classroom community. I accomplished this by examining

each separate marker assigned to individual students within the context of teacher talk.

This was important to do as some markers could indicate either school success or

school failure, depending on how they were used. For example, the marker of "quiet"

could be used to indicate a successful school identity (as in "well-behaved") or an

identity associated with school failure (as in "withdrawn").









I then used the same data set to create a portrait of JJK's combined institutional

identity. In creating this composite I drew from all of the markers that emerged from

transcriptions of focus group conversations with teachers, observations of teacher

conversations, artifacts produced from these interactions, and semi-structured

interviews with students. I then sorted the total of 61 markers assigned to JJK that I

retrieved from the first four weeks of school into the categories educators used to define

school identities. Finally, I wanted to know how JJK situated themselves at the

beginning of the school year, particularly in relation to the schema of adult- and student-

defined school identities. After collecting interview data from each of the boys, and

recording field notes about the words they used to describe "what kind of person I am," I

built a picture of the kinds of markers they used to describe themselves. I then sorted

these markers into categories of "Successful" and "Not Successful" cultural models, as

defined by the analysis process described above. At this point I had a picture of JJK's

institutional identities, as defined by themselves and by others, at the beginning of their

fourth grade school year. While most of this institutional identity was created from adult-

generated markers, I was able to substantiate this model by cultural models built from

markers gathered from students, including JJK (see Appendix F). Later I would be able

to create a new portrait of their institutional, school identities at the mid-point of their

fourth-grade year and make comparisons between the two.

Stage 2: Documenting JJK's community of practice (COP) journey and changing
identities

Stage 2 of data collection marked the middle to late period of the study in which

our community of practice (COP) was inaction. There were three goals for analyzing

data collected from Stage 2. The first was to locate, name, and describe the critical









junctures that occurred over time and defined the path that our COP ultimately took.

Critical junctures were those distinct events that marked our special mission for and our

membership in the COP. These events defined us as a team of six people, both from

our own perspectives, as well as from those who were more peripheral to the group.

Each critical juncture that happened through time fortified our sense of belonging to and

responsibility for one another, and even enhanced a sense of privilege associated with

our work that I believe was perceived by our supporting team of students and teachers,

as well. Examples of critical junctures include the six of us sitting at lunch together to

talk through our plans and ideas for the next lesson, or working as a team during a

formal observation of the interns to collect data and accomplish shared goals, such as

differentiating instruction so that students had more ways to express their learning.

Critical junctures were only those events that were carried out by all six members of our

"inner circle," regard less of how many other teachers or students were weaving in and

out of the COP at different times.

The second goal for Stage 2 of the analysis was to document how JJK's

discourse identities (Gee, 2000) were enacted throughout these critical junctures. After

creating a chronological inventory of all of JJK's moves, categorizing them, and then

interpreting the meaning of each of these moves (see data analysis excerpts in

Appendices B and L), I synthesized a new composite of JJK by creating a storyline that

represented how I made sense of their change in discourse identities. In doing so I

allowed myself, as the researcher, to borrow methods from narrative inquiry (Chase,

2005) and claim my role in the study as a storyteller (Connelly and Clandinin, 1990).

The grand narrative I wrote, capturing JJK's shift in identity, helped me make sense of









the many different pieces of evidence that I had collected across time and from multiple

data sources. Putting the analysis into story form also helped me translate my findings

in a way that would help participants better understand. This was especially important

for member-checki ng purposes. Finally, the last goal of analysis for Stage 2 was to

make sense of the moves I made throughout the critical junctures. I wanted to build a

picture of what it meant to be an active agent who includes students in the supervision

of interns for the purpose of establishing more equity in the classroom. I did this by

collecting all of my moves, putting them in sequential order, and then thematically

analyzing them based on the motives I had for each action I took (see sample of a

Critical Juncture #2 in Appendix G). In my researcher's notebook I had been diligent in

tying my behaviors with my subjectivities, making it relatively easy to code them and

allow themes to emerge. Later this analysis would help me understand and become

more conscious of the guiding principles of my work, and how to operationalize these

principles for others.

Stage 3: Situating JJK's school identities at the end of the study

The goal of analyzing data from Stage 3 was exactly the same as that of Stage 1.

The aim was to create a composite of JJK's institutional identities at the end of our work

together as a COP. I then compared the composites of JJK's institutional identities from

Stage 1 with those from Stage 3 to see if there had been a shift in the way adults in the

school defined their school identities and performances over time.

Analyzing Observational Field Notes

My lens for observations and the recording of field notes was very specific to my

needs as both a supervisor and as a critical action researcher. In both cases I actively

sought evidence of change, and especially evidence I believed was indicative of positive









improvements in classroom equity, teaching, and learning. Because my subjectivity as

a change agent was so strong, I needed a method of analysis that would help me gain

some distance from the field notes. For this reason I analyzed field notes with coding

methods borrowed from grounded theory (Stringer, 2007). Social justice researchers

use grounded theory in data analysis in order to anchor agendas for future actions,

policies, or practices. They do this by explicitly pointing out connections between the

"before," the "during," and the "after" processes about which they are theorizing

(Charmaz, 2005). This was especially applicable in light of the three stages of this

PAR. First I defined my "sensitizing concepts" (Jorgensen, 1989), which in this case

were school identity and performances. Then I explored how these sensitizing concepts

played out in light of the deliberate "action" of collaborating with students in supervision.

Finally, I looked to see if this collaboration had made any change in identities. Thus the

cycle was poised to repeat itself.

However, howthese sensitizing concepts played out in the field had to be

established, or "earned," through the data analysis process (Charmaz, 2005). I did this

by coding each line of my field notes. Initial codes were defined by short episodes of

behaviors and words I had recorded. These codes were later analyzed for frequency

and for those that helped me conceptualize the data. For example, during episodes

where our COP was actively engaged together, I used codes to mark, and later

categorize, the different moves made by COP members. This allowed me to define the

kinds of actions that our COP members took that might explain the change in JJK's

identities. Going even further, I distinguished these moves by how they exemplified

different features of discourses, including ways participants used words, space, time,









tools, and body language to express being a certain "type of person"(Gee, 2002), and/or

to express their positionality in the COP, or in the classroom. I was then able to look

more closely at the discourse moves JJK made over the four-month period of our COP.

I used this sequence of moves to tell a story of JJK's change in school identities over

time. For example, I recorded the body language of the three boys during instructional

episodes over the four-month period. At the beginning of the study, one boy often had

his head down on his desk or had his body and legs facing awayfrom the teachers and

his peers during instruction. In time we interpreted this behavior as one of his few

strategies for maintaining his sense of choice in the classroom. By the middle of the

study, his body was usually oriented toward his teachers or group members during

instruction and he was making full eye contact with the people to whom he was

speaking. These changes in body language, alone, do not explain his change in school

identity over time. However, this small piece of data contributed to an overall picture

built from an inventory of different recorded discourse moves that pointed to a likely

change in how this student was making bids for a new identity and position in the

classroom bids that were driven by choice.

Next, memo writing (Glaser, 1978) helped me build a bridge between coding and

reporting the findings (Charmaz, 2004) as memo writing helped me "to raise (my) codes

to conceptual categories" (Charmaz, 2003, p. 322). Memos allowed me to studythe

data in a new way by helping me take apart initial codes, define them, raise new

questions, evaluate which data communicated more than others, and unlock my

assumptions in the codes and the relationships between them. These new insights

contributed to my emerging theoretical categories and also revealed any gaps in the









data that I might want to go back and fi II in with theoretical sampling (C harmaz, 2004).

For example, it was difficult to capture observations of JJK talking about their changing

identities, although coding revealed many actions they took that suggested the

enactment of new identities. Seeing this gap in the data later helped me create a

protocol for a conversation with JJK that I thought would create an opportunity for them

to better articulate their changing identities with words.

Analyzing Interviews and Focus Groups

During Stages 1 and 3 of this study I built composites to represent my

interpretation of the co-construction of JJK's institutional identities. These

representations came from data collected from JJK, their teachers, and other students.

To build these composites of institutional identity, I privileged data gathered from adult

definitions of JJK's identities and performances, because educators in schools hold

tremendous power over the formal domains of a child's identity. However, I also wanted

to collect data that would include the perspectives of children, because even institutional

identities are socially created and maintained (Gee, 2002). Semi-structured interviews

and focus group sessions, "co-authored" (Kvale, 1996) by children, teachers, and

myself, allowed me to capture inter-subjective conversations about JJK. I had tried

individual interviews with JJK at the beginning of the study but found that interviewing

the boys in isolation from one another failed to produce rich data on how each of the

boys defined his identity. From this point on I made sure to interview groups of students

together to allow them to co-construct meaning by using their relationships and shared

stories as common touchstones.

I used two methods for analyzing transcripts of these conversations, based on

the purpose for which I collected the data. I used grounded theory methods for those









conversations I was using to build taxonomies for institutional identities assigned to

children. For example, in teacher focus groups at the beginning of the study, I

examined the markers and labels used by teachers to define different students, and

then coded and classified them as outlined earlier. On the other hand, the purpose of

recording and transcribing the conversations that occurred within our COP was

different. These conversations were captured in the attempt to find evidence of JJK's

changing discourse identities, guided by the question: What discourse practices do JJK

use that provide evidence of their emerging identities as "teacher leaders?" Therefore, I

needed to not only be able to look at JJK's behaviors and values but how they used

language. Discourse analysis was used to make connections between JJK's language

and their identities.

I did not use discourse analysis for every recorded conversation that occurred

within our COP. After a preliminary analysis of all of the transcripts, I chose two

episodes of conversation because they contained more "building tasks" (Gee, 2002) of

how identities and relationships were being played out within the COP than any other

transcripts. These two conversations came from the final COP meeting between JJK,

the interns and me, and from the final focus group conversation I had with JJK. It

makes sense that these final conversations would manifest considerable evidence of

changed identities and relationships. At this point the COP was as highly evolved as it

was going to be. We had grown more established in our sense of belonging and

purpose, we shared common understandings and an ease with sharing power, and our

work together had come to its most heightened level of sophistication.









I followed Gee's (2002) recommendations for analyzing multiple layers of data in

exactly the same way for each of the two episodes of conversation. As displayed in the

data excerpt in Appendix N, I re-organized the transcripts into lines or "spurts" of

conversation, and then into stanzas, or groups of lines that hung together as a theme or

single topic. Next, I listened again to the recordings and used bold print to mark

stressed words, as well as other intonations. I also wrote my ideas about how I, as a

participant in the conversation, interpreted the different tones that were used, which

included irritation, dominance, submission, and the posing of suggestions versus

directives. These tones helped give me a hint into how each speaker positioned him or

herself in the conversation at a given moment. I also marked who inserted new

information into the conversation as yet another way to gauge how each participant in

the conversation defined his/her positionalities in relation to one another.

Next, I used three of Gee's (2002) eighteen questions that allowed me to focus

on socioculturally-situated identity and relationship building. I used them also to see if

any other themes or questions might converge within the data set. Finally, as themes

emerged, and then began converging together, I was able to organize them into "motif

baskets" (Pace, 2002, personal communication). By doing frequency counts, I was able

to determine which motifs, or themes of meaning, were the most robust in the data. For

example, in the final focus interview with JJK, one salient motif was that of one boy's

"resistance" whenever I made the attempt to position him as an "expert teacher leader,"

or whenever I positioned myself as a student/learner. It was not until after one of his

peers recognized him as a "great writer" that he proceeded to make seventeen

uninterrupted bids (Gee, 2000) for the identity of "expert," or "teacher leader." Discourse


100









analysis allowed me to theorize, in this case, that perhaps pre-adolescents do not

passively accept, or trust, bids by adults to identify them as colleagues in the learning

process, and will only do so once their peers endorse the idea. Finally, while I analyzed

the episodes of conversation, I had to remind myself repeatedly about the reflexivity of

language. For example, what a boy said did not only reflect how he positioned himself

within our relationships but it also simultaneously created how he did so (Gee, 2002).

Analyzing Artifacts

Interviews and observations were critical in building a picture of JJK's school

identity, and in being able to document its change over time. However, I needed

artifacts to help me have examples of how tools and texts were used by the COP

members to redesign JJK's school identities. Artifacts were also used later to cross-

check oral accounts or observations, to illustrate a descriptive account (Atkinson &

Coffey, 2004), and in many cases to offer additional texts for conversational analysis.

For example, emails and notes exchanged between COP members were used as

extensions of our oral conversations, so I applied the framework I used for discourse

analysis to these artifacts, as well. As an example, in handwritten notes passed

between JJK and me during a teaching observation, I analyzed the moves within these

co-constructed texts, included who contributed new information, who accepted bids to

enact a teacher leadership stance, and the kinds of voices JJK used to frame their

ideas, suggestions, and even directives in the supervision process.

Making sense of the documents generated in this study involved strategic

decision making. I knew that no document stood alone, separated from its authors, its

interpreters, and even other documents and contexts (Atkinson & Coffey, 2004).

Therefore the artifacts I collected were closely analyzed in relation to the context, which









included the meaning assigned to them by their designers and/or interpreters. For

example, in one recorded episode an intern spoke to me about one of the student

participants in the study. She expressed great enthusiasm about a writing sample she

had collected from one of the three boys that demonstrated his ability to generalize a

strategy she had taught him in a completely novel way. I not only collected the artifact

but I recorded how she talked about it, the key words she used, and, specifically, how it

captured a critical moment of "school success," from her perspective. Without her

words that contextualized the writing sample, the document would have likely lost its

potential power to illustrate evidence of change in this student's school identity and

performance.

Trustworthiness

Four mechanisms were used to strengthen the integrity of this study. First, there

was an ongoing, embedded system of member checking. Second, triangulation was

built into the data collection plan and the analysis process. Third, I committed to

meticulous record-keeping of the data analysis steps. Finally, there was a constant

attempt to name and "to tame" my subjectivities during all phases of the data collection,

analysis, and writing process (Peshkin, 1988).

Because of the nature of this study as participatory action research, member

checking became a normal and ongoing feature of our work. There were three major

ways that member checking was accomplished. First, I made it a habit to create follow

up questions for JJK over time in order to double check or revise my interpretations of

their ideas and artifacts. This served many purposes beyond member checking. It

allowed JJK yet another opportunity to hear how I translated their ideas into the

professional discourse of supervision. It also gave all of our COP members a chance to









review JJK's ideas and begin the process of putting them into action. Most of all, this

form of member checking emphasized to the COP, as well as to the classroom, that

JJK's ideas were central to the supervisory relationship between the interns and me.

JJK also read, revised, and approved my interpretations of their data collection and

analysis in both informal conversation and in formal observation summaries.

Member checking with the interns and teachers was also in place. First, I asked

teachers to confirm my interpretations of how they defined the performances and

academic standings of J, J, and K. One of the most rewarding mechanisms for member

checking occurred during preparation for a national conference presentation in which

the interns and I planned to share our preliminary findings. This opportunity allowed us

to have a chance to co-construct our analysis of artifacts being exhibited as evidence of

JJK's changing identities and classroom performances. The presentation also gave the

interns a chance to use their own voices and to emphasize their unique perspectives

and experiences in the PAR. The principal was also present at this conference

presentation and took the opportunity to weave in her own perspectives about our

preliminary findings. This unique member checking scenario led me to revisit the data

set and reorganize it so that I could look at changes in JJK's institutional identities

separately from those changes in their discourse identities. The principal also read the

final manuscript to verify that it was, from her point of view, an internally balanced

representation that captured the school culture, the ways educators at Yearling

Elementary made sense of their students, her understanding of JJK, as well as how all

of these factors played out through my unique subjectivities as a critical action

researcher.


103









The interns and the special education teacher became invaluable member

checkers throughout the research process. They not only provided evidence of

discourse moves made by JJK, they also helped me make sense of them over time.

More importantly, they took a central role in how the COP would move forward on its

unique trajectory. Their analysis of moves was especially appropriate as they were

critical to the "recognition work" necessary for JJK as they attempted to enact, or "pull

off" (Gee, 2002) their new identities.

JJK did not directly member-check the data set of discourse moves. However,

these interpretations were triangulated from situation to situation and across data

sources. Our interpretations of JJK's moves over time then became the main texts the

interns and I drew from as we composed informal questions for the boys along the way

in our ongoing conversations. This allowed us to further verify how close our

interpretations were to JJK's constructions. For example, one of the moves I included

for analysis was the fact that JJK had been able to secure informed consent from their

families in the form of a signed document. In the final interview the boys referred to this

artifact as "the blue paper," and said that it marked, for them, the beginning point of our

journey together. The "blue paper" was the first moment in which they tried to make

sense of my role, the roles of the interns, and our relationship as a group. For this

reason the "blue paper" became symbolic of an important move in our work as a COP.

Through triangulation I was able to document, at a much later time, that JJK had indeed

experienced it in closely the same way.

The triangulation of data collection and analysis, as well as a commitment to

meticulous record keeping and reflective journaling throughout the analysis process,









also helped to fortify the trustworthiness of my findings over time. I tried to build texture

into the analysis of the process and outcomes of the study by including a diverse set of

data collection sources that captured multiple perspectives and points in time. For

example, through the discourse analysis of a conversation with JJK, I was able to

gather evidence of the boys making explicit connections between their roles as teacher

leaders and their academic improvement. I was able to substantiate these findings by

adults in separate conversations. This allowed me to have confidence that JJK's

institutional identities as "school successful" were, indeed, a co-constructed reality. I

was also able to cross-reference connections between their enactment of new school

identities with changes in their school performances through classroom observations

and artifacts.

As analysis unfolded over time, I documented every step I took in the process so

that I could remember the sequence. This was especially important to do as analysis

was "messy," requiring the interpretation of multiple data forms and the multiple layers

of questions embracing our work, including those centered on the school identities of

JJK, as well as our COP's wonderings associated with "making better teachers," and

how we could improve access to relevant and powerful learning for all students.

Documenting the process of analysis this way helped me make informed decisions as I

came to each point in the analysis process. This was because I recorded my rationales

for each of the decisions I made, allowing me to become more strategic as analysis

continued.

As mentioned earlier in this chapter, it was vital for me to remain in conscious

contact with the "many I's," or subjectivities that I brought to this project as a participant


105









observer (Peshkin, 1988). In addition to this, I had to maintain a constant critical

interrogation of my own position, as it was always a privileged one in the classroom.

This was due to my role as the "lead researcher" and because I take an educational

leadership position within this PDS. Educational researchers, regardless of gender, are

historically positioned as having a higher social status than those they study (Cochran-

Smith & Lytle, 1993; Harding, 2007). As I made the claim that this study was

approached through the methodology of a PAR, my positionality became an ongoing

consideration in issues related to voice and power, especially as there were true

tensions between the academic modes I was expected to uphold and the reflexive and

collaborative demands of PAR (Wahab, 2003). While I never attempted to deny my

power or positionality in the study, I did try to be as transparent as possible with the

many strategies I used to balance power between participants and myself.

Conclusion

Ethnographic field methods were used in this study in order to interpret the

multiple layers and nuances of how and why JJK's school identities changed over time

through their dialogue and collective actions (Emerson, Fretz & Shaw, 1995). Through

the theoretical perspective of Participatory Action Research (PAR), I was free to claim

and work within my natural subjectivities. This helped me maintain my role as a

participant observer with very real roles and responsibilities in this PDS. PAR also

allowed me to more effectively honor the intersubjective researcher-participant

relationship (Wahab, 2003), including that which occurred within myself, and to better

distribute power among participants. In the next two chapters I will share interpretations

from the data analysis process. Chapter 4 will present how JJK's formal school

identities were defined at the beginning and then again at the conclusion of the four-


106









month period where we formed and developed a COP in order to "become better

teachers." Chapter 5 will outline the story of our COP, how it unfolded over time, and

how it functioned as a platform for experimenting with new situated identities, or

"possible selves" (Markus & Nurius, 1986).









CHAPTER
CHANGES IN JJK'S SCHOOL IDENTITIES AND PERFORMANCES OVERTIME

As discussed in Chapter 2, students are typically sorted and categorized in public

schools. The labels for these categories change over time but are generally defined by

different degrees of "school success," whereby mainstream texts and literacies are

privileged (McCarthey & Moje, 2002). Being categorized as a "good student" in school

by peers and teachers is the function of one's institutional identity, or how one is

positioned, in formal organizations such as schools (Gee, 2000). In this chapter I will

make the case that JJK's institutional identities changed significantly between August

and December, or over the first half of their fourth-grade year. During this period of time

JJK participated in a distinct community of practice (COP), along with their two interns

and me. By the end of the study their institutional, school identities shifted from "mostly

unsuccessful" students to being "more successful" students. In Chapter 5 I describe

how participation in the COP facilitated this change in their school identities.

To make the case that JJK's institutional identities clearly did shift over time, I will

share the insights I gained from multiple levels of and methods of data analysis. First, I

will present the general cultural models (Gee, 2002) for institutionalized, school

identities that were closely shared by students and teachers affiliated with Ms. S's

fourth-grade classroom at Yearling Elementary. Then I will situate JJK's school

identities within this shared schema by presenting a single "composite" of JJK's

institutional identity, as defined by teachers and the principal at the beginning of their

fourth-grade school year. I will then present a new composite of their institutional

identity at the end of four-month period of work in the COP. Finally, I will compare these


108









two composites to demonstrate how the adults in Yearling Elementary had come to

redefine JJK's formal, school identities.

Cultural Models for School Identities at Yearling Elementary School

Cultural models for school identity held by the fourth graders and by educators

were closely aligned at Yearling Elementary School. It was important when developing

these cultural models to consider the perspectives of both adults and children in light of

the assumption that identity is socially constructed (Berger & Luckmann, 1966; Gee,

1999; 2000; 2002). First I will present how adults defined school identities, and then I

will present how fourth graders defined students in school.

How Educators Define School Identities

In a series of focus group interviews, I asked the principal and teachers at this

PDS, "What should we know about (Ms. S's nineteen) students as incoming fourth

graders?" I explained that I needed their data on each child so that the interns and I

could quickly begin building a social and academic picture of each child for the

purposes of learning to differentiate instruction. They used two general methods to

communicate "what kind of student" each fourth grader was: "telegraphing" (Pace,

personal communication, August 17, 2008) and storytelling. By using labels, which I

called "markers," teachers could quickly communicate short, "telegraphed" codes for

"different kinds" of students. Each code could be packed with mutually understood

meaning and assumptions. For example, referring to a student as a "Level One" in the

state of Florida can generate a great deal of meaning in increasingly time-compressed

teacher conversations (Hargreaves, 1994), including the score a student got on the

state-wide assessment, what ability group s/he is placed in for reading, what

socioeconomic group s/he possibly comes from, and the intensity of teacher support


109









that the student demands. Telegraphing was the most common way that teachers

shared information about their perceptions of students with me and with each other. A

total of 215 telegraphed codes, or markers, were collected from teacher talk about Ms.

S's students, and a total of seventeen stories were also collected which enhanced the

meaning of these markers. These stories were important for me to pay attention to for

two reasons. First, teachers had great difficulty talking about nineteen separate

students under constant time constraints. Therefore, spending time telling stories

underscored how salient particular markers were for describing key students. Stories

were also used when a commonly shared marker needed further clarification. For

example, when one teacher marked a student simply as "No home support," she

elaborated on information she had on the family's personal struggles as a way to correct

any potential misconceptions that the family was negligent or uncaring.

First uttered markers by educators

What words do educators choose first to define each of Ms. S's nineteen

students? Considering how difficult it was for me to gain access to teachers' time in

order to discuss students in focus groups, this became an interesting and relevant

question. I wanted to examine any patterns that might emerge from the 48 first-uttered

markers used by teachers and the principal to describe these students (see Appendix I

for the full list). I looked at how markers grouped into categories, and if I could

determine the importance of each category based on how many markers it contained.

For example, out of all of the first-uttered markers describing Ms. S's 19 students, I

captured ten for the category of "Behavior," and only one for the category of "Children's

Aspirations in Life." This example allowed me to conclude that when teachers must

economize time when socially constructing student identity, or when they are simply


110









expressing the most immediate information that comes to their minds about a child,

behaviors become a much more important way to define children than by their hopes

and dreams. I then wanted to compare the categories that emerged from this group of

first-uttered markers with the categories that emerged from the entire collection of

markers used to describe Ms. S's students. When looking at the entire data set, would

other categories emerge as more important in the social construction of children's

school identities? Do teachers have to make decisions on how they will identify children

depending on how much time is available for communicating this information? I also

wanted know if adults with different roles in relation to the children would change how

they identified the saliency of different categories of school identity generated. For

example, would the teachers from the previous year, the current teachers, and the

principal focus on different categories of school identity?

Ten categories emerged from the first-uttered markers (see Table 4.1 below).

The most robust categories included behaviors, academic skill, intelligence, and

disability (in this order). Positive labels that captured the generic idea of the "good

student" identity, such as "Great kid," or "Wonderful student" were also a prominent form

of telegraphed markers but more so with the fourth-grade teachers who had only known

the students for a few weeks. Other less prominent first-uttered markers included how

students ranked against one another in teacher-defined academic terms, ethnicity,

family and community relationships, physical appearance, and disposition. The fourth-

grade teachers, who had the shortest histories with these students, used far more labels

associated with behavior, and every one of these markers was negative. Educators









with longer histories with these students did not tend to name behaviors first. Rather,

they highlighted constructs of intelligence and aptitude, academic skills, and disability.

Table 4-1. Categories of first-uttered markers by educators
Marker Type 3rd Grade Principal 4th Grade Total
teaching teaching team markers
team
Behavior 1 1 8 10
Academic Skill 3 3 2 8
Intelligence 5 0 1 6
Disability 2 3 1 6
General Positive 1 1 3 5
Rank Against Peers 3 0 0 3
Relational 0 2 1 3
Ethnicity 0 3 0 3
Physical 0 1 1 2
Disposition 1 0 1 2

I reflected on why the educators with longer histories with the students might

immediately name fewer behavioral attributes than their colleagues who had just

inherited them. Perhaps experience and history with students matter in the interplay

between children and adults as they co-construct institutional identities. For example,

the opportunity of refining class management plans over time may have diminished

many undesirable behaviors of key students, or had allowed teachers the time to

reframe these behaviors within the richer context of a long-term relationship with each

child.

Finally, the principal maintained a different emphasis on identity categories than

the classroom teachers. The principal was the only educator whose first-uttered

markers named ethnicity. She was also the only adult whose first-uttered markers

named her relationships with students and their families over time. The salience of

ethnicity made sense to me as I reflected on how principals in Florida must attend

closely to race in order to meet "Adequate Yearly Progress," mandated by the No Child









Left Behind Act of 2001, and to achieve their "grade" from the state each year. It also

made sense that as a principal, and as a prominent leader and resident of this rural

community that she would first perceive students as members of family networks as she

watched younger siblings enter Yearling Elementary behind their older brothers and

sisters. Indeed, as principal she was positioned to work with families over time.

General categories of school identities defined by teachers

After building and ranking categories of first-uttered markers of school identity, I

started the process over again. This time I created categories from the entire collection

of 215 markers generated when teachers spoke about each of Ms. S's nineteen

students. The first column of the table in Appendix J displays the breakdown of these

general markers by category. The first three categories of general school identity

matched those of teachers' first-uttered markers, including their rankings. These

included behavior, academic performance/skills, and constructs of intelligence.

However, the fourth ranked category of frequency for general school identity was

disposition, rather than the undefined, positive markers, such as "Great," or "Wonderful

student." The remaining categories were ranked in this order: the role family played,

class ranking, disability, ethnicity, physical attributes, and relationships. In most cases

when ethnicity and relationships were mentioned, they were not associated with the

cultural model of the "Successful Student."

What was most salient when the taxonomy for a general, formal school identity

emerged was that categories continued to polarize. For the entire collection of 215

markers, 90% of them were used to sort how "successful" or "unsuccessful" students

were in school. The remaining markers could not be interpreted as one or the other.

Educators use markers to sort students in reference to how school "successful" or


113









"unsuccessful" they are. Appendix D lists all of the markers captured from educator

descriptions of each of Ms. S's students. After analyzing this list I created a picture of

the proportions that each category held within what emerged as two cultural models of

school identity: the "Successful Student," and the "Unsuccessful (or "Struggling")

Student." This is represented in Figure 4.1 below. Notice that in the "Successful

Student" model that academic performance carries the most markers, while

"intelligence" and dispositions follow very closely. In fact, academic performance,

"intelligence," and disposition combine as 2/3 of this model.


7.
6. 1. Academic

.2. Intelligence

3. Disposition


Figure 4-1. Educator's cultural model of the "Successful Student" school identity.

The "Successful Student" meets the following criteria in rank order:

1. S/he is perceived to possess necessary academic skills and performances
marked by daily reading, math, writing, and yearly standardized test scores.

2. S/he is perceived to have high intelligence. Intelligence was most highly
described as "giftedness" or "being smart or bright," and spoken of as if this were
an inherent quality.

3. S/he is perceived to have dispositions and personality traits valued by teachers.
The most popular marker was "sweetness." Other traits included friendliness,
helpfulness, humor, and leadership qualities.

4. S/he is perceived to have behaviors desirable to teachers. These include raising
hands, good manners, self-monitoring, and a certain quality and frequency of
participation in class.

5. When asked "what kind of student" a child was, teachers responded with general
labels, such as "Good Student," or "Wonderful."









6. The student is supported by strong family collaboration with the school. The
family of the "Successful Student" is willing to share the responsibility for
educating the child.

7. Other markers included: creativity, physical traits, ethnicity (non-white),
relational, metacognitive ability, and the expression of goals and aspirations.

Using the same data set I then created a representation for the cultural model of

the "Unsuccessful Student." This is represented in the Figure 4.2 below. Notice that for

the "Unsuccessful Student" behavior is the most salient category, holding at least 1/3 of

all markers for this cultural model. It is also interesting to note that while constructs of

"intelligence" are not even included in the "Unsuccessful" model of school identity,

ranking performances against a student's peers is included. Finally, it is important to

distinguish between Criteria One and Four, as they may seem to be identical at first

glance, and because they interrelate. Criterion One refers to the behaviors of children.

When teachers talk about this aspect of school identity, there is an implicit emphasis on

the choice that children are making to perform these behaviors. Criterion Four refers to

teachers' definitions of the dispositions of children. When teachers describe this part of

school identity, there is an implied meaning that these are aspects of Nature-identities

(Gee, 2000), or traits or attributes that are biological, or that children are pre-disposed to

have.



5. 6. 7. E 1. Behavior
2. Academic

3. Class Rank

0 4. Family Role


Figure 4-2. Educator's cultural model of the "Unsuccessful Student" identity.


115










The "Unsuccessful Student" meets the following criteria in rank order:

1. S/he is perceived to have undesirable behaviors. The most common included
behaviors such as: disengagement/lack of focus, lack of motivation, poor
attitude, inappropriate behaviors that undermined relationships with teachers and
peers, and disruption.

2. S/he is perceived to possess a lack or low level of the necessary academic skills
and performances valued by the school. These, by far, were named as reading
fluency, decoding, and comprehension. Writing and math came next in
importance.

3. S/he is perceived to be ranked in the "lower" range of academic performance as
compared to the rest of the class in the areas of reading, math, and writing.

4. S/he is perceived to have dispositions and personality traits not valued by
teachers. These crossed over into ideas associated with behavior but included
"spacey," "bossy," or "withdrawn."

5. S/he maybe perceived to have a disability of some kind.

6. Other markers might include weak family support, ethnicity (non-white), and
physical traits that impede "school success."

There were further implications from both tacit and explicit verbal expressions

from teachers that differentiated the "Successful" from the "Unsuccessful" student. In

particular, the "Successful Student" required less teacher attention and was perceived

as more independent. These qualities generated more teacher satisfaction with the

teaching and learning relationship.

Once I had defined the landscape of school identity, I then wanted to see how

educators sorted each of Ms. S's students. What emerged was a surprise. Only one

student in the entire class carried markers that perfectly fit one of the two models. In

this case this student exemplified the "Successful Student." Most of the collection of

markers positioned each student somewhere on a continuum between "Successful" and

"Not Successful." Samples from the dialogue about Abby captured from the past and


116









current teachers demonstrate how the majority of students were defined by a kind of

hybridized school identity. The words in italics are the markers I extracted for purposes

of building a taxonomy of school identity:

(She's) as sweet as can be but very, very low.

Second to the lowest kid in the class...

(She's a) fluent reader but has no comprehension.

Hear she passed the FCA T but should be tested (for special education).

She's eager to please, well-mannered but struggles in writing.

Notice that although teachers identified Abby as one of the "lowest kids in the class,"

this did not seal Abby's fate as an "Unsuccessful Student." She was also seen to hold

many qualities of the "Successful Student," including behaviors and dispositions, as well

as appropriate skills in some academic areas. In a story told about one of the male

students in Ms. S's classroom, a third grade teacher spoke about the tension teachers

feel regarding students who linger between the two poles of "successful" and

"unsuccessful," a situation often implicitly presented as a child's personal "choice." She

summed up her tale about a summer school essay that the student wrote with these

words: "And now I wonder...which way will he (decide to) go?"

How Fourth-Grade Students Define School Identities

Once I had a picture of how educators constructed (and/or reproduced) the

institutional identities of children, I wanted to compare this to how fourth-grade students

defined school identities. From both individual and focus group interviews, I learned

that students also have their own taxonomies for "kinds of students" in school. While

students did not always name them in the same ways as teachers, different categories

of students did follow fairly consistent patterns. In one focus group three girls identified









labels to explain how they sorted one another in the classroom. These are listed in

Appendix F, along with the markers they used for each school identity.

Fourth graders will agree that the "Patrol Student" is an almost mirror-image of

the "Good Student," but they insist that there is a difference between the "Bad Student"

and the "Crazy Student." While their behaviors often look the same, the "Crazy

Student" is strategic with his/her behaviors, conscious about when and where to break

the rules, as explained by these two students:

E: Yeah, the (Bad Student) doesn't think about the rules.

C: "Yeah, like in the hallway, say you were like one of the people who says,
"Walk."

E: Yeah, they don't listen.

Darby: So a Crazy Kid would, like, stop if I (as a teacher) said to walk?"

E: Yeah, but the Crazy Kid, as soon as he's out of sight, would, like, start
running again, like once you walk around the corner they are starting to run.

School identities are not necessarily fixed, either. For example, one student

described her identity this way: "I'm a patrol kind of kid, a good kid, and a partially crazy

kid." It was important to this student to be seen as a "patrol kind of kid" and a "good kid"

for her teachers but as a "sometimes crazy kid" for her peers, and she explained how

and why she balances these student identities. She knows when and where to be

"crazy" and when and where to be "good," and is able to articulate her identity as fluid

and contextual. For example, she notes that she lets herself be "crazy" on the

playground but always presents herself as a "good student" in the hallways.

The Patrol Student Identity

The "Patrol Student" identity became a common denominator between student-

definitions of the "Good Student" and teacher definitions of the "Successful Student."


118









For fourth graders, "being a patrol" versus "not being a patrol" was the most significant

issue associated with school identity. Indeed, it is the very mark of being a fourth

grader. Fourth graders are the oldest group at Yearling Elementary School because the

local middle school serves grades five through eight. Being a patrol comes with many

privileges, including access to trips, selling chocolate, and permission to direct peers

and their behaviors. During observations of classes walking to lunch, it is easy to

identify that a good three-fourths of the students in the four fourth- grade classes wear

the signature orange patrol belt. In other words, not being a patrol student is very

noticeable in the fourth grade.

Students explain that there is a stringent application process that involves

teacher and principal endorsement, forms, and deadlines. The criteria for becoming a

patrol are well-known and easily shared by all fourth graders I interviewed. These

include being able to set a good example for peers, being a mentor for younger

students, making good grades, having exemplary behavior, demonstrating helpfulness,

and having the ability to articulate how you are a leader. Teachers and students share

almost the same list of factors that would prevent membership with the patrols, which

include a bossy disposition, or disruptive behavior in class. However, students will add

that good grades are critical for membership, while teachers say that they often grant

membership to students with low grades in order to improve their morale and

motivation. Fourth graders further explain that once one becomes a patrol, there are

stratifications of rank within the group. They also explain that while the "patrol student"

and the "good student" are very similar, it is indeed possible to be a "good student" but

not a patrol, although that is rare. It is also possible to be a "bad student" and still be


119









chosen as a patrol by the teachers, which is a cause for confusion for the students. As

a self-defined "good student" told me, "The thing that I don't get is... I didn't make the

patrols. But the weird thing is that Scarlett also got a white (denial) letter but she got a

safety patrol belt!"

An Initial Composite of JJK's School Identity at the Beginning of the Year

Now that I had gained some understanding of how educators and students

defined school identities, my next goal was to build a composite that captured the

institutional identity of JJK as students in their first six weeks of their fourth-grade year. I

used data gathered from their third- grade teachers, the fourth-grade teaching team, the

principal, and the interns' and my observations regarding JJK during this period of time.

I did not ask students to talk about specific students. I did, however, gain some insights

from JJK, themselves, regarding how they situated their identities as students in school.

These insights will be presented later.

I evaluated JJK's identity through the constellations of categories adults used to

define school identity. First, I collected the markers and stories from the data that

specifically addressed the question, "What kinds of students are JJK?" Appendix K lists

the data sources I used to gather this information, how I approached analysis, and the

resulting markers and stories used to define JJK as students in school. I then returned

to the transcripts and observational notes in order to examine markers in context so I

could begin sorting them into cultural models associated with the "Successful Student"

or the "Unsuccessful Student." I further sorted the markers into the distinct categories

associated with school identity to see if any of them carried more saliency than others.

In other words, I wanted to know if some of the categories weighed more than others in


120









the minds of adults constructing JJK's identity. Table 4.2 below displays how the

markers distributed across categories.

Table 4-2. Categorical breakdown of markers of JJK's school identity at the beginning of
fourth grade
Category of School Identity "School "Not School Not
Successful" Successful" Determined
9/61 48/61 3/61
(15% of the (79% of the (7% of the
Markers) Markers) Markers)
Behaviors 1 15
Dispositions 2 12
Academic Performance 5 7
Family Roles 1 7
Disability 0 3
Ranking Against Peers 0 2
Relationships 0 2
Physical Attributes 0 0 2
Ethnicity 0 0 1
Intelligence--

Out of the sixty-one markers used to describe JJK at the beginning of their

fourth-grade career, the majority (78%) leaned toward the "Unsuccessful Student" end

of the spectrum. By far the most markers (15) fell into the category of behavior, and

almost every one listed was framed as undesirable in school. The emotional

dispositions of these three students came a close second (12), and most of these were

also considered liabilities for school success.

The majority of constructions regarding JJK's identity fell into the "Unsuccessful

Student" category. I concluded that adult educators defined JJK, at the onset of their

fourth-grade year, as the kind of students who were not successful in school. While

teachers defined each boy as a unique individual, they used three of the same markers

for the three boys. First, all three of the boys were defined in terms of a low academic

performance ranking against other children (if not labeled "the lowest" in the class).









Second, all three were defined as using well-developed avoidance behaviors. They

were seen as "distracting" to themselves and others by playing with objects during

instruction, making too many trips to the bathroom or to get water, and making

inappropriate noises in class to purposely disturb other students. Finally, JJK were

treated and talked about as dependent learners. For example, during writing instruction

these three boys (as well as two other students in the class) were directed to "use the

teacher's example," while the rest of the class was encouraged to use their creative

writing skills during instruction. This led to JJK copying teacher writing from the

overhead projector for much of writing time.

Markers of "intelligence" were never mentioned by teachers when defining JJK's

institutional identities at the beginning of the school year. However, it was not unusual

for teachers to immediately describe other students as "smart" in comparison. JJK were

identified as students who struggled academically, although two of them were seen as

having at least one academic strength. Two were also noted for their willingness to

answer questions by teachers, although they were known to offer frequently inaccurate

responses. This demonstrated JJK's attempts to make "bids" as "Successful Students,"

but the bids were not accepted or recognized by the teacher (Gee, 2000). As far as

their dispositions were concerned, only JJK's past teachers offered glimpses into

positive aspects of their personalities, and these were few. Most of the attributes

associated with JJK were negative, and one of the three students was described as

especially immature, withdrawn, and low in confidence. All three were either directly

named, or implied to be "lacking in motivation."









When counting the frequency of different kinds of markers educators used to

describe JJK as students, the role of their families was a salient part of their identity.

While one of the three boys was marked as having a "supportive family," another of the

boys had a school identity so associated with a lack of family support that this was

almost always the first marker used to describe him. Allusions to less-than-optimal

family support for the third boy was emphasized in regard to his mother not being

present in his life. His well-meaning grandmother was his only stable family but she had

to care for many other siblings, as well. This was implied as a kind of deficit and even

associated with his ethnicity. As one educator said, "You get that a lot from the African

American community siblings everywhere."

As mentioned, behavior was the category of JJK's school identity educators

emphasized the most, and most of their behaviors were said to pose challenges for

teaching and learning in the classroom. These behaviors ranged from lying and

cursing, picking on other children, and "shutting down" in resistance to adult directives

to read or complete an assignment. However, similar behaviors of each of the boys had

different meanings to educators as they co-constructed definitions of JJK's school

identities. While all three boys presented behavioral challenges for the teachers, two

were spoken about as if these behaviors were unacceptable and problematic for school.

For example, one teacher told another, "Oh, you are going to have a problem with him!"

The third boy's behavior, although emphasized the most as far as its scope and

challenge, was never framed as "anti-school," but something that had to be understood

first as a function of his disability and second as a function of what was perceived as his

physical and emotional vulnerability. Whenever teachers in a group spoke of his


123









behavior, their entire facial expressions would look concerned and their voice tones

would shift to express sympathy, if not pity. Even I found my first impression of this

student in my researcher's notebook: "I am worried about (this student)... so quiet, so

small... he doesn't do his work." This student had a much wider range of unacceptable

behaviors than the other two boys. However, in his case they were more tolerated by

the teachers. As one teacher put it, "He's our little guy," as if he was, out of the entire

class, the most in need of protection, patience, and understanding. I interpreted this

"little guy" description as a perfect example of how teachers extended to this student a

wide latitude of sympathy, a latitude influenced very much by his small, if not "cute,"

frame and demeanor.

My own notes from my researcher's notebook revealed an early concern for two

of the three boys as members of the classroom community:

I keep worrying about (these boys). As usual, they just don't seem to be
part of the group. Most everybody is sitting on the floor but (one) is sitting
in his chair and he's covering his ears, not even looking at the book. (The
other boy) joined the group later after it started, and sat on the floor in the
back, apart from the rest of the group. The rest of the students are in a tight
circle together and seem totally enthralled and engaged- and (the intern) is
reading it very enthusiastically. (One) is doing behaviors such as whistling,
hitting his shoe repeatedly, and parroting words spoken by the teachers
from time to time. I just feel like these two guys don't feel they are part of
the group...

As educators at the beginning of the school year, we were clearly interpreting JJK's

institutional identities as not school successful. In the next section I will attempt to infer

how fourth graders might have defined JJK as students at the onset of their school year.

Fourth-Grade Perspectives on JJK's School Identity

To form a possible picture of how students in Ms. S's classroom might have

positioned JJK as students, I went back to the adult-generated data and looked at them









through the lens of "kinds of students" in school that were constructed by children. I

then applied the fourth- graders' definitions to the markers generated by teachers about

JJK. I found eight examples of markers specifically labeling JJK that fourth graders

would likely define with their "Bad Student" model. These included "talks too much in

class," "lies," "picks on other children," and having a disability. None of the markers

offered by teachers would fall into the fourth-grade definition of the "Good Student,"

although two of these three boys were patrols. Two markers might have best fit the

student-defined identity of the "Crazy Student." While I cannot claim that the data show

how their peers would define JJK's identities in school, the teacher-defined behaviors of

JJK mostly match student ideas associated with the "Bad Student" profile in school.

This was important for me to know so that I could have some sense of how JJK's peers

might name their school identities in light of the fact that school identity is assumed to

be a co-construction among all participants, including children.

JJK held some of the same ideas about themselves that might have been

contributing to the reproduction of their institutional identities at the beginning of their

fourth-grade year. For example, each expressed an aversion to reading or going to

school, in general. One mentioned that his teachers last year thought he had bad

behavior, which, incidentally, was used to deny his application for being a patrol. This

same student said, "I am good in math but I always get bad grades." When I asked one

of the boys if he was interested in coaching or teaching, he said, "I'm not smart enough

to be a teacher." All three of them answered my questions about particular goals they

had as students for the year, which helped me learn more about areas they wanted to

improve. However, both teacher and JJK recognized strengths that led to "school


125









success." JJK noted some good dispositions they had as students, including

helpfulness, the ability to follow directions, and specific academic areas in which they

demonstrated strengths. One was lauded as a strong writer by both his third- and

fourth-grade teachers.

However, JJK did not present their school identities to me as important. Rather,

they preferred to talk about themselves as athletes, hunters, and fishermen. One made

many bids (Gee, 2000) during the first weeks of school to be recognized as a

"drummer." These were the parts of their identities that they took the time to elaborate

upon with stories. However, overall I was unable to get data that was clear on how JJK

defined their school identities, and I felt strongly that this was due to their lack of trust in

my role. For example, shortly after these initial interviews, the grandmother of one of

these students called me because she was concerned that my interest in her grandson

was tied to a plan to staff him into special education. Later in our work together, JJK

also expressed their initial confusion over my role in the classroom, and were not sure

how to answer my questions at that time.

A Second Composite of JJK's School Identity at Mid-Year

As I had used the first six weeks of teacher markers to form a composite of JJK's

institutional identities at the beginning of the school year, I used the markers I collected

from teachers during the last six weeks of the study to create a second composite of

JJK's school identity at mid-year. These data, gathered from focus group interviews,

field notes, and artifacts, were analyzed through the lens of this question that I

frequently asked teachers during the last weeks of the study: "If you had an opportunity

to talk to the fifth-grade teachers (in the middle school) next year, what would you want

them to know at this point about JJK?" I used the same process as I did before by


126









paying special attention to moments where educators used key words, phrases, or

labels to describe each of the student participants, or how they defined the school

performances of these students. When pulling together the second composite, fewer

categories distilled from the coding process, and a brand new one arose.

Only five categories emerged from the total of 136 markers that I had collected.

These categories mirrored four of the ten major categories that teachers used to define

"kinds of students" at the beginning of the school year. The rest of those categories did

not even emerge in the second composite of JJK's school identity. Those that came up

included, in rank order: academic skills/performance, behaviors, dispositions, and the

role family played in their school identities. However, this time the categories were

more interdependent in defining JJK, making them more difficult to tease apart for

analysis but lending a much richer, more synthesized picture of how educators defined

them. For example, any mention of poor academic performance was tightly tied to JJK's

behaviors and dispositions, such as things they did in class to avoid work, as well as

their "lack of motivation."

The new category that emerged was the fourth most robust category of identity,

holding a total of fourteen markers. This category helped describe how educators

responded to JJK's needs as students. This was an important shift. I came to interpret

this to mean that when teachers defined "what kinds of students" these three boys were

by the middle of the school year, they were no longer able to separate how they

perceived these students from their roles and responsibilities as teachers. For example,

in talking about one student's "shy disposition," teachers immediately emphasized their

perceived responsibility in "showing him patience." As another example, when one









teacher spoke of one of the boy's improved compliance with teacher directives, she said

it compelled her to "just want to help him."

Table 4.3 below displays the five categories of school identity distilled from the

data. As before, I had to sort the markers collected during the last six weeks according

to how they were used to define JJK's school identity as "successful," or "not

successful." The markers split in half almost exactly, with nearly 50% marking "school

success" and nearly 50% marking "school failure." The categories of disposition,

behavior, and academic performance all held near-equal numbers of markers, while the

role of the family or home, as well as the teacher responses to these students held

much fewer. Behavior had a total of thirty-eight markers, 66% of which were considered

"not school successful," and 34% which were seen to contribute to JJK's school

success. Dispositions held thirty-six markers in which 50% described school failure and

50% were assigned to school success. Only four markers brought family into the

picture of school identity, and none of these were considered assets. There were

fourteen markers that indicated how teachers responded to JJK's school identity

through the interpretation of their roles and responsibilities. Nine (64%) were responses

to aspects of student failure and five (36%) were responses to aspects of JJK that were

associated with school success. Finally, academic performance became the most

robust category of JJK's school identity. This was significant to me because this

category is the most salient in defining the "Successful Student" cultural model, depicted

earlier in Figure 4.1. Further, academic performance was the only category in which

JJK's identity was aligned more with school success than with school failure, and this

alignment with school success was dramatic. While sixteen of the markers (32%) in the


128









category of academic performance defined these students as "not successful" in school,

twenty-eight (68%) of them were associated with school success. Finally, unlike the

first composite of JJK's school identity, there is absolutely no mention in the second

composite of JJK's low ranking against their peers.

Table 4-3. Categorical breakdown of markers of JJK'S school identity by the middle of
fourth grade
Category of school identity "School successful" "Not school successful"
64/136 72/136
47% of the markers 53% of the markers
Behaviors 13 25
(38 total markers)
Dispositions 18 18
(36 total markers)
Academic Performance 28 16
(41 total markers)
Family Roles 0 4
(4 total markers)
NewCategory: 5 9
Roles and Responsibilities
of Teachers
(14 total markers)
Ranking Against Peers
(no markers)
Relationships
(no markers)
Physical Attributes
(no markers)
Ethnicity
(no markers)
Intelligence
(no markers)

Comparing the First and Second Composites of JJK's School Identity

Now that I had two composites of JJK's school identities as defined by the adult

educators at Yearling Elementary, it was possible for me to compare how their

institutional identities had changed over time. These are depicted in Figures 4.3 and

4.4 below. Please note that Figure 4.3, representing the first composite, does not


129








express all ten categories of school identity assigned to JJK at the beginning of the
year. I included only the most robust categories, which at that time included their
behaviors, dispositions, academics, and the role of their families.
Several important shifts in JJK's school identities are notable when comparing the
two composites represented above. As mentioned earlier, the second composite
includes a new category, which is labeled "Teacher Role/Responsibilities" in Figure 4.4.

50


40

School
30 Successfil
RkNot
S20 School
Successful

10 96 /0

0
Behavior Dispositions Academics Family Role
Categories of Identity

Figure 4-3. How educators defined JJK's school identities at the beginning of the
school year.
This category may indicate that over time formal identities of students in schools
become increasingly tied to the ways teachers respond to them as relationships begin
to form, lending support to the theory of identity as being socially constructed. What is
most salient, however, when comparing the two composites is the portion of each
category assigned to "school success," and to "non-success." When evaluating


130









markers of behavior, dispositions, and academics, their proportions become

increasingly more associated with school success than they were at the beginning of

the year. Finally, it is clear that by mid-year the academic performances of JJK in

50


40


30 |I School
Successful


20 Not
School
Successful

10



Behavior Dispositions Academics Family Teacher Roles/
Role Responsibilities
Categories of Identity

Figure 4-4. How educators defined JJK's school identities by mid-year.

association with "school success" fully outweigh performances associated with school

failure.

Conclusion

In this chapter I presented the general cultural models that define the formal

identities of fourth graders at Yearling Elementary. First, I explored general categories

that educators used to define students. From this analysis I determined that markers of

school identity tend to fall into two major domains, perhaps more easily thought of as

two ends of a continuum. On one end is the collection of markers that define the









"Successful Student," while on the other side is the collection of markers defining the

"Unsuccessful Student." In the cultural model of the "Successful Student," the category

of academic performance holds the most power. For the "Unsuccessful Student," the

category of student behavior becomes the most important factor in defining this

archetype.

Fourth-grade students share cultural models for "kinds of students" in school. In

the case of the "Patrol Student," they roughly match teacher definitions of the

"Successful Student." Fourth graders also have an archetype for the "Good Student,"

which has much overlap with the definition of the "Patrol Student." Their model of the

"Bad Student" also closely parallels the adult definition of the "Unsuccessful Student."

However, unlike teachers, pre-adolescents name a blended identity of the "Crazy

Student," whose first agenda in school is to have fun, and who is strategic enough to

avoid being formally identified as a "Bad Student."

I then presented a composite of JJK's combined, formal school identity as

educators defined it at the beginning of their fourth-grade school year. This early

composite was mostly one that would fit the "Unsuccessful Student" model whereby

their behaviors were the most predominant category. When using this model to reflect

on perspectives from fourth graders on school identity, including those from JJK, one

can infer that the students in Ms. S's classroom may have agreed that JJK were mostly

"Unsuccessful Students" at that time.

Following this discussion I then presented a second composite of JJK's formal

school identity, as defined by the educators working most closely with them on the

fourth-grade team at the mid-point of the school year. This second composite revealed









a change, demonstrating a significant shift in the direction of the "school successful"

cultural model. In this shift their positive changes in academic performance became the

most prominent category explaining their new school identities. In addition, a new

category emerged, which may suggest that as teachers develop close relationships with

their students, they find it increasingly more difficult to separate the school identities and

performances of children from their own roles and responsibilities as teachers. In the

next chapter I will explain how the shift towards "school success" may have happened.


133









CHAPTER 5
EXPLAINING THE CHANGES IN JJK'S SCHOOL IDENTITIES AND
PERFORMANCES OVER TIME

As discussed in the previous chapter, there is evidence that JJK's situated

identities and academic performances shifted over the course of the first half of their

fourth-grade year. This shift moved them closer on the continuum to the formal identity

of "good student" reproduced in schools. The purpose of this chapter is to document the

process of this change. I will present the findings that capture the work of our

community of practice (COP), and how it may explain the shift in JJK's situated

identities over time, and specifically how these were expressed through their evolving

discourse identities (Gee, 2000). By making the case that JJK's discourse identities

expanded to include a sense of being a "teacher leader," I hope to explain and validate

the findings from the previous chapter.

This chapter is organized into three parts, each representing a different layer of

analysis of over three hundred recorded discourse "moves" made by members of our

COP during the fall of 2008 (see samples in Appendix H). Again, moves were identified

by the interns, other teachers, and me during the data collection period. These were

defined as our six COP members' verbal and nonverbal behaviors, as well as our

symbolic use of time, space, and objects that "moved" the unique path, definition, and

outcomes of our work. The moves recorded were interdependent and critical for

understanding how JJK redesigned their membership and positionality in the classroom.

However, we marked "important moves" as those that directly expressed JJK's ever-

changing school performance and situated identities as a result of their membership

and participation in our COP. I recorded moves that involved special language being

used by COP members, how participants positioned themselves in relation to the









others, as well as any moves that were evidence of JJK enacting discourse identities

that challenged their institutional identities as mostly "unsuccessful students."

Examining these three layers of our moves is important because it contextualizes JJK's

shift in identities over time in relation to the activities and relationships forged within our

COP, and in relation to the facilitation of our collaborative work through my PDS role as

the interns' supervisor.

In the first layer of analysis I looked at the entire chronology of recorded moves

made by the six members of our COP that occurred during nine critical junctures, or the

"happenings," that marked our work as a COP as different from the normal activities of

the classroom. These critical junctures included the times we carved out together

during the school day that defined us as a distinct, although permeable group working

together toward common goals, and transcended the boundaries of traditional

relationships between interns and their students, and supervisors and their interns.

These junctures mainly included the formal and informal observations of the interns, as

well as special meetings and conversations the six of us had together. In the second

layer of analysis, I extracted all of the moves made by JJK in order to describe how their

discourse identities expanded over time to include that of being "teacher leaders."

Finally, I interpreted the motives behind the moves I made as a PDS university partner

to articulate my stance and operationalize the strategies I used in order to directly

influence equity and student performance in the classroom.

Layer 1: The Story of our COP through Nine Critical Junctures

The work of our COP was marked by nine critical junctures, or important events

that created bridges for JJK to cross from older to newer enactments of school identity.

Most of these junctures occurred within highly structured times and defined spaces.


135









However, their meanings were further shaped and directed by ongoing conversations

among the six of us that traversed the period of the study via impromptu talks in the

cafeteria, on the playground, during lunch and planning times with other teachers, in

seminars with other interns, and email interactions. Together the critical junctures, much

like chapters, work together to tell the story of our COP and to help explain the process

of identity change that JJK experienced. While more than half of these experiences

were planned in advance, what could never be entirely planned was how each one

would play out in relation to the complex set of aims we had embedded in our work

together.

Our COP shared many important experiences during the four-month period of

this study. It can certainly be argued that all of the experiences we shared were critical

in the evolution of our COP and in shaping JJK's identity over time. However, only nine

fit the criteria for being critical junctures in these ongoing processes. The word juncture

is important as it implies a point of connection. In this case, the criteria for determining

whether an event was a critical juncture, or not, came down to the data. To qualify as a

critical juncture, the event had to have been collected as data that were able to capture

evidence of JJK enacting their identities in slightly newer ways than had been previously

documented during this study. The nine critical junctures are listed below. Following

this list I will discuss how each juncture shaped our story as a COP.

1. Initial interviews with JJK and other student candidates (late Aug.-early Sept.)
2. Selection of JJK as members of the COP and setting the stage (mid-Sept.)
3. First formal teaching observation (late Sept.)
4. First informal teaching observation (early Oct.)
5. Second informal teaching observation (late Oct.)
6. Second formal teaching observation (early Nov.)
7. Last formal teaching observation (late Nov.)


136









8. Last COP conversation (early Dec.)
9. Last focus group interview with JJK (mid-Dec.)

Critical Juncture #1: Initial Interviews with JJK and other Student Candidates

The first significant event in the forming of our COP was a series of initial

conversations I had with each of the three boys while I was interviewing student

candidates for the COP. These first conversations were guided by interview questions

that helped me form an initial picture of how each defined himself as a student in school

and how close he came to his own cultural model of the "good student." This model was

exemplified by most of the students interviewed by the "patrol student" archetype, as

defined in the previous chapter. As one of the three boys said, "They (Teachers) said

they seen my behavior through the year and they said like... That they didn't pick me (for

patrols) because of my behavior..."

The interview also helped me gauge each student's response to the idea of being

positioned as a potential expert collaborator to help the interns and me improve our

practices as educators. I did this by introducing my opinion that students should be

included in the process of teacher learning, and then by asking each student to reflect

on the lesson the interns had taught that day. In all three cases JJK provided neither the

body language nor the words to indicate that they believed they could play an important

role in teacher learning. They also did not provide specific feedback or reflection on

their interns' teaching that day, even though I asked for it. I guessed that they did not

yet have the language or schema available to organize and then articulate the kind of

thinking necessary to reposition themselves as "advice-givers" to teachers. Regardless,

these interviews offered an opportunity to explicitly present my personal agenda for the

work I wanted to accomplish as a university supervisor. They also provided me with









important bits of information about JJK's interests, goals, and beliefs that I would follow

up on later as I worked to cultivate with them a conversation about teacher learning.

Critical Juncture #2: Selection of JJK as Members of the COP

The third- and fourth-grade teaching teams, with the help of the interns, helped

me review the eight candidates we were considering for the job of co-supervising the

interns. We ended up choosing J, J, and K as the three student participants, although

several of the teachers collectively expressed their worries that they had not selected at

least one girl. In general, J, J, and K came up repeatedly when we brainstormed about

which students struggled the most in class, and the teachers expressed that they felt

that these boys would most benefit "from the attention" they believed they would receive

from my work with them. I then explained to all eight student candidates that JJK had

been chosen as "teaching coaches and researchers" for the interns and me. I shared

that the criteria for selecting the three students was based on how well the teachers and

I felt each student would be able to contribute to the learning and improvement of all of

us as teachers, as well as who we felt would be able to handle being students, teaching

coaches, and researchers at the same time. I explained further that the remaining five

students would still be called upon as consultants during the course of the inquiry.

JJK, the interns, and I met together briefly. I explained that the six of us were

going to be working closely together over the next three months in order to research

better ways to practice teaching and learning. I also said that we would tie this work

directly to the regular work that I had to do in order to help the interns graduate from

college with their teaching degrees. JJK would be asked to directly support my work as

the interns' supervisor, which meant that they would help me during observations of the

interns' lessons. Finally, I explained that I was also looking for their direct support and


138









help in my becoming a better teacher educator for the interns. I invited the interns and

JJK to begin thinking about how these goals could be accomplished, and on what we

should focus our learning and research as a group.

Critical Juncture #3: First Formal Teaching Observation

In the first formal observation I initiated most of the moves that were recorded.

However, several key moves were initiated by the interns and by JJK in ways that

indicated their willingness to take ownership of our work together. Prior to the lesso n,

JJK and I talked through what my goals were for this first observation. I reminded them

that while my first goal was to observe the interns' teaching, I also wanted to use the

observation to conduct my own "inquiry, or research" into how JJK could help me be a

better teacher educator and coach for the interns. While I said that I was not sure how

this would unfold, I did say that I knew I was going to try to help JJK begin to develop

their "eyes and ears" as teaching coaches and researchers. To do this they did not

need to plan anything. They simply needed to play the part of "student" and I would ask

them questions about their experiences along the way. The interns then shared their

expectations and needs during the observation so that they could remain as

comfortable and focused as possible. This included their desire that we not talk while

they engaged in whole group instruction. They also decided where they wanted us to

sit in the room, which involved reassigning seats for other students.

I then shared one of our first tools that would, from that point forward, define our

work together as different from the work of other students in the classroom. This was

my data collection instrument, the "Pathwise observation form," which was used to

collect evidence of prospective teachers effectively planning, implementing, and

reflecting upon their instruction. I explained that as the interns' teaching coach I used


139









the form to "capture examples of the teachers doing good teaching" in ten different

categories, as well as to write down suggestions for improvement. I explained that we

could call the notes I wrote down data for our research into better teaching, words I

consciously included in our developing discourse together as a COP. Also pointed out

that the interns would be taking "mental notes" as data, as well, as they were learning to

become classroom teachers and researchers at the same time. I reminded the group

that just the week before, we had read a story in class about a scientist. That story had

the word data in the text, and one of the students in the class had said at that time that

"...(D)ata is the facts and lets you prove it." From this point on in our COP, JJK never

appropriated the word data into their conversations with us but did consistently use the

word "facts" as their own term for this. Finally, I explained to JJK and the interns that

during observations I was careful to try to be conscious of, and then note, any "felt

difficulties" (Dana & Yendol-Hoppey, 2009), or feelings of discomfort I had during the

lesson. I explained that they would potentially be useful data for our COP to focus on

together in our work to improve teaching and learning in the classroom.

During the lesson I wanted to locate a moment whereby the supervision process

could provide an opportunity for JJK to practice becoming aware of the reasons behind

the choices teachers made, as well as their own responses as learners to these

choices. This would help introduce the kind of thinking I had to do as a field supervisor

for teachers. Soon after the teacher-led lesson began, I noticed that two of the three

boys maintained eye contact with the interns, who were reviewing a book of little-known

personal facts about U.S. presidents. But one of them continued to flip his pencil, tilt his

chair back, drum on the desk, and keep his body facing away from the teachers. He


140








was the only student in the room exhibiting this kind of body language. I sensed the

interns' discomfort with his behavior, especially as this was a formal observation. They

first desperately tried to make eye contact with him, followed by an attempt to use

proximity control to change his behavior. Neither strategy influenced a change in his

body language. And then I realized something: Whether he was listening or not did not

matter. What mattered was that the adults in the room those who had power over

how this student's institutional identity would be defined did not believe he was

listening. This was the opportunity I was looking for. It was my "felt difficulty."

I had three intentions in that pivotal moment. First, I was searching for the right time

to begin including JJK in the supervision conversation. Second, I wanted the student

who appeared "off task" to become aware of his teachers, what they were doing, and

why they were doing it. Finally, I hoped that these first two goals would influence a

change in his behavior. The trick was to figure out how to accomplish all of these goals

with one act. I had to make a move. I decided to pose a question for JJK that anchored

all of my goals together. On an index card (see Figure 5.1 below) I wrote the first

question of many more to follow over the course of the semester: "J Why do you think

Ms. B. is re-reading the book?" He wrote back immediately: "So we could rebablishing

(reestablish) it back into our mind don't you get it(?)"

F g- W5 S Ae a you -ni nF- IYAs.
Fr i5i br-redieary j ate


ibooW^M "



Figure 5-1. Sample written dialogue between Darby and JJK.









Why was this question the one I chose for us to think about in that moment? In

my journal I commented that, "...it is so hard to pull these reasons apart -they feel like

one big feeling in me." After analyzing my own moves through the course of the study,

this moment captured the four major motives behind my work with the COP, which are

discussed later again in this chapter. First, I was assuming that J was "not listening to

his teachers," although later when he completed the assessment, I had been quite

wrong about this. I wanted to give him a chance to think for a moment about where he

was, what was going on, and why. I wanted to break what I assumed was his

distraction and get him to refocus on the task at hand so that he could engage with the

content and perform well on his assessment later. In other words, I wanted to influence

his academic performance during the lesson. Second, I wanted him to be perceived as

a "good student" by everyone else in the room. For this to happen, he needed to at

least adjust his body language. Indeed, when he finished responding to me on the card

he turned his body forward, although he never did give the interns eye contact. Next, I

wanted to shift the assumptions behind traditional student-teacher discourse from one

that focused on student performance to one that put the learning of the teachers at the

center. Thus I was initiating the beginnings of a collegial dialogue of supervision that

would help JJK build and then focus their lenses as teacher educators. For the rest of

the lesson all three boys began writing to me and, to my delight, to one another. On our

little cards we not only argued over which president could not read, we discussed how

we thought the interns were trying to make the lesson interesting, who seemed bored in

the class, as well as ideas for the interns so that they could get more students to visibly

participate in future lessons. This was evidence of the motive for the fourth kind of move









I made as a supervisor: I wanted to position JJK as both a source of data for teacher

learning, as well as to help them develop their skills and dispositions as data collectors.

Next, I wanted to influence our written conversation in a way that positioned them as

my partners in the supervision process. Asking questions (as the "adult-teacher") for

them to answer (as the "child-student") was the normal discourse practice in the

classroom. I decided to participate in this familiar discourse pattern but begin using

words in a way that positioned JJK as experts. I did this by inserting the word engaging

in my question: "How could this part be more engaging, or interesting, for kids?" None

of the boys responded, except with shrugs of their shoulders and perplexed looks on

their faces. I moved to scaffold their understanding of my question by writing an answer

to my own question, which they read: "I had an idea: Maybe give facts to each group -

then each group does the teaching. What do you all think?" Once I wrote this they

began grabbing index cards and simultaneously writing their ideas and trading them

back and forth to read. These pivotal moves struck me in that JJK were not only

reading and using a new social language (Gee, 2002), they had to carefully consider

their responses and then apply their ski Ils in writing for an authentic audience and

purpose. Both of these moves required complex intellectual and academic skills. After

this point, JJK had entered a special conversation, or discourse with us as educators.

For the moment, however, their ideas generated during the lesson were shared with the

interns, who decided that they wanted to put parts of them into practice the very next

day. JJK saw that not only were their ideas heard but were actually considered good

enough to change the way teaching would occur in the classroom from that point on.


143









Other important moves made during this critical juncture occurred during the

assessment portion of the lesson. The class was asked to write a letter to a president of

his/her choice. One of the boys got straight to the task. One complained to me that he

did not want to write but then got to work with the help of a teacher serving as a scribe.

The third boy wrote the salutation portion of his letter but then spent seven minutes

doing everything but writing. He went to the bathroom, got a drink of water, and

sharpened two pencils. Neither the teacher nor the interns intervened. After talking his

dilemma through with him, I found that he had only needed his ideas to be validated and

to verbally rehearse his letter. He began this process by making a personal connection

with this president's middle name. This was an important piece of observational data

that I included in my notes for the interns, who by this time in the school year had

appropriated the fourth grade team's definition of this student as a "motivation problem."

In our post-conference following the observation, I explained that this student was not

only able to persevere in completing the assignment. He was also able to show strong

evidence of meeting the learning goals once he had access to a quick verbal rehearsal

with a teacher.

In this same post-observation discussion, the interns helped me pinpoint four

pieces of evidence that suggested how the work of our COP was not only opening up

new possibilities for JJK's school identities but that it was positively impacting the

teaching and learning occurring in the classroom, as a whole. First, one of our three

boys had raised his hand to contribute to the whole group discussion for the first time

this year. Second, this same student created a written artifact for the first time. Third,

having one of the boys move back to the table with me allowed another student to take









his place in the front of the room, helping her "not disappear" from the interns'

awareness during instruction. Finally, my willingness to participate as a supporting

educator freed the interns up so that they could get around to assessing the writing of

other students who normally did not get such one-on-one attention. In that sense the

interns felt the ongoing work of our COP was contributing to making achievement more

accessible, and therefore more equitable, for the entire class.

Critical Juncture #4: First Informal Teaching Observation

In this math lesson JJK and I sat together, again, with no plan except for the boys

to play the role of "students" and allow me to ask them questions. I did not have the

extra responsibility of formally collecting data using the Pathwise observation

instrument, so I had to identify my own anchor for a conversation about the teaching

and learning occurring in the classroom. As the lesson progressed I felt tightness in my

abdomen, and I knew that my "felt difficulty" had arrived. I wrote my feelings down: "I

am concerned about this traditional format how many students who want to respond

are not getting to? And how many students can get away with 'checking out' of the

lesson altogether and not be held accountable?" In these wonderings I actually had two

felt difficulties that I wanted to bring to articulation so the six of us could use them as

data for learning: First, I wanted the interns to incorporate more ongoing assessment

within their lessons, rather than depend solely on the end-of-the-week math test, or

even an end-of-the-lesson worksheet to gauge learning. Second, I had observed

enough thus far in the semester to see that the interns were caught in a rigid, repetitive

question-and-answer pattern that they were observing from their mentor teachers. In

this pattern the teacher poses the question, students raise their hands, the teacher

selects one student to answer the question, and then the cycle starts again. While most


145









of the students were following the expected pattern, Mark, another student in the class,

continued to disrupt the pattern. Soon J, one of our own COP members, began to

disrupt the pattern, as well. Both were "calling out" and receiving frequent verbal

reminders to "(P)lease raise your hand." Mark also had a behavior card on his desk

marked by the mentor teacher each time. I wanted to figure out a way to help the interns

become aware of this repetitive question-answering pattern and how it might be

frustrating for some learners. I wanted to challenge the interns to expand their

repertoire of classroom discourse in ways that would allow more students to engage in

academic conversation. Finally, I wondered if there was a way that these two issues

could be taken care of with one new practice. I also wondered if JJK could help me with

my felt difficulties, especially because one of them was struggling to negotiate his desire

to participate in class within the limited social norms available.

I decided to first get JJK to focus on the aspect of ongoing teacher assessment,

which, as a supervisor, I try to assume is the purpose for teachers asking students

questions. I wrote on our first index card of the day: "What ways are the teachers

finding out what we know?" None of the boys seemed to understand the question, so I

wrote on: "Are they giving us a test? Are they asking us to write a paragraph?" One of

the boys wrote back: "They're asking us questions. They are kind of testing us on what

we know." I then wrote, "What could they do so that all students can answer at least

one question?" One of the boys wrote back, "(They could) say you shout it all..." I then

wrote, "What about a quieter way? A way they can know each person's answer in case

they can't hear everyone?" One of the boys spoke, "We could write it!" I then

suggested that in order to do this, we could give everyone a sheet of paper on which to


146









write and then hold up their responses: "...(Y)ou all write the answer and hold it up -

like 'shouting it out' but quieter." One of the boys wrote back, "Sure so we could do it

starting right this minute." Another wrote, "You (know) it would be easier for Mark."

Next, I had to figure out how to turn these ideas into action. At the end of the

lesson the classroom teacher and the interns said I could have a minute to process our

thinking out loud. First, I clarified my role with the class again, as well as how JJK were

part of the interns' coaching team. I then shared my felt difficulty with the class, "I was

worrying during math that everyone wasn't getting a chance to answer a question, and

JJK and I wanted to figure out a way to help the interns gather information on more

people's thinking during the lesso n, rather than just waiting for the test on Friday." I

then explained that, "JJK came up with an idea. The interns could ask a question and

have each person write his or her answer and hold it up. What do you all think about

this idea?" The class showed great enthusiasm, and the interns then asked the class,

"Can we try this tomorrow?" The class showed agreement.

Before I left that day I wrote thank-you notes to JJK. In the notes I asked each of

them to remind the interns of their new strategy tomorrow. This was the first

responsibility for coaching that I gave JJK that was independent of me. Later at lunch

that day JJK, the interns, and I talked about this new idea. One of the boys said he

hoped it would help Mark experience more success during the lesson. The interns and I

talked about how we hoped so, too, especially as he really wanted to participate and it

would give him a chance to do so without getting into trouble.

Critical Juncture #5: Second Informal Teaching Observation

For this observation JJK and the interns expressed excitement about putting their

new idea into action. That morning the interns had emailed me to share the good news:









JJK had indeed reminded them to incorporate their idea into today's lesson. However,

during the lesson I noticed that there had been a change in how it was implemented.

Rather than seeing all students holding up their written responses after the teachers

asked a question, I witnessed small groups of four deliberating over a single response

and writing it down. Each group was assigned a card holder for one person to display

the answer, as well as a speaker role to explain the group's response. I asked JJK on

an index card: "Why are they asking a whole group to predict the answer, rather than

letting everyone at one time?" One of them answered in writing, "Now they can ask

every group a question." Another wrote, "It would be harderfor the teachers to see a

bunch of cards up in the air." The third wrote, "Just in case (someone) doesn't know the

answer." JJK were thinking of the teaching value of supporting and assessing group

problem solving, how to make assessment more manageable for the interns by looking

at fewer responses at once, as well as how to support individuals who might struggle to

respond without peer support. K told me orally that JJK and the interns had come up

with this new plan before I had come in. JJK then told me to watch how the new

strategy worked during the lesson when they played their roles "as students."

At the end of the lesson I wrote to JJK: "...(P)lease be ready to tell the teachers

why their math lesson is better for everyone's learning now! What have they

improved?" I reminded them orally that during the last lesson the interns were calling

on only one person at a time. I then wrote, "Why is this better for kids and teachers?"

One of the boys wrote back, "There are more people answering now." Another wrote,

"It's funner because everyone gets to think of their own answer and write it on a piece of

paper and they get to hold it up better because before they were just calling on


148









(individual) people." At the middle point of the lesson the interns invited JJK to publicly

share their feedback on how the new strategy worked to increase participation and

assessment, and to explain these reasons to the class, which they did. The interns built

on this moment and shared their new "felt difficulty" with the class, which was that they

still could not see the responses on the cards very well. While they said that

participation was visibly improved through student conversation, their ability to assess

more students' thinking was still impaired. I told the interns that JJK and I would work

on this problem as the lesson continued. JJK brainstormed on the index cards some

ideas, which included:

* We could use a highlighter or a pen.
* Use a big pencil. You know- the kind you can change the size.
* Crayon.
* Or a white board with erasers and markers.

The interns were passing by at this time and said that the whiteboards were the

"perfect idea," one that they learned in college but had not yet thought of how or when

to put into practice. They gave the four of us a "high-five." We continued with finishing

the assignment.

Critical Juncture #6: Second Formal Teaching Observation

Several days before the next formal observation, I wrote a note to the interns and

to JJK: "On Friday I'll be here to watch Ms. E and Ms. B teach a lesson. Could the five

of you come up with one thing you want JJK and me to watch for? Thanks, guys. I

can't wait to work with you all again we make an awesome team for teacher learning!"

The interns emailed me later that day and said they shared with JJK their latest felt

difficulty. The interns had explained to JJK that when they teach they get so caught up

in the content of their lesson that they forget to pay attention to who is participating and


149









who is not. They often called only on students with their hands raised, forgetting the

more "invisible" students, as well as the ones who were "checking out" and not listening.

They were now ready to assess more individual thinking during discussions but were

having trouble getting all students to engage in discussion.

The interns invited JJK to attend the pre-observation conference so that they

could share with them a "data collection tool" they had created. They wanted JJK to

consider using it during the observation. One of the boys got a list of half of the class,

whi le the other two boys got a list with the other half of the class. They would be using

the lists to observe two parallel groups during a science lesson about conserving natural

resources. One of the boys would handle one group, and the other two boys would

team up to collect data on the second group. After explaining the learning goals of the

lesson and the sequence of activities, the interns then explained that during the parallel

group portion of the lesson that they wanted JJK to record every instance where

students were "participating." I shared that in collecting these data that JJK would be

acting like "researchers," but as researchers we needed to define exactly what was

meant by "participation." What would "count" and what would not? The interns then

explained that their definition of participation was a "conversational exchange" between

a student and the teacher, or a student and another student, which related to specific

topic of the lesson. This meant that JJK not only had to record conversation exchanges,

they had to be able to discern the relevance of each student's contribution to the

conversation. JJK and the interns practiced coming up with examples and non-

examples of relevant conversation topics. In this way the interns were also giving JJK,

as students, an advance organizer for the content being taught that day.


150









While observing their groups, JJK would keep this guiding question in their

minds: "Who is participating in this moment?" They would then mark a tally next to the

name of each person who was participating. At this point one of the boys asked if he

could record times when he noticed "non-participation." JJK then talked through using

different symbols for "participation" and "non-participation." The interns and I agreed

that writing down instances of "non-participation" would be another valuable focus for

collecting data. We talked about the difficulty in collecting both at the same time,

especially as the boys would also be responsible for their full participation in the lesson

as students. We realized that we would need to make a decision as to whether to

collect data that demonstrated "participation" or "non-participation." Once we talked

through all the various ways "non-participation" might look and sound, we realized that it

was a lot easier to record instances of oral participation, and that these data would still

give us a lot of valuable information.

Finally, the interns and JJK considered my question: "What if your data collection

instruments cause too much distraction for the other students?" JJK independently

came up with the idea of presenting the instrument to the class and explaining its

purpose. The interns supported this decision and asked JJK to rehearse their

presentation for us, which they did. When the class actually entered the room and got

seated, JJK opened the lesson by presenting the lesso n's main learning goals, which

surprised us in that it had not been part of their rehearsal. Then they explained their

role in collecting data on "participation." One of them held up the chart for the class and

explained that every person who participated would get a tally. The other two traveled

from table to table to show their classmates the chart. Another boy explained the









definition of "participation" to the class this way: "Giving ideas, saying things out loud to

help the group, and asking questions."

During the background reading portion of the lesson, one of the boys left the

room and stayed gone for quite a while. This was unfortunate to me as he was

assigned to be the peer support reader for the student the interns had identified as the

"most struggling reader" in our group, comprised of JJK and me. However, the other

two continued with the reading of the passage. When the third boy came back the other

two caught him up with the content. Then the "most struggling reader" suggested to his

assigned peer support reader that he circle key words in the passage to enhance his

comprehension as he read. He explained that this would help him find important ideas

in the passage quickly when he needed to refer back to them. This strategy was not

shared by any teachers that day but was independently suggested by this student to

support his friend's success in the lesson. One of the interns whispered in my ear, "You

see? He is becoming a teacher leader." This was the first time the term "teacher

leader" had entered our COP conversation. After this observation one of the interns

emailed me and continued sharing her joy about this student, "... (Y)ou do realize that

Sis not only speaking in class to his peers now but he is standing up at the front of

the whole room doing public speaking!"

During the parallel group portion of the lesson, JJK carried their observational

sheets with them to document peer participation, as well as their learning sheet to

record their ideas as students during the group activities. They handled their double

duties as students and researchers with no problem, only needing me to scribe for them

on occasion in order to quickly record their thoughts (regarding the lesson) without










falling behind. One of the boys said he wanted to be sure to be able to check himself

off at least once for participating that day. When the lesson was over, I asked JJK to

examine their data together. I asked them to choose and write down one important

thing they wanted the interns and me to gain from these data, especially as they were

not going to be able to attend the post-conference. Two other students in the classroom

asked if they could participate in analyzing the data, as well. JJK led their peers in

examining the patterns of tallies and they discussed what they noticed. As the class left

for their next class, each boy wrote their final conclusions on their data sheet without

any assistance from me. Below are excerpts from the data collection sheets each boy

used during this portion of the lesson. It also includes the final written conclusions JJK

drew from the data after leading their small group in an analysis of their findings (Figure

5.2, 5.3, and 5.4):
Yo I V II I I I I I I I I


H-



:1. L -

n," Tmr, wrwz -,
,o [ r%'__ __
gana


m- A K_
ton K.

11


K r, Ack fl. c /




Figure 5-2. (Boy 1) Data collection and analysis of student participation during parallel
groups: "I think that they should have each answered more questions. I think
G was just sleepy."


153












_ _- __J _


cI -t---- 4-j


ayah
-----
a* --- z_ _
stiriA f -_- t__


\r ;5pg32
\i'YvQ !3


Figure 5-3. (Boy 2). Data collection and analysis of student participation during parallel
groups: "I noticed everybody was participating...Because we told them about
the sheet."









-- -, ---- ---t )1A V--- -- -- -- -
n J













port; a- ,t4 r fT c ) C. t-m f A f



Figure 5-4. (Boy 3). Data collection and analysis of student participation during parallel
groups: "M participated more than anyone. In the group he answered
every question that Ms. E said. But A really needs to answer more
questions."


e V v' e -? + -. 6-Pt vt.-t, f- / I-,- :











One of the boys wrote under his data set: "I noticed everybody (in my group) was

participating." I read this and asked him why he thought this might have happened. He

answered, "Because we told them about the sheet." I asked him to write down this idea

for the interns to consider. He was theorizing that the act of publicly sharing the data

collection plan with the class had led students to increase the desired behaviors. The

next boy who shared responsibility for observing student participation in this same

group went further in his final written analysis by pointing out individual cases: "Mark

participated more than anyone in the group. He answered every question Ms. E said.

But Allie really needs to answer more questions."

In the post-observation conference I shared JJK's data and conclusions with the

interns. The interns especially valued JJK's observations of Mark and Allie. They

congratulated themselves for setting up the discussion in a way that met Mark's need

for participation in a more engaging and appropriate way. They then agreed that we

needed to figure out a way to gain more access to Allie's thinking during lessons. The

interns then continued sharing their excitement about their observations of the so-called

"most struggling reader" that they had planned to accommodate with a peer support

reader, who had left the room. This "most struggling reader," in that moment, had

become a "teacher leader," an identity assigned to JJK from this point forward. They

also shared their excitement that this same student was motivated by the data collection

instrument, itself. It had allowed him to set a goal to verbally contribute to the

discussion topic at least once, which was atypical of his normal classroom behavior.

After collecting all of the post-conference data that included the interns' reflections and


155









analysis of assessment data, I completed the official Observation Summary. In this

summary document I also included a discussion on the data provided byJJK.

Critical Juncture #7: Third Formal Teaching Observation

In this final formal observation JJK and I observed the interns facilitating a math

lesson in which they incorporated the boys' idea of using whiteboards and markers to

display individual responses during the lesson. This time JJK had asked to be able to

collect data on the Pathwise observation instrument with me, so we first needed to

determine what kind of observational data they could help me gather. First, during the

pre-observation interview, the interns explained their lesson sequence and their

reasoning behind each step. Then I reviewed the Pathwise instrument, pointing out the

boxes I had to fill in with different kinds of evidence. I stressed that I needed to capture

strong evidence on the interns' ability to promote equity and fairness, to facilitate

positive classroom behavior, and to provide students with clear instructions and

procedures, as these were goal areas the interns wanted to show improvement in at this

point in their professional development. The boys agreed to help me with these three

domains. I explained that the interns had to "pass" this observation in order to graduate

with their degree, so that all six of us needed to sign the final summary, if all were

willing.

We then reviewed the language on the Pathwise instrument associated with each

of the three domains we were focusing on. I stressed that our goal was to try to find as

many examples of good teaching for each domain as we possibly could. We talked

about key concepts, such as fairness. I helped explain how I might "see" fairness:

"Fairness here might mean how many kids are getting to participate how many kids

are getting more of a chance to really practice during the lesson. You are trying to


156









capture data on the teachers 'being good.' You will do that by listing all the ways you

can catch them making their teaching, the materials, and the learning fair for all of the

different learners in the classroom." One of the boys then made a key connection

between our past work together and the concept of fairness: "Like when we did

the... each person has to hold up a card and everybody would know what they're

thinking? Like that?" We then highlighted keywords on the form to remind JJKwhat

their focus would be, as each had a different domain. In two cases we translated some

of the words into more user-friendly guiding questions.

The interns stressed again how important it was to them that JJK and I collect

these data for them. They said they needed our "extra sets of eyes, ears, and feelings."

I asked the interns to predict for us what kinds of evidence of each domain they

expected us to see. They listed many teaching tools and behaviors for us to look for,

including JJK's idea of using whiteboards for individual responses. I asked JJK how the

white boards might be evidence that the interns were succeeding in all three domains.

Related to the domain of fairness and equity, I asked, "Why might (the white boards)

make the lesson, for example, more fair?" One of the boys explained to me,

"Cause...on the white board it is easier (for the interns to assess right away) and it

takes longer on the what you call it (works-eet). And if you ... if we do it on Tuesday

and you grade it on Friday, uh, the kids won't learn more... (because) it's three days."

One of the boys then made the connection between this point and the interns' co-

teaching strategy for this lesson. One of the interns was going to take a support role

during the lesson and work with small groups and individuals during the whole group

lesson. Therefore, he said, "...(W)hen students might not know the answer" and "...you









could like go outside with them and help them..." I responded, "You bet. And just like

you just said, how are they supposed to know that now if they wait until the end of the

lesson to give a worksheet, or at the end of the week when they give a test?"

After performing a verbal rehearsal of the lesson sequence, the interns came

upon a dilemma. They could not make a decision about their expectations of students at

a particular point in the lesson. JJK and I watched them do a think-aloud of two

scenarios while one of the boys explained to them why he thought one idea was better

than the other one. One of the boys then asked the interns to consider what might

happen if students began fighting over markers, something the interns and I had not

considered. JJK and the interns came up with a solution, and I asked JJK to be sure to

try to note this strategy when they saw it happen as a way to prevent behavior

problems. I said, "So you see, you are not focusing your attention on the kids that are

misbehaving. (Rather,) (y)ou are focusing on the things teachers are doing so kids

have a better chance to behave well and so that more learning can happen."




Models appropriate and B.4 Establishes and maintains consistent standards of a behavior
respectful standards of
behavior off 7-a -T,."
SResponds appropriately
and consistently to
inappropriate behavior
*Re-teaches, reminds, .
and reinforces -- '
appropriate standards of .
behavior as necessary
*Configures the room so .5 Makes the physical environment as safe and conducive as possible
ttat all students have

Figure 5-5. (Boy 1): "How are our teachers helping kids behave?" His observation was-
Off task list, the rules, reminding not paying attention, to be quiet 2 times,
verbal reminder, 2 minutes, 4 minutes, 2 finger silence reminder." As a side
note, this same student verbally asked me, "Ms. D, what's the difference
between verbal reminders and verbal warnings?"


158














Dormain -i Cireintin -ne frSuitan"


MENC14MAPJwS
ueat tLDpae ftrtv.
ano does not: acft
unrfar behavior mong
*-f"r .ndHhr rdlidlnq

SConv-ya B anltudo
a=n at stdw ant ate
v'aued

kcsatelta posolavy, shows
rnc and tailors
peafnal Intermctlorm wVh







KOcOns, dnd tBtcftuea EOt~


EVIDENCE








ad2 Esitnlishes and ma.ruinr rmnr.r-st r- I irt


a J arriTJcatfls Cai'ng..ig I-mknq N VnTlr ITo eOt itoert


Figure 5-6. (Boy 2): "How are our teachers creating a climate that promotes fairness?"

His observation was "Smartboard (graph) paper; little passport thingies;

letting everyone have a chance so they can move around... You can write the

words bigger (on the overhead) so everyone can see the words."


Ing far Student Leamrning


MENT5 [ BENCHMARK E


-L*rmmuTnnEran loamirn aols
fr instruean either orally or In
.,rurg Ir irt e r.ennigq or dunng
"As.s 'JudEpw in mriain
nferenlns eoralb Jeam.,rg .]J-
iftrougn IrQluimriO er/cl,
'Carm nuiiciatel 3aruiccnal
uroci'ures tuhrLuh irntnJ
appropriate. for the sOdents under
Instrnicion, taking inn account the
Trims orf d taidars- a wamplas
iof *rnimurm-in,-in Lmnu ar or
'ImCtrn il3rectCri5 ina mxalenio


"arbnornsrares onriwrt"
knowledge and organlzatan
Makes Jnstructtn relevant by
asnss'r.g anP aialinq gtdjjr.'
prrnr Oadgir.urd xnum\-.we axJ
epiensca
*ES uctw le Issans In a coherent and
mLrrhcd maner (-e.., sequerlsd
o.giCallh, ordered CncDballl y
sfrganias rnsruedn brugn a.
VBrery af 3ppromacli (e.g.,
presfiita'n-, nail )3ups.
appropriateo stldnts'W
tUntermtandlnaftia buirda hrfdcies to


E.1 M akej learning 3ols anao InsndpaunW prauedurs.j Oear to nuruini


fhtv 8tfle 4a~wrs aiabn~Gn u, ki'Ak


,u.d Al M
C.1 aks cent reprv me o it dejals r- ,I



6 7 ^Oc 45 [^yL^-*" "

l'u "'' i/ ^ { ^ n f -i*


Figure 5-7. (Boy 3): "How are teachers making sure kids understand?" His observation

was "By aski ng the students to do the questions and if they can't, she will

help them do it until they understand it."


When the lesson began JJK and I took our places at our table. Each one of us


collected our data on separate Pathwise observation instruments. JJK also participated


in the lesson as students, completing both their guided practice and independent


practice tasks with near 100% accuracy, a feat not accomplished by all students in the


class. Below are the data that JJK collected from this observation.


159


OBSERVER'S COMMENTS





6)0cicz








can
WT/G^J


Domain C: Teachl
I nt~pr~ DM


I ti a P re k0


I


D ,,- ; m u ca nlo m n o m et| rilj


~ -. ..


Inlux far SrdLnt eanq









JJK could not attend the post-observation conference. After I shared JJK's data

with the interns, we talked about how one of the boys had been reluctant, until this time,

to enact all three roles as data collector, teacher leader, and "good student" by

maintaining focus and accuracy on his math assignment, which was his weakest

academic area. However, he was playing all three roles very well. They said that this

reinforced their beliefs that all students need higher expectations in order to succeed in

school. They believed that this student would have done little to no work under normal

circumstances, focusing, instead, on his belief that he was not capable of being a good

math student. They also believed that under the more optimal learning conditions our

COP was providing for JJK, he only needed proximity to the teacher and frequent pep

talks in order to persevere as a successful math student. Under these conditions he

was producing accurate calculations and was also able to explain his math reasoning.

After this last observation I typed up the final observation summary document for

all of our COP members to read, approve (or ask for changes), and then sign off "so

that the interns could graduate." I included a special note to each member of our group

on the signature page, based on my listening to each person's contributions to our COP

over time. It was as follows:

Ms. B, Ms. E, and "JJK,"

It has been so amazing to work with you all to improve teacher and student
learning in your classroom! I have learned so much from each of you! Go
Teacher Leaders!

Ms. B. and Ms. E.,

Our advice to you is to keep finding ways to make learning fun for your
students. You are off to a great start and we hope you will keep your high
expectations for students plus the fun and joy you bring to the classroom
everyday. We know it wasn't easy and we appreciate all you did for us.


160









"JJK,"


Our advice as teachers to you is to keep growing as the talented leaders
you are. We need good leaders in Ms. S's' classroom! And next year in
middle school, too! And in the future no matter what job or sport or
anything you decide to do, you will definitely be strong leaders there (it's so
exciting to us to imagine!) You have totally impressed us with your high
intelligence, your hard work (such as writing down your ideas during
lessons and doing class work at the same time!), your thoughtfulness, your
maturity, all of your great ideas, and your willingness to teach us how we
can become even better teachers. We hope you had fun learning more
about how teachers think and why they do the things they do. We sure had
fun sharing our "teacher world" with you. Take care of Ms. E this spring and
keep helping her learn just as she will be helping you learn, too! But don't
forget to have fun over the holiday, too...

Critical Juncture #8: Final Conversation in our COP

At the end of the fall semester our COP convened for one last conversation in

order to better understand how JJK and the interns had made sense of our work

together. I have included an excerpt from this conversation below in order to reveal

how we had come to define our COP as a shared learning experience, as well as how

this related to changes in our identities as teachers and learners. The length of the

excerpt was chosen in order to demonstrate the richness of dialogue that occurred

between us, including how meaning was co-constructed, and how willing the interns

were to share their feelings with us in order to support their growth.

Darby: What has it been like to be 'teacher leaders?'

Boy 1: We can know more about what they (the interns) (are) thinking.
And, they'll know more about what we're thinking and what we're doing in
class.

Darby: Has that been different than what you have experienced before in a
classroom?

Boy 2: Yes it has been a lot of things... we can give facts (data), what we
know and they'll (the interns) start learning more...









Boy 1: I think we're giving facts (data) and they read it and try to come up
with things...

Darby asks interns: (How has) having these guys be teacher
leaders... helped you two in teaching?

Intern 1: Just to be more cognizant of what's going on in my classroom. I
know that I really love this example that with you, _, in reading... (an
author) had said something to the class that maybe some students might
not have understood... and you rephrased what (he) said and you helped
explain it to the other classmates and I really think after you reemphasized
it in a different way that it helped students. So I like to think now that
maybe now I'll give more chances for students....to say things in their own
words.

Intern 2: And for me...it's helped me be able to look at things from a
different perspective. Like we see things differently as a teacher than they
see...then you guys see things as students... actually taking part in the
lesson, because we may think things are being effective, or I may think
things are being effective and they're really not...so having your input really
helps and especially in the sense that it has helped us realize that like, we
can put you guys more in charge of your learning. Like you guys are very
responsible.

Darby, Did it surprise you to find out how much (JJK) can be in charge of
their own learning?

Intern 1: Honestly, on one level, yes, but on another level, no, because I
know everybody is so capable of it. I think the surprising part was
just...when they were given responsibility they just took it to a completely
different level... Do you guys agree?

Darby: So, guys, how do you, even if your classmates don't realize it... how
have you helped them?

Boy 1: Bygiving them the facts.

Boy 2: They can learn more about like math...

Interns 2: Also like when you took the participation data. Sometimes we
just focus on those students who are raising their hands because it's easy
for us...

Intern 1: Yes, and it's like the concept of wait time. They tell us to give
students wait time... and that means just giving you time to think about the
problem...

Darby: I always forget to do that.









Intern 2: Exactly. A lot of times it's really scary for us to be up there when
we ask you guys a question and no one responds... like that silence is kind
of scary for us... and we need to learn to give that wait time. And like that
participation check, like that really helped us to see like, we were calling on,
for example, (Gwen) all the time because she raises her hand all of the
time.

Boy 1: Yeah, because people they might not know what you are saying.
And (need it explained) in a different way.

Darby: Exactly. Like remember in your group there was one girl you and
realized had not raised her hand not one time?

Intern 1: Yeah, because everybody else... was paying attention and
participating. I had not noticed that one student... just sitting in the back and
just writing down the answers without sharing any answers or ideas. And
that really helped me.

Darby: Yeah, me too... How has being a teacher leader helped you guys?

Boy 3: It helped us learn more, like, when we want to grow up we want to
become a teacher and we have to start out as interns like Ms. E. and Ms.
B...

Darby: And, _, you are thinking about the... army... and there are
definitely leadership roles in the army...

Intern 2: J do you think that after we put you in this teacher leader
role as a student that you come to our lessons a little bit differently than you
would if you were just, 'Oh, I'm just a student.'?...

Boy 2: I got nothing.

Intern 1: (An) examplee of scary wait time!

Intern 2: Well, I see like when you guys first started...after you guys got...
in this role, the level of your work has improved. Like you guys are more
focused... on task. And I really think you guys are more reflective while
we're learning.

Intern 1: Also... we've let you in our world and what we are doing. Do you
think it's easier to approach us ...about your learning than it would be if you
didn't have this role as teacher leader?

All3 Boys: Yes!

Boy 1: I just thought (teachers) were aliens (before)...Aliens that came
from like Mars... made out of rock.


163









Intern 1: Do you guys like to know the reasons we do things?

Boy 1: Yeah, it gives like, it gives a head start about what you're doing and
we can build on that.

This excerpt of our conversation illuminates four important ways our COP

created the vehicle for transforming all of us as participants. First, JJK were witnessing

the act of teacher learning. Second, and on a related note, the role of "teacher" was

being demystified as JJK began to see that teachers were "no longer aliens made out of

rock." Third, we were making direct connections between the work of the COP and our

growth as teachers and students. Finally, the discourse we engaged in continued to

solidify JJK's situated identity as teacher leaders, and our view of them as experts.

Critical Juncture #9: Final Semi-Structured Interview with JJK

The analysis of this semi-structured interview as evidence of a shift in JJK's

identities was already discussed in Chapter 4. However, it is necessary to look at this

interview as a critical juncture that, in and of itself, helps explain this shift. The focus

interview protocol I used was designed based on the data I had gathered in our last

conversation (Critical Juncture #7). I gave JJK the questions a day in advance so that

they could think and talk together about how they wanted to respond (see artifact in

Appendix M). Analysis of the interview produced eight themes illustrating how JJK and I

positioned both one another and ourselves by this point in our relationship. Appendix N

offers an excerpt of the first stage of discourse analysis used to generate these themes.

Themes also revealed the kinds of bids (Gee, 2000) we made for ourselves and for one

another to be seen as certain "types of people" (Gee, 2008, p. 3) within this relationship.

These themes are presented in Table 5.1 below.









Table 5-1. Making bids for identity and asserting positionalities (Critical Juncture #9)
Theme Number of
Occasions
Theme 1: Darby Making Bids for JJK's Identities as Expert/Teacher 15
Leaders
Theme 2: JJK Accepting Expert/Teacher Leader Bids by Darby 22
Theme 3: J2 Resisting Expert/Teacher Leader Bids by Darby 7
Theme 4: J2 Accepting Expert/Teacher Leader Bids by Darby 10
Theme 5: Darby Positioning Self as JJK's Authority Figure/Teacher 13
Theme 6: Darby Positioning Self (Making Bids) as JJK's Learner 5
Theme 7: JJK Making Bids for One Another's Academic Identities 8
Theme 8: JJK Connecting Teacher Leader Identities with Improved 13
Academic Performance of their Peers

Comparing this last conversation with the initial conversations I had with JJK

uncovered how we had renegotiated our positionalities with one another over time. For

example, in each of our first conversations at the start of the study, I was the only

person contributing new information. This made my position in these conversations

very powerful because I was the only one setting an agenda. These first conversations

were interviews, so it makes sense that I was the only one inserting new information

into these early encounters. This new information was usually in the form of questions,

such as, "What kind of student are you?" or was an introduction to my philosophy by

saying, for example, "It's my opinion that we (supervisors) should work together with

children to make teachers better." In those earliest conversations JJK struggled to

make sense of my role and how they were supposed to position themselves,

accordingly. By this last conversation, our positionalities with one another had changed

dramatically. Even though it was still in a semi-structured interview, I was contributing

new information to our conversation only one-third of the time, while the boys

collectively took charge of the focus and direction of our topics for the remaining two-


165









thirds of the time (see Table 5.2 below). This proportion indicated that they were much

more at ease in taking positions of power in their working relationship with me.

Table 5-2. Power and positionality: Turning the conversation with new information
Participant Number of Times Participant Inserted New Information into the
Conversation
Darby 41
J1 34
J2 32
K 17

Returning to Table 5.1, other interesting points are worthy of note that reveal how

we negotiated and defined our discourse identities and positionalities in relation to one

another. During this conversation one of the students (J2) initially resisted my bids to

position him as an "expert" or "teacher leader" on seven different occasions. He used

several strategies to deflect or sabotage my attempts to position him as a teacher

leader. For example, he might change the subject, or distract us by making a joke. At

one point he insisted he had nothing to do with the professional development I

experienced in the COP by saying, "But you (were) already doing well." Each time J2

resisted my recruitment (Gee, 2000) of him as a teacher leader, the other two boys (J1

and K) repaired the situation by either ignoring him, directly disagreeing with him, or by

bringing forth evidence of how he had, indeed, made a significant impact on teacher

learning, including mine. Once his peers had made this repair, J2 ended up accepting

ten of my additional bids to position him as an expert for the remainder of the

conversation.

By the time this last conversation was over, JJK had been able to collectively

produce thirteen examples of how their acts of teacher leadership had directly

influenced the academic performance of one another, as well as specific classmates


166









who were part of the COP. What was most interesting, however, was that while JJK

were enthusiastic about pointing out how their work as teacher leaders had impacted

one another's academic identity, they struggled with (or resisted) identifying academic

improvement within themselves as individuals in connection to their work as teacher

leaders. Each did take personal credit for "doing more work now," and named math and

writing as specific areas of significant improvement. As one of them explained, "I

improved in math a lot. We took a test today and I think I'm going to get a hundred

'cause I studied... that pretest thing from yesterday." Indeed, after this interview I

checked his math test score and it was a 100%. But, overall, JJK seemed to work hard

to deflect the focus of improvement from themselves to that of others, including one

another in our COP. This deflection demonstrated to me that the most significant

outcome for JJK as teacher leaders was not how it related to their personal school

identities. Rather, the significance for JJK was how their participation in the COP helped

others. While two of the three boys were safety patrols and had expressed early in the

school year that this role signified their "helpfulness," their participation in the COP

deepened the complexity and sophistication of this dimension of their school identity.

"Helping others" went beyond vague references to school safety issues to specific

examples of how they were impacting the sense of community in the classroom, how

they were making the learning environment more accessible to and equitable for their

peers, and how their personal relationships were being reshaped in a powerful way,

including the fact that they now defined one another as "best friends." Below is a

sample of dialogue that illuminates how difficult it was to get the boys to articulate how

their work had impacted their personal academic performances, although they were









happy to give credit to one another, and to point out the improvement of their interns

and classmates:

Darby: How have you changed since you became a teacher leader?

Boy 3: Like the whole class did...everybody started doing more work.

Darby: Yes, but how have each of you changed?

Boy 1: I think everybody in the class has changed....since...we've been
giving ideas to Ms. B. and Ms. E...They've (the interns) came up
with... they've added onto our ideas and they said it to the whole class and
the class has learned more.

Boy2: Yeah, and theyliked it.

Boy 1: Especially Daniel...he's not getting in trouble much more.

Boy 2: And (he's doing) more writing.

Darby: So, so you're telling me that you guys have had...a positive impact
on your classmates and their learning?

Boy 2: Because they're (interns) taking...our examples so they could get
better.

Boy 1: (But) I've seen, uh, seen more... I think is getting more ideas
(for writing)... (and) better and better at being a teacher leader.

Darby: What about ? How has he changed?

Boy2: He actually helped people when they need help in math. And he
explained it to them. An' den like when you get done with a problem he'll
explain it to you den, you do it on your o7n.

Boy 3: Well, he sort of acts like a leader.

Darby: What I hear you all saying is that you have become better students
since you've become teacher leaders. Can you please try to explain why
being a teacher leader is making you better students?

Boy 2: Because the people are looking up to us!

Darby: How does that change (how you are) a student?

Boy2: Uh, it makes us like be interns. What are you thinking, ?

Boy 1: Uh, it's been helping us like...


168









Boy 2: A lot...

Boy 1: Yeah, we haven't been thinking this hard before!

Regardless of how JJK drew connections between their teacher leadership roles

and positive outcomes for themselves, their teachers, and their classmates, the point is

that they did express a strong sense of agency. They believed their work changed

peoples' lives for the better. This final critical juncture illustrates how JJK made the

connection between their work in our COP, and their being "better students," an idea

that, for these boys, was associated with a position among their peers, and one that

depended on status and respect.

Layer 2: JJK's Enactments of Situated Identities over Time

In the previous section I laid out the synthesis of our collective moves as six

members of a COP, organized by nine critical junctures. These junctures, and the

moves that made up their content, ultimately shaped the story of our COP. In this

section I examine only the moves made by JJK over the course of the four-month period

we worked together. In doing so I believe I can offer evidence of how their situated

identities, or subjectivities, came to change over time (Gee, 2002). Situated identities

are "characteristic ways of acting-interacting-feeling-emoting-valuing-gesturing-

posturing-thinking-believing-knowing-speaking-listening (and, in some Discourses,

reading-and-writing, as well)" (Gee, 2002, p. 38), or the different identities we take on in

different contexts. While there were many instances of JJK's moves that I interpreted

as their enactment of Affinity-identities through our kinship in the COP, using the lens of

how they enacted their discourse identities provided a substantially more powerful

mechanism for analysis.


169









After taking a chronological inventory of all of JJK's moves, categorizing them,

and then interpreting the meaning of each of these moves (see Appendix L), I

synthesized my findings into narrative form (Connelly & Clandinin, 1990). As a tool the

narrative helped me to more easily capture an impression, or composite, of how the

interns and I saw JJK's shift in identity over time. The narrative created, written from the

point of view of JJK as a collective "character," was also a helpful way to present

findings to the interns for member-checking purposes. Chase (2005) both cautions and

celebrates the fact that this narrative is highly situated in my own subjectivities as a

researcher, and was consciously "produced in (a) particular setting, for (a) particular

audience, and for these particular reasons" (p. 657). In telling this story I am shaping,

constructing, and performing my own reality and experience as a participant in the

meaning-making process (Chase, 2005). Embedded within this narrative is still a

collective voice that comes from the data. This collective voice includes those of us

endorsing and doing the crucial recognition work JJK needed as they reconstructed

their identities in our COP (Gee, 2002). Each composite is listed below, organized

chronologically by each critical juncture. Each juncture is titled with a fictitious quote

that captures the most salient theme that relates to the question, "How are JJK's

discourse identities changing over time?"

A Narrative of JJK's Expanding Identity over Time

#1 (August-early September) "We don't like school that much. We'd rather be
outside. We see ourselves as active people. We love sports, hunting, music, and
fishing. We don't like reading, although one of us seems to be a pretty good writer. We
call ourselves "good students," especially because two of us are patrol students. But we
don't always do very well in school with our grades. One of us has been told by all the
teachers he has bad behavior but we aren't sure why. But we aspire to be strong,
generous people who uphold justice and defend the weak..."


170









#2 (early September): "We are chosen as the best students to help our teachers
learn. The teachers picked the 3 of us to be teaching coaches and help them with
observing the interns. Five other students were not chosen. We are not really sure
what all of this means, yet, or what jobs we will have but it was exciting to be picked..."

#3 (late September): "We are really trying to figure out how to be good students,
and what leadership means. Sometimes we know things teachers, and even
leaders don't. We still struggle with how exactly to be a "good student" during all parts
of the school day but two of us know that when the teacher is doing a lot of talking, a
good strategy may be to stay quiet and not really ask too many questions. One of us
doesn't seem to get that- he calls out in class without raising his hand, just like Mark
does, who has to have a behavior card on his desk. But during the assignment today
he was the best writer in our group. The other two of us didn't want to do the writing at
all. One of us even left the room for a while, probably because he just did not want to
do the work. But then he came back and Ms. D. helped him by talking through his ideas
first. Then all three of us had no problem writing our letters.
The idea of "leadership" is getting confusing these days. One of us wants to
know why great leaders, like presidents, have been known to get into fights. One was
unable to read until he was 14. That does not make sense when it comes to what a
leader should be able to do. Ms. D. talks a lot about leadership, too, for some reason,
but we think she has a different idea of what this means than we do. Nonetheless, we
are getting to do things with Ms. D. that other kids don't get to do. We get to talk to her
by writing notes on the cards. She is treating us like experts. She asks us for our
opinions about what is going on with the teaching and learning in the classroom.
Sometimes we give her ideas without her even asking first. Sometimes we even have
to correct her knowledge of history, and she is a history teacher!.."

#4 (Early October): "We are starting to be like coaches for the teachers and the
whole class is starting to know it now. We are a special team. We have access to
and are part of a special team. We are practicing being both students and coaches for
Ms. D. and the interns. We are even allowed to tell them what to do and when to do it,
and they listen to us. We are starting to see things the way teachers see them. We are
aware of the performances of our peers. Like Mark, he gets in trouble a lot but we are
in a position to help him now and we are going to. We know how to make connections
between what the teachers do and the quality of learning that goes on with our
classmates. We also give our advice on how to improve these connections. Many
times Ms. D. and the interns have not seen what we see and it is our job to explain it to
them. We are becoming really good at helping the teachers make different choices in
order to improve learning and behavior in the classroom. Our ideas are really helping
them do a better job. Now the whole class is getting to see how smart we are..."

#5 (Late October) "We know how to act like researchers and students at the same
time, and our whole class knows it. Our expertise is now indispensable to the
teachers' learning process. Now our team meets at special times. We get to eat
lunch together in the classroom with our teachers, for example. We get to observe the
interns with the same tools Ms. D. uses, and sometimes even different ones because it









is too hard for her to use different kinds all at once. We are becoming like science
researchers because we collect data (facts) on the teaching and learning going on in
the classroom. We have our own ideas on the kinds of data we think would be good to
collect to help the teachers improve and learn to do their jobs better. We also know
how to help our teachers make good instructional decisions when they get stuck we
know which decisions are better for helping more students learn. We are even starting
to use the right kind of words and language to communicate our competence. We are
so good at this now that we can stand up in front of the whole class and explain what
we are doing as researchers, and what the goals for a lesson are. Not only that, we are
able to perform as both excellent students and researchers at the same time..."

#6 (Early November) "We are researchers now. Our teachers call us 'teacher
leaders.' We are even stronger members of this special team, and even better at being
researchers, students, and coaches for the teachers all at the same time. Our
teachers would say that we are 'teacher leaders!' But one of us still doesn't like being
the 'student' if that means we have to read the lesson's text. Luckily, the other two of us
are really competent and strategic readers when we work as a team, and we can help
him get back on track as a good student. Ms. D. also helps when being a student and
being a researcher is too much to do at one time. As researchers we can collect,
analyze, and then draw conclusions from the data and share them with both adults and
students through both written and spoken explanations. We are also getting better at
using the words of researchers and teachers. Our ideas and words are included in the
observation summary that the interns need for us to sign in order to graduate with their
teaching degrees..."

#7 (Late November) "We are expert teacher leaders. Our expertise is integral to
teacher learning and change, and is even needed for our interns to graduate and
become full-time teachers. As expert teacher leaders we are both teacher coaches
and researchers. We are able to help our teachers plan their instructional decisions, as
we have access to their thinking and planning. We are learning more about teaching
and supervision, and we are able to articulate the kinds of practices that make a good
teacher without even being asked. For example, we can help our teachers value their
planning for how it benefits students in ways they haven't even thought of before. We
are also able to make connections between what teachers are doing now to improve
their skills with examples from the past.
As expert researchers we now have more autonomy over the kinds of data we
want to collect to help improve our teachers' practice, and we can each specialize in
different research questions. For example, we can decide the kinds of data to collect to
address classroom management so that the teachers can see all the ways they are
doing a good job in that area. As another example, we understand the kind of data to
collect to address the clarity of instruction. Finally, we can identify and record data that
shows the ways teachers are making their instruction fair for all students. Then we can
analyze this data and explain it to our teachers.
We are gaining further insights into why teachers do what they do. We contribute
these thoughts and connections to help them learn- these are celebrated by our
teachers and tried out right away. We are practicing the concepts important in our team









for teacher learning. We can blend our language as students with our special language
as teacher leaders, because the new words are starting to be part of the way we think
now. Our data analysis and teaching recommendations are so important that they are
typed up, printed out, signed by all of us, and put in the folders that the interns must
have in order to graduate from the university and become teachers..."

#8 (early December) "Because we can influence changes in teacher behaviors, we
can help our classmates who are struggling. Because we have access to teacher
thinking, we can improve equity in the classroom. We can do these things
because we are teacher leaders. We can articulate that being a teacher leader
sometimes means doing the job of action researcher. This means collecting data,
sharing the data with teachers, seeing the teachers change their practice as a result,
and thus helping our classmates. In other words, we can help our classmates through
influencing changes in teacher behavior. The teachers can also explain to us exactly
why they think we are teacher leaders. We have access to the teachers' special
language, conversation, thinking, and their personal feelings. Sometimes teachers are
afraid when they are teaching, for example. Being a teacher leader gives us insight into
the adult world of work, including the learning and stages adults have to go through to
become professionals. We really feel better about the relationships we have with
teachers now and this has enhanced our learning conditions dramatically. Before we
were teacher leaders we had no idea what teachers did and why. We like having access
to the thinking of teachers because it gives us a rationale for learning, which improves
equity in the chances to learn..."

#9 (mid December) It wasn't a 'me-ness' that has changed. It was an 'us-ness.' It
was all of us. Everyone in the class became more productive every single person in
our class changed as a result of our being teacher leaders. We can identify specific
students who we believe have been directly impacted by our work as teacher leaders.
For example, Daniel used to get in trouble a lot. Now he is not getting into as much
trouble and his writing skills have improved. We can also see changes in one another
here on our team, specifically as writers and math students. For example, one of us
aced a test today because he actually studied, and being a teacher leader motivated
him to study. One of us has been a weak writer. But now he is generating ideas as a
writer, especially because he is also working with Ms. E. He has also become a
stronger teacher leader over time. Another one of us has become a leader for the entire
class. For example, he helps people with their math. He explains the math and stays to
see you do it on your own. He has also been producing more work as a result of being
a leader.
Everyone changed as a result of our being teacher leaders, and this includes the
interns. First, we generated ideas to improve the teaching and learning we did together,
and the interns were able to take these ideas, expand upon them, and then put them
into action to see what would happen. The entire class has learned more as a result.
The interns also made our ideas public, so we got credit for our role in their teaching
and learning. And the class liked the work we were doing.
We can tell you the secret as to why being teacher leaders made us into better
students in class. It is this: Other people are respecting us because we have a special


173









status among our peers and we are seen as interns. In addition, there have been very
high expectations on us. We have never had to think this deeply before in school..."

In looking at the narrative created from the compilation of individual moves JJK

made over time with oral and written language, their physical expressions, the special

use of tools, space, and time, and through the artifacts they created, conclusions can be

drawn regarding how JJK's discourse identities changed over time, which may have

contributed to the changes in their institutional identities. JJK went from identifying who

they were in their lives outside of school to being a powerful force in making school a

more equitable learning community for their classmates and teachers. They attributed

this change in their sense of identity to learning about the world of a teacher's work, and

to their taking an active role in that world as "teacher leaders," which included a blend of

their roles as coaches and researchers.

This shift in their discourse identities went through three stages. The first stage

was in mid-September when they were chosen by their teachers to collaborate with the

interns and me, although they were not yet clear on the work we would be doing. After

this point they were repeatedly positioned as, and directly called "coaches" and

"researchers" by the interns and me. They were asked to carry out tasks that we

assigned to those roles. The second stage came in mid-October when their roles,

ideas, and work were formalized in the classroom by being made public and visible to

the rest of their peers. At this point JJK began enacting their identities through their

verbal and nonverbal language, expressing a kind of "ownership" of themselves as

teacher leaders and researchers situated within our COP. This shift became evident as

they increased the expression of independent ideas and decisions for application in the

classroom. In the final stage of their change in discourse identities, their behaviors and









ideas began to express an increasingly sophisticated stance as collaborators in the

supervision and action research process. Instead of being simply positioned as experts,

they were being experts, as was evident in their increased ability to be reflective and

metacognitive about their work. This was especially clear in how they were able to

connect their expertise to changes in teacher behaviors, which, in turn, they were able

to connect with the idea of equity in the classroom. While they were less willing or able

to make strong links between their work as teacher leaders and that of their individual

improvements in school performance, they were adept in articulating how and why their

work had positively impacted the performance of others in the classroom, and how this

changed the classroom as a learning community.

It is important now to turn attention to the role that I played in facilitating the COP

with JJK and the interns. In the next section I will reveal how I stretched the boundaries

of my supervisory role in order to directly cultivate equity and student performance in

our PDS. Looking at how this was done helped me draw more conclusions about how

the COP contributed to the change in JJK's school performance and to the shift in their

formal, institutional identities.

Layer 3: Motives behind the PDS Supervisory Role

So far I have presented the overarching story of our COP. This story was tied

together by nine critical junctures, each made up by a collection of moves by all

members of the group. Then I pulled out the moves made solely byJJK in order to

examine how their situated identities ultimately shifted. Now I will give shape to the

individual moves that I, as the interns' supervisor, made over time. Examining these

moves helps explain how the relationship between JJK, the interns and me went from a

loose affiliation of "3 kids in a classroom, two interns, and a supervisor" to a conscious,


175









fully functioning COP. This layer of findings helps explain how I pushed the boundaries

of my role as a PDS university partner so that I could facilitate faculty, teacher

candidate, and student learning in a way that challenged unexamined cultural models of

"kinds of students" perpetuated in public schools.

I analyzed recordings of and artifacts from my own moves made over time within

the COP. Preliminary analysis of this portion of the study was done during the period of

data collection, allowing me to see that my work was driven by a definable framework,

although I was initially unaware of it. I excavated this framework by coding the

collection of moves I made as a supervisor, focusing my attention specifically on those

moves that repositioned JJK in novel ways. Data were drawn from field notes, artifacts,

and transcriptions of conversations that occurred during eight of the nine critical

junctures that occurred over time and defined our COP.


Table 5-3. Jot notes to expanded notes


Expanded Notes
(recorded immediately following event)
"... and_ maintain eye contact Wth the interns,
along Wth the rest of the class. just looks ahead
in my direction. flips his pencil, tilts back in chair,
drums on desk, is the only student in the room whose
body is not facing the front of the room...I began
sending them a card...I write this question to : ",
why do you think Ms. B is re-reading the book?"
Reasons for writing this card: I'm hoping that the
boys would be aware of this being a strategy for
comprehension or review that it wasn't to bore
them to tears with a second reading. Also, I want
to prompt to be more aware of how his body
expressed disinterest. And if he wouldn't listen to
the book, would he at least engage in writing with
me? And will this question help get these guys to
start thinking in terms of observing with me?.."


Jot Notes
(recorded during event)

1. and : eyes

2. pencil, chair, drum -
body a way only one

3. D(arby)card#1


176









During the process of data collection, I identified and recorded the motives and

feelings behind many of the choices I made that facilitated the creation and focus of our

COP. While I was in the classroom, I recorded short "jot notes," and then expanded

these field notes immediately after leaving the school. An excerpt of my field notes is

below, and demonstrates how I tried to stay focused on the reasons behind my actions.

The portions in bold-face type were the kinds of data I coded in order to understand the

guiding principles behind my work.

Appendix G provides an example of how this level of data was organized. Each of

my moves is listed, along with the motives behind each move. In the final column is the

code, in the form of a number, so that I could more easily see patterns in the data. Four

overarching motives guided my behavior as a supervisor, and these are listed below.

1. To consciously impact the immediate and long-range academic and social
performances of JJK as "good students"

2. To consciously attempt to disrupt JJK's institutional identities as defined and
reinforced in school Discourses

3. To help scaffold and apprentice JJK in developing an inquiry-oriented "teacher
educator's" lens for observing and making sense of the classroom

4. To identify and focus on the professional development needs of the teacher
candidates. As their supervisor with her own political agenda, as well as that of
the PDS community I was a part of, this included their development as inquiry-
oriented teachers who take charge of their own professional development, as
well as teachers with a mission of social justice.

The series of moves listed in Appendix G demonstrates how all four of these

motives were often inseparable. The inseparability of my motives was often because I

was always maximizing the time I had in the classroom by "killing four birds with one

stone" quite literally by making moves that would allow me to meet as many of these

four goals as possible. The act of recording this kind of data during moments of our









work together had an additional benefit. In sharing the motives behind my actions with

JJK and the interns, often by reading them aloud from my researcher's notebook, I was

able to model my own inquiry process within the COP. I was also able to incorporate

my motives into "think-alouds" in order to support the professional development of the

interns and to scaffold JJK's development as supervisors. This reflexive process made

my moves increasingly deliberate and conscious over time.

Conclusion

In this chapter I present three different layers of analysis in order to both explain

and contextualize JJK's shift in identities over time. First, I laid out the nine critical

junctures that our COP experienced, and that contributed to the "storyline" of our work.

Next, I analyzed how JJK's informal, discourse identities had shifted over time, marked

by three phases. Third, I created a framework of motives that guided my work as the

PDS university supervisor facilitating the complexity of our COP. In presenting these

three layers of analysis, I demonstrated that JJK had expressed a shift in their discourse

identities. In doing so, I have supported the evidence from Chapter 4 which indicated

that JJK had also experienced a parallel change in their formal, institutional identities. In

the next and final chapter I will synthesize these layers of findings, present new

questions that emerged as a result, and discuss the implications that this work has for

the PDS movement, and for the critical role school identity will have in educating

children in the 21st century.


178









CHAPTER
DISCUSSION

In this chapter I will present an overview of this dissertation research and

consider the implications of the findings discussed in Chapters 4 and 5 in which I

addressed the question: Howand why do the identities and performances of three

"struggling students" change during and after participating in a community of practice

designed to support the supervision of prospective teachers? The findings from this

study can offer school-university partnerships an example of creatively redesigning

shared roles and responsibilities in a way that can directly disrupt unexamined inequity

in classrooms. These findings also begin to answer the call from literacy-and-identity

scholars who have yet to thoroughly explain the phenomena of the co-construction of

children's identities and the classroom contexts that contribute to shaping this process

(Flores-Gonzalez, 2002; Gee, 2000; McCarthey, 2001).

Overview of the Study

In recent times the democratic purpose of schooling has been dangerously

muted in favor of social efficiency models for education which are designed to fuel

economic growth and capitalism (Sleeter, 2005; Wolk, 1998). And yet, even in the

name of "leaving no child behind," this trend has, in fact, disenfranchised more students

than ever before from economic opportunity and social equity (Apple, 1993; Brandt,

2001; Hinchey, 2004; McLaren, 2003). This inequity is reinforced by testing and sorting

practices that track children into different educational classes that reproduce barriers

between socioeconomic classes (Gee, 2004). Ultimately, it will take fundamental

changes in all social and economic institutions to correct such institutionalized inequity

(Goodman, 2002) but schools that organize grass-roots shared governance between


179









institutions, such as PDS partnerships, can lead the way. The goal of this participatory

action research (PAR) was to illustrate a small step toward this aim. Through a small

community of practice (COP) involving a PDS university partner in a supervisory role,

two interns, and three fourth-grade students, I wondered if the school identities and

performances of three pre-adolescents ("JJK") would change, and if the quality and

manifestations of these changes could be documented and explained from a theoretical

point of view.

Evidence of change in JJK's school identities and school performances was

indeed gathered during this PAR. These changes convinced participants in this study

that including children directly in a COP inquiring into effective teaching could have the

power to disrupt taken-for-granted cultural models of the "Successful Student." Data

were analyzed through two lenses, each helping to get at different aspects of the social

identities of JJK in school, and offering another way to triangulate the findings. By first

establishing the cultural models available for students in the fourth grade at Yearling

Elementary, it was then possible to build a single composite encompassing the three

boys' school identity at the beginning of the school year, and then once again at the

mid-point of that academic year. These two composites were interpreted through the

lens of James Gee's (2000) institutional identities. As students in the formal institution

of public schooling, the three boys' school identities fell on a continuum between

"successful" and "unsuccessful" at the very beginning of the school year. JJK's initial

school identities were comprised of a significant number of markers that made the case

that they were, essentially, most commonly defined as "unsuccessful." By the end of


180









the four-month study, their composite of school identities shifted toward a "mostly

successful" definition.

The question that these findings raised at this point was this: Would these three

boys have experienced the same degree of a shift from "unsuccessful" to "successful"

students had they not participated in our COP? While the shift in their school identities

was worthy of celebration, we could not know if their experience in the COP was the

impetus for that change. For this reason we also analyzed the path that the COP took

over time to see if any evidence for changes in JJK's identities could be found in that

process. To do this, JJK's behaviors were closely documented. We collected evidence

of changes in their discourse practices, which included their words, body language, and

use of texts and other props that defined their ongoing membership in the COP. By

doing so we were, essentially, asking this question: Howdid JJK's discourse identities

change overtime? By creating a composite in the form of a single storyline of these

changes, we were able to assert that JJK (and their teachers) had gone from viewing

their school identities in light of low reading abilities and inappropriate social behaviors

to viewing them as teacher leaders, competent writers and mathematicians, and agents

of change for their peers. JJK insisted that the change in their school identities, marked

by their new academic performances, was not due to individual effort. Rather, they

attributed this change to a new sense of belonging gained from their participation in our

COP. This insight led me to the conclusion that in order to impact equity in the PDS

classroom where teachers, prospective teachers, university educators and children

come together, it may be necessary to consciously forge purposeful learning

communities. These and other implications that come from the findings of this study will









be discussed. But first I will outline ten guiding principles that participants in this study

and I believe are important components to include when building collaborative COPs

between children and educators to support the supervision of prospective teachers in

the PDS in ways that can help children with marginalized school identities to take

ownership of those identities and reconstruct them in new ways.

Guiding Principles for Building Student-Teacher COPs for Supervision in the PDS

Because of the nature of participatory action research (PAR) that formed the

basis for which our COP was established, it is not possible to recommend a model that

will replicate our experience, as the outcomes of PAR depend on the agenda setting

and actions of its unique participants within their unique contexts. In addition, every

PDS takes a highly individualized approach to interpreting, assembling, and enacting

the blended goals of university- and school-based faculty learning, teacher preparation,

and P-12 student learning through inquiry-based practices. However, the data analysis

process still led to ten assertions that organize the most important elements needed in

order to build student-teacher COPs that support the supervision and learning of

prospective and practicing teachers for the purpose of facilitating change in the school

identities and performances of children in the PDS and beyond.

1. We expected student participants in the COP to simultaneously perform

their multiple roles as students and as teacher leaders with a high degree of

competency. While this is a highly sophisticated cognitive load for anyone to bear, not

to mention for nine-year old people, teachers were convinced that it was critical to

expect JJK to manage all of their responsibilities as both students and as teacher

leaders. In fact, we concluded that these were the very conditions needed for JJK to

perform so well and experience a shift in their school identities. At no time were these









students "off the hook" from the academic tasks they were expected to perform, or for

the quality of work that the entire class was expected to produce. In each of the five

intern observations that JJK helped facilitate, they not only kept up with their peers in

the tasks presented to them as students but they excelled in them unlike ever before.

JJK's high academic performance then began to occur during instructional time when

we were not working together as a COP. Late night emails from the interns illuminate

this assertion:

This asks more of them than what the "typical teacher" would ask but it's
having a positive effect on their school work and classroom demeanor, and
they have risen to meet every expectation that we've had of them!

...I also just wanted to tell you, Darby, that... since last Friday, has been
asking to do his work...and the amount and quality of work he has put out
has been astounding! He's also more inclined to ask questions... he
clarifies what he's thinking, and he loves to bounce teaching ideas off of us!
Today he made a comment about (a teaching strategy) we tried today. He
said, "Wow, this has really helped me edit this."

is so enthusiastic! He is still hesitant sometimes but (his) social levels
have risen so much! He comes over to read in groups, he talks more to his
peers (and he starts the interaction!), and is more open to us (interns). It
was amazing to see how much he has changed since the first few
weeks... he did his homework for the first time last week... I think (the COP)
has really meant a lot to him. I think it's really helped him see that we really
do value what he's saying, and want to hear it!

just became a little teacher now! We just finished a reading lesson in
which he said after someone gave an answer, "I like how (the author) used
the word extreme. It really grabs the reader's attention." He is really
thinking like a teacher and even more so, he is orating his thoughts in a
professional and thought-provoking way... he's becoming a teacher leader
by pointing out how everyone can make their answers better by "being a
little bit more like (the author)" in using detailed vocabulary. I love it and
hope you do, too!

There were times when data collection tasks did impede JJK's ability to complete

assignments or participate in activities. For example, one of the boys struggled with fine

motor control and often used a scribe during instructional time. During these occasions


183









he would dictate responses for me to record for him. While it was never possible to

both take notes as a student and collect data as a researcher, all three of the boys

figured out ways to economize their time, stay focused, use their available resources

(including me), and meet the demands of both roles by sliding back and forth between

them. This contributed to our conclusion as a team that increasing the demand on JJK

actually increased their school performances. Again, the interns emailed thoughts

about this to me over the course of the semester:

... I think if you treat the students like adults, then they act like adults as
shown by evidence of the 3 boys' evolution throughout the past semester.
They can handle the challenges we set before them and they can handle
them in an appropriate manner. (This) has made them more responsible
for their own learning ad you can see how their participation in both
activities and as group members has changed. They are more engaged
and more willing to put effort into their work...

2. We demystified the teacher's world of work and "privileged ways of

knowing" by inviting students to think and act like teachers. Whenever the interns

and I shared our rationales for our actions as teachers and inquirers, JJK responded

quickly to our high demands of them as both students and as teacher leaders. JJK

expressed that they had never believed before that they were allowed to have access to

teacher thinking. Learning the reasons behind our decisions and actions during

classroom instruction and planning was fascinating and motivating to them, and opened

up more of their questions about teaching along the way. But our ultimate reason for

sharing our worlds as teachers was to help them begin to think like teachers. We

wanted them to "get inside our heads and hearts" so that they could bring their unique

points of view as students to our conversations and enhance our own professional

development. Interestingly, the interns began observing that this had the added benefit

of shaping JJK's own processing and behaviors as strategic learners by helping them









own their personal learning experiences. This shift in JJK's ownership of their own

learning was highly intertwined with their changing status and positionalities in the

classroom. In more late night emails, the interns illustrated these conclusions:

The boys are applying what they have learned about thinking like a teacher
to their own thinking about learning. They seem to be approaching learning
in a new way. I think that this will help them be in charge of their own
learning, and give them a sense of ownership, and have them create a
deeper meaning and connection with the materials. Instead of something
being given straight to them, it becomes understanding that they've created,
they've connected, and they've been responsible for...

has come into the role of teacher leader. I have seen him on two
occasions share and teach a strategy that works for him with his peers. He
has really stepped up and has the confidence to help his peers learn. The
best way to know someone understands something is to watch them
effectively teach it to someone else. I think his thinking like a teacher has
transformed his role of student to peer teacher, which is a very powerful
position to be in...

... I think that (JJK) have really taken on the challenge of thinking like
teachers. I think since they have worked on understanding why we do the
things we do as teachers they have become more metacognitive about why
and what they do as students... This has changed the way in which they go
about their everyday learning and how they interact (with the class) on a
daily basis...

3. We kept our focus on teachers-as-learners, rather than on students-as-

performers. It was almost never necessary for the interns or me to point out JJK's

performance in the classroom as students. Rather, we put our full conversational focus

on the three of us as adult learners, and positioned JJK as the coaches and data

collectors we needed to improve our practices, including mine as a supervisor. This

positioning was not a strategy to mask our intentions. Indeed, the learning of the

prospective teachers was the first priority of the function of supervision. Making this the

forefront of our work in the COP was appropriate. My joining in as another educator

trying to improve her practice as a supervisor only amplified this focus for all of us. This


185









focus created a safe space for JJK to explore their "student-ness" by studying and

sharing their own responses to our teaching. By modeling our own metacognitive

processes as teachers, JJK took risks in exploring their own thinking, behaviors, and

motives as students in this classroom.

All of this happened because we cultivated an inquiry stance in our COP,

modeled first within my role as a supervisor engaged in her own inquiry. I positioned

myself right alongside my interns who were also engaging in inquiry into their own

teaching practice. Our blended inquiry focus became a powerful experience for the

interns, and they often shared with their colleagues in their intern seminars how

intertwined their inquiries were with mine, and how all of it was impacting JJK's growth

as successful students in school. The interns easily switched positions with me and

became my inquiry coach, as exemplified here in an email:

I talked to J yesterday... I also asked him if he like using the cards, and if
there was anything we could do to improve using them. We talked about
giving each group a question to answer and he said that he liked (this idea),
and it would help us as teachers because we would be able to see
everyone's answers. Ask him for the (data), Darby... it's there!... and would
be great for your inquiry, too...

The interns also made explicit connections between the work of our COP and

their own development as teacher researchers:

...JJK really are rising above and beyond what I thought they could do and
have shown me that collaboration with students can be rewarding not only
for them to embrace a new active role in the classroom but also to help give
me the insights that students have toward everyday teaching and
learning...


As inquiry-oriented COP members, we used our most salient "felt difficulties"

(Dana & Yendol-Hoppey, 2009) found in the teaching and supervision process as our

focal points for learning. While there were always many felt difficulties and tensions in


186









our work, we tried to prioritize the ones that were the most emotionally or professionally

pressing to each of us. While as the supervisor I relinquished a great deal of control of

the agenda-setting for the interns' learning, the pay-off was that the learning, and even

the professional development experience we all shared, went much deeper than it

would have if I had constructed the entire supervision experience from my single

authority and point of view. The interns were then able to practice taking control of their

own professional development with the skilled scaffolding I provided. Finally, as each

COP member was given increasingly more freedom to determine what he or she

wanted to learn or explore, the underlying social justice agenda embedded in the PAR

came closer to realization. In the end, my entire agenda as a teacher educator and

supervisor was addressed well beyond my expectations.

4. We recognized and honored the boundaries of the classroom, the school

culture, and our roles...while actively reinventing them at the same time. Deciding

to actively disrupt narratives designed to keep unexamined school practices firmly in

place is not a popular choice for teachers to make, let alone for interns or children. This

kind of work can potentially upset the critical psychological balance teachers need in

order to cope with unprecedented external pressures bearing down on how they define

teaching and learning, how they define children, and the instructional decision-making

power that they once owned in years past. For this reason it was clearly important that

the work we did as a COP respect the comfort zones of our colleagues and students.

We did this by seeking out and then honoring the personal boundaries of children and

teachers in the PDS regarding how much the interns and I would be allowed to do. On

the other hand, we believed that in order to change some of the long-held assumptions









about children and teachers being perpetuated as a result of external pressures on

schools, we had to take a chance and redraw some of the boundary lines. Negotiating

this tension was not easy. Our work in shaping the sometimes rigid boundaries for our

work relied heavily on my historical and political role in the school. Because I had some

degree of "insider-ness" established, and because the partnership was highly valued by

school leadership, I had creative latitude in re-inventing my roles and responsibilities

over time. I did not take this privilege for granted, however. Constant conversations

with my colleagues were necessary as our COP work developed and moved to be sure

that it did not impede on the teaching and learning routines and expectations of others.

In addition, I had to be sure I was providing a great deal of reciprocity to my colleagues.

One way I accomplished these goals is by expanding my own role in a way that allowed

me to have a more direct impact on the achievement for all learners in the classroom.

For example, I provided access to assessment data on all of the students that might not

have been captured otherwise. I also often served as a co-teacher for the interns

during instruction. In this way I not only gained more insights into JJK's development

as students, I was also able to reduce the student-teacher ratio in the classroom and

take responsibility for the instructional load.

5. We scaffolded JJK's moves toward "teacher leadership." While it was not

difficult getting JJK to explore their potential for being teacher leaders, it did require

strategic planning and mindful facilitation. It also required a sensitivity to these fourth-

graders' ideas of what teachers are "supposed to do," and what "students are supposed

to do," which did not typically include students teaching teachers how to teach. For

example, at the beginning of our work together, I had to brainstorm with the interns


188









ways to create the conditions and opportunities needed that would allow JJK to have

the space to generate their own ideas, take ownership of these ideas, and begin leading

us into translating their ideas into practice in the classroom. These early brainstorming

sessions were also critical for the interns as they, too, were searching for their creative

ways to enact their own fledgling identities as teacher inquirers. The first ideas JJK

came up with to impact the interns' classroom teaching were heavily scaffolded by the

interns and me. However, JJK were able to quickly take increasing ownership of the

generation of ideas and planning from that point on. Over time JJK took more

responsibility for the way their learning journey unfolded together with ours as

educators. Meanwhile, I began the enjoyable transition into facilitating, rather than

leading the process. Toward the end of the study I was most actively helping JJK and

the interns identify their felt difficulties as valuable data and getting them to define what

they wanted to learn during a particular observation. This help included supporting

JJK's decisions on the lenses they would use as researchers, as well as roles and

responsibilities each member would have, including how they wanted to use my role.

6. We found refuge by lingering in the "sweet spot" of anticipation between

what "was" and what "could be." Engaging in work that disrupts the status quo can

bring despair as participants become increasingly more critically conscious. There were

times that the interns became disheartened by the oppressive conditions of schooling

that felt in stark contrast to the liberation theyfelt as teachers in the COP. While I do

not have data to substantiate this, I often wondered if JJK felt the same way, at times.

In order to bring relief, we found it most effective to act with confidence and operate as if

the vision for equitable schools was already a reality. We chose to believe that learning


189









was the most important business of school, and that world was already a better place as

a result of our work together. In doing so our dialogue produced new narratives about

students and teachers, and about teaching and learning. These new narratives focused

on the successes we saw, no matter how small. We looked greedily for the successes

we could find in one another, and in the children and teachers who surrounded us. We

looked for success with the passion of treasure hunters, people who enjoy lingering for

long periods of time in the periods between being empty handed, searching, and

anticipating the next find. We then acted upon the new narratives we cultivated from

this "sweet spot" of anticipation, thereby disrupting narratives we were hearing marked

by deficit-thinking, ranking, and other myopic views of human beings.

7. We made our work public. JJK, the interns, and I worked diligently to

publicize our efforts. First, through conversations with the fourth-grade teaching team at

lunch, the interns and I made explicit connections between JJK's work as teacher

leaders and their academic development as students. We showed our colleagues

artifacts, such as the cards JJK and I wrote back and forth during observations of the

interns. However, we presented them not as supervision notes but as impressive

writing samples. Fourth grade was the big "writing year" for teachers and students at

Yearling Elementary, as this was the first year they experienced high stakes testing in

this area. Teachers saw these kinds of artifacts as especially powerful examples for

two of the three students, as getting them to write in normal academic activities was

nearly impossible. We also shared JJK's verbal language development with our

colleagues, and how they were appropriating teacher language they were hearing from

our COP. This generated excitement for several other teachers, especially the special


190









education teachers. These same colleagues later began reporting other times they

heard JJK generalizing new vocabulary and their newly developed metacognitive skills

about teaching and learning in new academic contexts. Such sharing cast a new

narrative and perspective about JJK in educator discussions.

Second, we made our work visible to the entire classroom. This visibility not only

enhanced JJK's status among their peers. It also shaped the classroom community in a

way that nurtured the curiosity of other students who wanted to be included in the

problem-posing we did together through inquiry. The interns were able to capitalize on

the increased curiosity and interest demonstrated by the class by building in

conversations about teaching and learning into their lessons in a way I could have never

done alone. These two strategies for publicizing and sharing our work were critical in

stretching the boundaries of the classroom and school culture in a way that would allow

us to interrogate our assumptions and interrupt the ways children are defined by narrow

curricula and school practices.8.

8. We designed and used special texts that marked our membership and

meaning-making in the COP. The six of us generated and shared multiple text forms

that defined our relationship with one another as collaborative designers in our COP.

These texts included oral and written conversations, observation instruments, work

samples, lesson plans, meeting notes, data collected during observations, and our

specialized vocabulary. By generating and using these texts together, power was more

equalized among us, even though we had to maintain enough of a hierarchy of power to

continue moving forward in a focused and productive way under the constraints of time

and institutional goals we had to adhere to. All of the texts were powerful and symbolic









reminders of our distinct membership in the COP, even though they were embedded

within the regular classroom community. Children outside of the COP found them

fascinating, and frequently asked JJK to explain their meaning. In several instances

JJK invited other children to engage with these texts and even help generate new ones.

I consciously nurtured our specialized vocabulary that marked our COP

membership. For example, I purposely inserted key words into our oral and written

conversations. These words came predominantly from the readings the interns were

doing that semester, and from my own specialized language as a supervisor. Some of

the most common words we used that distinguished our COP from the rest of the class

included: data (called "facts" by JJK), research, inquiry, felt difficulty, teacher leader,

teacherlearning, engagement, assessment, verbal reminders, participation, and

observation. In addition, we had several catch-phrases that marked our relationship

with one another, as well as the focus of our work. One of the most common phrases

we used was, "We have to catch teachers and kids 'being good.'" This was used as a

cue to look for the successes of both adults and children in the teaching and learning

process during an observation.

9. We found the "bread crumbs" of JJK's available designs and followed

them. JJK did not know how to be teacher leaders, or that such a way of being was

even possible. We had to scaffold JJK in this process over time by exploring and

building upon available designs they brought with them to the group (Rogers & Fuller,

2007). These included their discourses, dialects, histories as students, their beliefs and

models about schooling and appropriate relationships between students and teachers.

It became important to find the "bread crumbs," or the clues that helped give us insight









into JJK's available designs so that we could start to draw them out, and then build on

them through shared dialogue. For example, while JJK did not initially have the ability

to articulate specific feedback to help improve the interns' lessons, one of them did have

a strong opinion that teachers needed to learn to incorporate fun into teaching if they

wanted their lessons to be more effective. I quickly identified this notion of fun as a

bread crumb to follow and I appropriated the word into my conversations with the COP.

I used this word to nudge JJK into thinking more deeply about why teachers need to

make learning more engaging (a word they later appropriated and used in replacement

of fun), how we could make that happen, and how to test their assertion with data that

more engaging lessons did, indeed, result in quality learning. Over time one bread

crumb collected from JJK's belief system led to the next, and each time these ideas and

thoughts became increasingly connected to their ability to gather evidence that tested

their assumptions about "good teaching."

10. We embraced my differentiated status as a teacher educator in the

classroom. The interns and I came to believe that in order for our work to shape the

school identities of JJK, the status of the university supervisor clearly matters. For the

other students and teachers to endorse our bids for JJK's new institutional identities, I

had to carry enough clout with the fourth-grade teaching team. I did this by first

demonstrating my genuine interest in all students and teachers in the fourth-grade wing,

and then by spending special time with each child in Ms. S's classroom over the course

of the semester. I also shared my instructional support with all of the children in the

classroom. Soon it became a "big deal" when I entered the classroom and we had to

manage the appropriateness of the student reactions when I came. We believe that this


193









"celebrity status" associated with my role was critical in order to elevate JJK's status in

the classroom. If my role had not been valuable to the students in the class, then the

privileges JJK had as members of the COP would have likely had less impact on

shaping their new school identities.

The ten principles outlined in this section are by no means prescriptive for

educators and researcher who wish to collaborate with children in teacher supervision.

However, we believe that the findings support that these assertions paint a picture of

how participants in our study needed to reframe their thinking, practices, and

relationships with one another and with the curriculum in order for students to be able to

re-author their school identities. It is clear that one of the most important ways this goal

was achieved was by consciously creating a community of practice (COP), and this will

be discussed next. Following this I will turn attention to the questions that the findings of

this study posed for us, as well as the broader implications that this research has for the

field of educational research and practice.

The Critical Role of the Community of Practice

"It's almost like we are going to have to figure a way to carve out a little niche to learn in
spite of the barriers imposed here."- Researcher's Notebook, October 14, 2008.

Our community of practice (COP), consisting of JJK, the two interns, and me,

indeed became the most critical factor in facilitating change in the classroom through

my role in the PDS, and further as a participant observer in the PAR. The power that

this COP had in mediating change within, and even outside of, its boundaries fully

surprised me, especially because it was never formalized or named. There were two

main functions that the COP facilitated for JJK, which empowered them to take

command of their own school curriculum and ultimately reposition their status and social









identities in the larger classroom community. First, the COP created the belonging that

JJK named as being the most important factor facilitating their change in school

identities. Second, it allowed us to carve out a space of resistance where unspoken

curricular and social rules could become more pliable and we could let the process of

our shared inquiry into "making better teachers" unfold. These two functions of the

COP will be discussed next in more detail.

Creating Belonging and a Space of Resistance

Our work together as a COP was very much "against the grain" (Cochran-Smith,

2004), and was not rewarded by the traditional structure that came from the state- and

district-imposed curriculum, nor by the value system that permeated the classroom

culture. The space of resistance we created was absolutely critical in order to learn in a

situation where there seemed to be more barriers to than facilitators for doing so. This

space of resistance was created by several strategies that were in my control as a PDS

partner and supervisor. First, my status and my role gave me some license to "speak

out of turn" during classroom instruction and bring attention to my own learning through

think-alouds. Over time I expanded the focus of learning to include that of the interns

and students. Second, I acted as a surrogate source of power and status for the

interns, teachers, JJK, and the rest of the children in the class. As their surrogate I

could let children and interns "borrow" my relative power and status by extending these

to them when needed. Third, I designed and modeled my identity in the classroom as

an enthusiastic and public learner, and then recruited the interns, other adults, and the

students to reposition themselves in the same way. Finally, I wove into my language a

specialized vocabulary that began marking a clear distinction between the six of us as

members of the inner circle of our COP, and those outside of it. Many of the words that


195









I used created a special discourse of educational theory and an agenda of supervision

and teacher inquiry that came from the readings I was facilitating with the interns in a

separate seminar. This discourse was appropriated fairly quickly by JJK, the interns,

and even a few other students who were highly interested in the work of our COP.

As a COP we engaged in inquiry and redistributed formal allotments of power on

a regular basis. This repositioning could happen in an instant, and the interns and JJK

became quite adaptable to these shifts in our roles and identities during the course of

the school day. The cue was usually when our shared inquiry question became

implicitly or explicitly activated: "How do we make better teachers?" Once this question

was asked or assumed, we entered into a special place of collegiality where roles of

power became fluid and shared. This collegiality between the interns, JJK and me was

important to the outcome of the study, pointing to how adults must be willing to relocate

and redistribute expertise in order to facilitate situated learning. Shifting into collegial

relationships allowed us to name reality from the contexts of a differentiated but entirely

shared fabric of expertise, one carried by all participants and manifested in different

degrees at different times. Because of the clarity of our goals and purposes, the adults

were able to more safely experiment with sharing power with JJK as we treated the task

of internship supervision as a collaborative inquiry.

While I acknowledged and maintained my status as an authority figure with

children and as an evaluator of the prospective teachers, I consciously blurred the

boundaries of that authority by becoming a surrogate power source for JJK and the

interns. In a short time the interns became comfortable extending their relative power to

JJK, as well. They found that the more they invited JJK to develop their own voices in


196









the conversation about "making better teachers," the more powerful the boys evolved as

a viable data source for the interns' personal professional development. At this point

the interns also began documenting significant changes in JJK's academic performance

in the classroom as they boys began showing more fascination in the relationship

between their interns' actions and their own performances in class. This was particularly

evident in JJK's ever-developing metacognitive think-alouds about their learning

experiences in the classroom. As JJK became more publicly metacognitive, this

increased the sense of efficacy on the part of the interns, motivating them to deepen

their collaboration with JJK over time and increase their expectations of the boys both

as teacher leaders and as academic performers. The interns also began to accept my

invitation to begin designing their own learning agendas. They demonstrated this by

taking charge of the decisions on how to utilize JJK and me as data sources and as

their coaches. By the end of our COP experience together, JJK were also actively

experimenting with and enacting their emerging identities as learning experts and

teacher leaders by making decisions about the direction of our work, strategies for

teachers to try, and our pedagogical foci, including their special interest in making the

learning conditions in the classroom more equitable for all.

It was frankly surprising how quickly JJK took on their role of "teacher leaders"

and how they began enacting this role across contexts, including instructional time

when I was not there. JJK's manifestation of teacher leadership is especially significant

considering how long they had been positioned in school as "less than successful

students." In this sense perhaps James Gee (2009, personal communication) has a

valid point when he says that we tend to take more risks as learners when we can









assume a new identity, such as when adolescents play and become proficient in

sophisticated video gaming. In gaming a mistake is no longer the learner's fault.

Rather, one can say the mistake was "just my elf," or whatever character s/he is

embodying at the time. Perhaps this is what happened in JJK's case regarding the risks

they began taking in their academic performances. It was no longer JJK risking failure,

but their new characters as "teacher leaders," a role that existed solely to provide data

and insights for teacher learning, rather than to judge JJK as students, or perhaps more

accurately, as human beings. In coming to this new identity as teacher leaders there

was suddenly room to enact competent performances because "failure" had lost its

relevance and meaning within the context of our COP. Providing their teachers with

data for learning was the sole objective of JJK's academic efforts. The honest and

natural form of this effort, "mistakes" and all, was celebrated as the raw material we

needed to evaluate the effectiveness of the interns' teaching and my supervision. All

learning data that JJK generated for the COP became the next exciting clue in our

game of "how to make better teachers."

As mentioned, I modeled and began positioning myself as a public learner in the

classroom. Presenting myself as a learner became necessary because when I initially

joined the class as a participant observer, both adults and children immediately

projected onto my role an expectation of authority and expertise that was problematic

for the aims of this PAR. Therefore, I made deliberate bids to the entire class to define

me as a learner. These bids initially created some disequilibrium in the classroom

culture but ultimately paved the way for me to position the interns and other teachers as

public learners, to different degrees, both within and outside of the inner circle of the


198









COP. This was especially true once they saw that I was able to successfully "pull off a

Discourse" (Gee, 2002, p. 16) in which the words and actions I used to get people to

identify me as a "learner" clearly posed no threat to my assigned identity as an "expert"

educator. The interns, and a few other colleagues, soon began to experiment with

reshaping their professional identities to include that of public learner, at least within

conversations with me. JJK began doing the same by appropriating think-alouds into

their regular dialogue with us. Once this happened, JJK and several other children

gained access to new discourse patterns with the adults and with one another. For

example, they were able to liberate themselves from the safe, predictable, but

constraining discourse patterns of classroom conversations where teachers are the

ones who ask the questions and a privileged few children are charged to answer them.

Data on this change in discourse were not collected on a whole class level. However,

such data would have been interesting to gather in order to document how changes in

the positionalities of adults and children contributed to co-constructions of school

identities and academic performances within the classroom community, as a whole.

Questions Remaining for Further Study

The question of how engaging in COPs like this one might shape school

identities and academic performances among an entire classroom community, or even

an entire PDS, is one that I wonder about at the close of this study. I also wonder how

active and visible the "more successful" and "teacher leader" dimensions of JJK's

school identities will be over time. As the studyended after month five, we did not

document what Holland and Lave (2001) call the "thickening of identity," or the

"lamination" of JJK's hybrid psycho-social positioning (Hollad & Leander, 2004) which

occurs over an extended period, becoming stronger and more resilient. Did JJK's


199









school identities ultimately sustain within the co-constructed social reality in the

classroom (Wortham, 2004)? What did JJK's academic performances in school look

like once the COP experience ended? Finally, how did this experience shape the next

school year when they became middle school students?

Another question that emerged in this study is how the intensification of teacher

time through increased external demands and political agendas (Hargreaves, 1994)

impacts the co-construction of school identity. Namely, how do such pressures compel

teachers to employ "telegraphing" discourse practices (Pace, personal communication,

August 18, 2008) so that they can pack information about students into one and two

word labels and convey them quickly? What power do such discourse practices among

teachers have in limiting and reifying school identities for children? If teachers had

fewer students, more time, and more voice, how much richer would their conversations

be about children, not to mention their assessment practices? How would this impact

how children are institutionally identified? How would the life chances of children

change if their school identities were formed in social learning environments where the

complexities of their talents, perspectives, identities, and competencies were

recognized and celebrated, and then used as the impetus for learning new

knowledge(s), skills, and dispositions?

Final questions that continued to come up during this study focused on the

interns. How did our COP change their discourse practices, and thus their emerging

professional identities? How did this experience lead to their development as change

agents for social justice in schools? Did their participation in the COP impact the way

they positioned themselves, including their ongoing learning, relative to their students?


200









If so, in what ways? How did this field experience impact the way they perceived the

role of data in their classroom? Finally, how did their taking such a central lead in their

professional agenda shape their internship and their early years as novice teachers?

These questions, and many others, are at the heart of PDS work and will be examined

in subsequent studies. For now, I will outline the implications that this study's findings

have on the PDS community, and for educators, in general.

Implications for PDS Work and Beyond

While this PAR brings to light many new questions for investigation in the PDS,

there are six implications for university-school partnership work that must be seriously

considered if we intend to go beyond programmatic and descriptive research and begin

actualizing equity in schools. These include collaborating directly with students in

supervision and inquiry into teaching and learning, including children in disco urses of

power, capitalizing on opportunities to engage children in multiliteracies and situated

practice, doing democracy with children, preparing children for political and economic

participation in the 21st century, and making explicit connections between the PDS

social justice agenda and literacy-and-identity scholarship. All of these implications

involve actions that are highly accessible because they can be embedded within the

regular goings-on of PDS classrooms. They require no extra time, money, or additional

curriculum because they utilize the natural resources already present, allowing

participants to use immediately available tools to redesign their lives in the PDS setting.

Collaborating with Students in Teacher Inquiry

The PDS community would be wise to seriously consider learning strategies from

urban science teacher educators who engage in communities of practice with

marginalized learners in the teacher inquiry process through cogenerative dialogue


201









(Tobin, 2006; Tobin, Elmeskey & Seiler, 2005). "Research as real work involves

teaching students to do work that historians, anthropologists, or physical scientists

perform" (Steinberg & Kincheloe, 1998, p. 15). I would argue that in the school, that

"research as real work" would include teaching students to do the work of teacher

researchers, and in the case of the PDS, perhaps even that of teacher educators. After

all, as Steinberg and Kincheloe (1998) also point out, isolating children from the adult

world is a very recent historical phenomenon. Children were once fully positioned within

the daily work and community lives of their families. My work with students as

collaborators in the supervision of teacher candidates reclaims this tradition of

apprenticeship, giving students "privy" to the lives and experiences of the adult world

through work that really matters and for which they are truly central in importance. In

this way children shift from being objects to subjects of education and in life. In

becoming collaborative inquirers, including students as scientists, students as

historians, or even students as teaching coaches, students can expand their identities in

school beyond the dehumanizing constraints of leveled reading groups or standardized

test scores. Collaborating alongside children as teacher researchers and educators,

therefore, can become acts of emancipation and revolution.

Including Children in Discourses of Power

In recognizing that school practices are based on middle class value systems

and assumptions, James Gee says that, "(Children in schools) not born in the middle

class need to know how (this) will be used against them" (personal communication,

January 14, 2009). One way to help children to both critically read and strategically

utilize school literacy practices is to teach and include students in discourses of power.

The data from this study reveals that by providing public school students access to


202









discourses, such as theoretical languages of educational supervision and pedagogy,

educators can, indeed, directly help to reclaim the institutional identities of children. In

doing so educators can disrupt the hegemony of schooling that continues to perpetuate

a system of "winners" and "losers" and that, in turn, leads to real life psychological and

social consequences and economic outcomes that do not embrace the potentials of all

individuals for the benefit of the greater society. No matter how privileged a child is, or

not, s/he can learn how to use special languages and discourses, as children regularly

demonstrate with proficiency in the world of their own media texts (Gee, 2004). This

study demonstrates that children can participate in specialized academic discourses,

such as those that mark the special languages of action research and supervision. Why

should such available discourses remain locked up in the worlds of teachers and

academicians? Granting access to children to expand their cultural capital through

discourses would likely lead to access and fluency with other specialized discourses

necessary, for example, in the math and sciences. These are the very areas from

which students like JJK are marginalized. This marginalization is exasperated by the

specialized discourses such academic areas require, which often depend on the

ongoing support of language acquisition that happens outside of school. As Gee (2004)

points out, traditional schooling continues to fail to teach these discourses in everyday

practice.

Activating Muliliteracies

Indeed, school literacy practices are the contexts in which identity is constructed,

including how students feel, form relationships and beliefs about themselves as the

"types of people" (Gee, 2008, p. 3) that they are (and are not), or are being recruited to

believe that they are (Egan-Robertson, 1998; Gee, 2000). School practices dictated by


203









bureaucratic definitions of literacy appropriated by conservative politicians, researchers,

educators, and the media (Brandt, 2001) often constrain and disable literacy learning

due to their limited scope (Street, 2001) and in authentic purposes for literacy learning

(Kubey, 2004). In this study JJK were actively engaged in complex social tasks

involving reading, designing, problem-solving, evaluating, and writing by using and

generating multiple forms of formal and informal texts for authentic purposes and

audiences. These texts, and social activities surrounding them, transcended traditional

academic boundaries for literacy in the classroom. Examples included written notes of

adult-student conversations, formal observation instruments requiring recording and

analysis of numerical and linguistic data, teacher-generated instructional materials,

lesson plans, as well as the regular curricular texts that JJK were simultaneously

expected to transact with and respond to with competence.

If we expect children to learn to be independent and critical thinkers and

problem-solvers, and have more than a utilitarian relationship with reading and writing,

we must provide authentic opportunities in which to explore real social questions. Such

opportunities need to include experiences that demand an authentic purpose for

designing and transacting with texts, and access to real audiences with which to

communicate. As it stands now the imposed curricula and the implications of

standardized tests end up suppressing such opportunities (Torres, 1998).

Doing Democracy and Reforming Schools

We talk often about the need to offer direct and practical routes for doing

democracy in public schools (Goodman, 1992; Parker, 2003). Creating communities of

practice that include children in the supervision of teachers or teacher candidates offers

a readily accessible way to do democracy in the PDS context. Such work can also


204









impact school reform through the creation of learning communities of teachers and

children that focus on student strengths, rather than on perceived deficits of learners

(Nieto, 2005). It brings voice to children who, alongside their teachers, get to experience

generating their own knowledge and truth-seeking through situated certainty

(Hargreaves, 1994) alongside their teachers, and provides a way for children to access

broadly humanistic educational experiences that consider context, judgment, critical

reflection, multiple perspectives, and opportunities to evaluate (Barton & Levstik, 2004;

Noddings, 2006). Finally, collaborating with children in teacher supervision work

provides an example of an answer to the New London Group's (1996) call to schools to

teach students to embrace the development of multi-layered identities, and to cultivate

cultural repertoires by learning to use these identities strategically in different life worlds,

work contexts, and civic spaces. Working in the PDS with children as teacher leaders

allow teachers and students to practice the kind of sophisticated work that is critical for

developing democratic schools and societies.

Preparing Children for the New Work Order of the 21st Century

Collaborating with children in schools in research, democratic reform, the

development of multiliteracies, and discourses of power prepares them for a globalized

economy that public schools currently fail to prepare most students for (New London

Group, 1996). Gee (2004) emphasizes how the nature of work in the twenty-first

century has changed. To be successful in the virtual and corporatized work world it will

be necessary to creatively enact many identities and literacy practices within many

different social networks. Workers who can do this will have the most access to

opportunity, and the privileged members of the Millennial generation are already

socialized to be fluent with such skills (Gee, 2004). Privileged classes of people are


205









engaging in more project-oriented team work (New London Group, 1996), a way of

working that is replacing hierarchal or assembly line organizations which follow clear

chains of command (Street, 2001), and one that relies on social working styles that

happen through informal networking (Gee, 2000; New London Group, 1996). However,

this shift, in fact, makes the rules of the new working world harder to identify, define,

and then learn, making learning the literacy practices needed to gain access to

opportunity even more difficult than it was during the era of hierarchal organization (New

London Group, 1996). Yet, school curricula and organization are still gridlocked by

these old hierarchal cultural models (Hargreaves, 1994; Street, 2001), making it nearly

impossible for children lacking privileged opportunities outside of school to practice and

become fluent with the languages and social relationships of the new work world (New

London Group, 1996). As these students are denied access to the kind of learning

through situated practice that is needed for the 21st century work world, we effectively

guarantee that they will be relegated to service sector jobs (Gee, 2000). This PAR

offered three fourth graders an opportunity to engage meaningfully in situated practice

to enhance adult learning in a manageable way by creatively working through the roles

and responsibilities that already defined their PDS.

Literacy-and-Identity Studies: A Call for Putting Theory into Action

The final contribution that this study makes is to call literacy-and-identity

researchers to move beyond the initial stage of naming problems and on to applying the

powerful insights gained from research in this field. This study confirms the critical

importance of cultivating communities of practice in order to get at issues of identity in

schools. It offers yet another example of the power of enacting theory into practice, and

allowing practice to inform theory, through critical action research at the grass-roots


206









level. It also provides another example of how identity is at the heart of school

performance and literacy learning. It does this by presenting evidence for the very real

power children and educators have in schools in redefining school literacies, what

counts as knowledge and competence, and how embracing the multiliteracies and

perspectives of children marginalized by schooling, in the words of JJK, "makes (all of)

us a lot smarter," including that of teachers and of university school partners.

I would like to invite literacy-and-identity researchers to begin seeking sustained,

reciprocal, collegial relationships in the PDS and in other deliberate, committed

university-school partnerships. The PDS is a rich source for literacy-and-identity studies

to begin blending theory and practice because inquiry is the mechanism that holds such

partnerships together. University and school-based faculties committed to learning

through inquiry create the optimal conditions needed to facilitate agendas of social

justice. The PDS can reposition researchers in ways that allow them to directly change

the "here and now" by amplifying the voices of children and teachers; changing

perspectives and unexamined assumptions about children's school identities that

perpetuate inequity; and impacting literacy practices and policies at the local, state,

national, and global level. Finally, literacy-and-identity researchers committed to the

PDS would not only facilitate real change in the lives of teachers and learners.

Researchers would also be impacting the development of the next generation of

teachers. Through inquiry-oriented apprenticeships with such researchers, prospective

teachers would more likely develop the knowledge, skills, and dispositions to embrace,

rather than attempt to homogenize, the multiliteracies of diverse students; develop a

critical orientation to literacy teaching and learning; and begin to reclaim educators'


207









ownership of defining the competencies of children and what and whose knowledge(s)

to value.

Conclusion

Democracy does not exist without educating a critical mass of intelligent users

and creators (Goodman, 1992). The vision for public school as a democratizing

institution for the masses is seriously in danger, particularly for its most vulnerable

populations of women and children. The case has been made in this dissertation that

the wrath of high stakes testing, and the social and academic sorting and track ng

practices that organize schools as a result, reproduce inequity and lead to school and

social identities of failure. The PDS must seriously embrace its unique position and

power in resisting the debilitating political assault on teachers and their students who

are working under increasingly colonized conditions. In such conditions teacher time,

energy, professional judgment, choices and voices are so compromised that it becomes

nearly impossible to act, let alone reflect upon how teachers are systematically

positioned to define children in oppressive ways. In the name of "education," teachers

are coerced into institutional practices that end up disabling them. These practices, in

turn, disable the very children who will be expected to develop the innovation and skills

needed to participate in a globalized and competitive economy.

The PDS must be an educational and political forum that courageously

addresses and acts upon social injustice that vulnerable populations face daily in public

school. While PDS partnerships are also limited in the collective power they can garner,

they have the potential to disrupt status quo school practices by creatively exploiting the

unique context created when multiple positionalities and perspectives from different

institutions come together. Indeed, PDS partnerships between universities and schools


208









carry a great responsibility for putting agendas for equity at the forefront of their daily

work (Holmes Group, 1990; NAPDS, 2008; NCATE, 2001).

Courageous acts of social justice can be achieved through many constellations

of partnership relationships, roles, and goals that are cultivated in the PDS. As

demonstrated in this PAR, the activities of the university or school-based supervisor for

prospective teachers creates a highly accessible point of entry into the social and

political fabric that reproduces school identities that perpetuate inequity in schools and

society. The PDS university supervisor carries tremendous potential power for

disrupting narratives about students in school, and for restoring, or casting, new

narratives defining children. The function of supervision is often an underdeveloped

venue for the doing of social justice. But this is not the job of the lone supervisor. This

work must be embedded in larger communities of practice and value systems that

support and reward such a vision for teacher preparation (Jacobs, 2007).

If the global PDS community claims to stand for promoting social justice, then we

need to treat school identities as the institutional and social constructions that they are,

and coach children and adolescents explicitly in the power they possess to co-construct

their own social identities in school. Explicitly researching how identities are defined in

classrooms can help us begin restructuring classroom education so that goals of

educational equity can be addressed (Egan-Robertson, 1998). Beyond this we need to

help students (and their teachers) fashion the tools needed to contest and resist

oppressive positions and identities being imposed on them, and garner an appreciation

for and fluency with hybrid identities (Gee, 2004; McCarthey & Moje, 2002). Perhaps a

commitment to recognizing the social nature of identity and offering students and


209









teachers the chance to increase their repertoires of "possible selves" through inquiry

into school practices (Markus & Nurius, 1986) may present a more viable way of

promoting school success and for changing perceptions of students in ways that

increase equity and access to meaningful learning in school.

Merely leveling the playing field in schools is not enough. Rather, we need to

seek to change the entire playing field of power in classrooms and schools (Lewis,

Enciso & Moje, 2007). The PDS could be a place where this happens if participants

fully explore creative ways to use resources already in place. JJK's identities changed

because their literacy practices and discourses were given room to gain breadth and

depth. Learning became possible for them because they had the social support to play

with new words, find new windows into the world, and position themselves as students

in new ways. It must also be noted that learning is highly tied to position (Moje & Luke,

2009), and JJK were able to develop the status needed to learn that came from their

membership and participation in our COP. Gee (2000) stresses that in this new century

of globalization, or "new capitalism," that power and wealth will come to people who

have the social and physical access (including both virtual and spatial mobility) to

specific networks of people and information, and that their learning will occur not within

school, per se, but within communities of practice. For this reason it becomes even

more pressing for public schools to be places where less privileged children,

constrained by their localities, can participate and create new forms of dialogue and

discourses in order to re-author their identities in limitless ways. "Kids don't want to

spectate and consume (curriculum), they want to participate and design (it)" (Gee, 2009,

personal communication), which is what the 21st century demands, and testing-and-


210









sorting practices in public school are putting poor students at a further disadvantage.

While this study offers only a glimpse into how to position children to enact identities

and competencies as designers of curriculum and pedagogy, it provides a significant

piece of evidence that opens up endless possibilities for the PDS. The PDS is a context

whereby new theories about the social nature of learning, tied to identity, should be able

to play out through the committed work of scholars and educators.

The implications of students living twelve or more years in the margins of public

schooling under the banners of "struggling learners," "resistant readers," "Level Ones,"

and the like, are morally unacceptable. How many trajectories of possibility are

available for such children who are told repeatedly that school represents the blueprint

for life and their place in it? The PDS movement must actualize the potential for

schools to be places of liberation for students like JJK. Indeed, the movement has

made a commendable start in traversing the gulf between the historical and traditional

boundaries that have separated intelligent, caring, and like-minded people working in

universities and public schools. But twenty years since its beginning, the PDS

movement must move forward. By taking imaginative leaps that deepen the PDS

community's signature location in the dialectic between theory and practice, and by re-

examining its courageous commitment to healing the unacceptable gulf between the

haves and the have-nots, the PDS can become a social and political force to be

reckoned with. Indeed, the PDS must claim its fundamental mission as a key force in

balancing equity and opportunity for all children. This call is urgent. If schools become

so impaired by intrusive reform efforts that they cannot uphold their central role in


211









maintaining and redesigning democracy to meet the needs of its people, we will be hard

pressed to locate another social institution in which this work will be done.


212







APPENDIX
EXCERPT FROM FIELD NOTES WITH NUMBERED CRITICAL INCIDENTS


Their fun Ond tlhey like explain president.
yrefun and they like explaining about the presidents.)
]- they need to be more exiling with the children
(They need to he more exciting with the children.)


iriitpI3


I nodded after reading the cards and gave strong nonverbal cues that they were helping
me. But what about L ? le was still staring off into space. How could I get him
into the conversation? It was turn to get a question. Ijust decided to proceed
and see what would happen.
Question 3 was directed li CF : why do you think Ms. B is re-reading the,
book?" I was hoping that the boys would be aware of this being a strategy for
comprehension or review -that it wasn't to bore them to tears with a second reading.
Sj responded first. Then and then He wrote on the card, too! P '
so we could rebablishing it back in to our mind don't you get it) [
o we could re-establish it back into our minds don't you get it?) @


- So we could learn how thepresdinets lived
(So we could learn how the presidents lived.)
E I- Be cas we de not now tha meyprasdns.
(Because we do not knov that many presidents.)


&


2-C41Mtt


L77Y2A~cd


Again, I gave nonverbal praise. They had responses to the question!
After the book was read, (Q and e-rngiged in a sort of lecture a very long lecture (30
minutes1) that I wrote on my observation instrument about needing to reduce "teacher i
talk." It wa'shato keep everyone focused on [he alkl. At one point they passed otua
facsheet on presidents that many of the students started reading, but then a got
frustrated that they were looking at that rather than looking up at whilee she talked. I


213










APPENDIX B
EXCERPT OF ANALYSIS OF CRITICAL INC IDENTS


S Ctl.alI Icddelts Anal. l; 1Lhodb l Ildldinyg
* P0 4-PLG.
CD4Cr lt 4 C-0 rtu obv rva-b ti
-I.YI. 2'.I ~e l rne ,eE"E rc1r; hv--
Sc. I ..-d .4-.' .f. ..- J r -, 1










rii'' ll d 'l is M lods Fin .
Sam 01 Hrvt)- e0*'g 0 ?









a r... U e
ris-vW r- k c%,
r'N a .i t







Qpffl X' i a gscy5
I V4ri pu s r




r ~. tIns s'"no-s 'b 4" ead"'
Crilovl j urdlcai ". alykis rho VindiA.4


lcTj 6 A 7~nAr-A A% 4, r- rh v"&A J f--.-




S, a A~,~ is Ma ; ,bods i --


J ihrt CA '+fj






{la^tv -USi' )LfelFA ciC&r' e
cia-h of.VC jeA







Whna& ID A-' csrc-aA t?


4



Fr


vI myplth' ne tA daowwt-


214










APPENDIX C
EXCERPT OF TEACHER CONVERSATIONS ABOUT MS. S'S FOURTH-GRADERS




5WO4csWfla4Wj flr d1


9/11/08-Data Collec ion Stu ih b Al

Conversation with 3rd Grade Teachers (recorded)
Conversation with j- taught 3d Grade last year (not recorded)

I went to the 3" Grade Team Meeting today and was able to get 3 out of 4 of last year's
3"d grade teachers to talk aboutD's kids (Ms. I was not prc.cnt). This meeting was
recorded (about 7.5 minutes). I got e's responses after the meeting she now teaches
2nd grade so she wasn't at the team meeting. I started by asking the teachers, "..Do you
see anyone you know and what should we know about them as incoming 4'h
graders?.. Whatever you want to tell us whatever stands out in your mind."


Teacher





l summerr
school teacher)


L -FL2


Comments


'low reader, stri _i ling rc:lea r... sl.nlgles slightly ill
inat h...eager to please-. -well behaved- good
mannerr. She probably struggles in writing..."

Ms.l taught her in summer school this yar for
reidinrg- she passed the FCAT but, likld was
recommended for the extra practice. "What I noticed
about her her strong suit was her
personality. .-he's got a loi. of Ilcadership qualities.."
"Slhe is being rccoinmierded fir killed she had really
high FCAT scores...she was not a behavior'
problem...she was one of my better students (which is
Why) she was recommended for gifted...she was very
good in mnlth.. very nicd very well behaved."
"Slie'.,gifled...she's very intellectual but does not put
forth a lot of effort...very high writer, very humourous
in her writing however, she can have a bad :
attitude....and sometimes her self perception is low-"
"'ltp notch of th-. e'[n,,'"
' -alsoESE:..he did not pass the FCAT last
year.. he was promoted with 'good cause'...there are
a lot of motivational issues there...not sd much lack of
ability but lack of motivation;..he is a very low
writer...he used "Co-Writer" some last year to help
him with writing." (Darb asked if we should
continue doing that L. said "I would experiment
with some Co-Writer, but then again a lot of it's
niotivnti.on...")..A lot of it', lack of...and there's not
a lot of home support, sb there's not a lot of follow
through with things from home...but I meanhe should
have passed the FCAT last year C asked
why)... because he can read. He can read. And he can


215


Studvnl
SI


12


I =


I II


,










APPENDIX D
MARKERS THAT MAKE UP TEACHERS' CULTURAL MODELS OF SCHOOL
IDENTITIES


1. This time I focused on the entire body of markers as a whole, rather than per
child, ilthoaghl I continued to value them in context as I did when considering
each student independently. First I marked "school successful" attributes with a
blue highlighter, and then I marked "not school successful" attributes with a
yellow highlighter. Here they are:

Markers of School Identity


School Suces;ul -
Good student
Very bright
Good disposition
Cheerful .5
He realizes he is (misbehaving)
Understands teacher discipline
Eager to please
Well behaved
Good manners
Sweet as can be
Fluent reader
Family genling tutoring
Passed the FCAT
Really sweet:
Soft spoken
Does not like attention drawn to hi
A little teacher's helper
Quiet
Knows what's going on:
Has her own opinion
Strongest suit is her personality
Lots of leadership qualitities
Passed FCAT
Reads icell 5
Doing well with raising hand
I love her!
Just a really sweet girl
We had a really good time last year
Impressed with her ability to self monitor
Responds well to rewards
Reconunendled for gi fed:
-* Really high FCAT scores
S* Not a behavior problem
5. One of my better students 64
2- Very good in math
9 Very nice/very well behaved
Doesn't stand out as being "lower"


IG
3




q
9



9I


2.
(1






'3


2-






3
2.





I'







a- O

1-


NVot School S'uccessful
Totally unfocused
Disruptive:
loves to talk
Slow reader
.lrugling reader
,struggles slightly in math
, trIggles in witling
Below grade level reading
Very, very low
. Has no (reading) comprehension
Should be tested force gEs
Lowest kid in the class
. Struggling academically
Has a 504 for language:
* needs extra time on tasks
* needs things repeated in many ways
.Below grade level reading
u3 o'ut
Not a p.ilrl:
I quite disruptive
/ talks non-stop
/ shouts out
bpe lines wihei lreudliig
lower in reading
does not put forth effort
unique family
has an attitude with teachers
awkward with peers
not social
rolls her eyes
refuses to work with black students
bad attitude
low self perception
.AaxsLhee I rocher
expected to lose pLLrols to deIVeris
ESF
Did not pass FCAT


i Behravifl
Z A^eYVill#5
3 Inkicl"yna


SRreta-i 1fl -




lout ftSq
P osioVt
II famiL Role
i2. Crcw- ht

IL g tl 0Lf4y


I5AspVi'n


EKeknm AffRnxa Ie+weo. leel-kviEY A Uaspos+h'W : I \ oS
Be/vi(ord- ac-hons, Ofkr m + as "dOfOicQ kc3ud C5r d.
Diq'osA'ibr tFvn m<< a6 peC-a 1as, rnet*"sunl RJ n+Tr4 'fr
DoeW trAEa&es t ais y-tE 0aW .E


216


I
6




/
1
I'
I





4
2-


I


F-


I
















3
5
2.




3



14
3




(4
2.
5
3



3
i4




3
2.










9-

3

3
3

2.
12
2.
7-
'N


C-ond al nmath
I'mr close to the family
I'ii.rhl involved in school
'ret patrol sudcrt4/
Shie's gfled
Very intellectual
Very high writer */
Very humorous writer
Bright
Unique
Trying to be helpful
Really bright
Top notch of the class 5/
Being tested for gifted I
Wonderful!
Being lesedl for gifted
Wonderful
Multifaceted: musical
Amazing
Should have passed FCAT because he ca
read!
Comprehends what he read
No lack of ability
Math Tnt his weakness
Took me a while to like her 5/
He likes to be right
Wants to be an engineer
Really smart
He's smart
Academically ok
Wonderful 1/
Super sweetie
Very helpful IL
No behavior problems whatsoever
Really supported at home
Self- motivated 1/
Bright 1/
I:irishes early
More gifted than some of the gifted kids
He's bright Ij
Smart
Passed the FCAT
Loves to write Id
One of the better writers in summer school
Good at including personal stories i
writing


217


SShiLIs down during lesling
SLack uf umoivatinn
Promoted with "good cause"
f ESE and African American
4Lots of learning issues
Very little parent suppoll
Below grade level in reading
l2. Reqairc. a lot of support
' Verl, withdrawn
SActs like a baby
SAttracts nega i ve peer attention
SAsks to do less work than he is capable of
2. Very low writer
INot a lot of home support
lack of follow through from home
2- reads 10 words a minute
5 low
Living with adopted family
1 crack baby
nt dad hangs out at the store outside
(I no support from home
5 lowest kid in the class
. struggles
I mother does not value school
: below grade level reading
I talks a lot
9 spacey
rI parents predict she v.o jld fail 3rd i ade
' mother refuses to buy school supplies
It mother refijc ; to get her to school on time
/ kinda like a bully
some behavior issues
t bully last year
9 needs glasses can't read board
f*W esq c ) p.drol:1
<\ [^* leabosl
II Parents refuse to hold student accountable
for behavior (blames teachers)
I Doesn't get along with peers
SBossy/resistant with adults
5 Low middle
I Gets off track
SIn his own world
1 .Borderline grade level
lMorn worries about them a lot because
older sisters are high achieving and they
















'"My (1oldn1ii Bov
He is so sweet
Wonderful
High in reading
Medium high
Love him!
Mom very sweet
Assuming he's gifted


I




many of that family I


$41


2.-
2-



3
I0


q

II

2-


5/2

I
I



2/S
2.


are Iot
Restrained in primary school for behavior
Seeks inappropriate attention from adults:
To avoid work
So spacey!
Dad says he has "attitude" and predicted he
would get into trouble
SPoor body image (weight)
Low
Has no desire to work
Needs a lot of enrichment I can't provide
a "motivational issue"
he doesn't (believe in himself)
behaviorally challenging:
Puts head down and cries when he
chooses not to do something
ADD/m medications
Very verbal mom
Behavior prevents academics
Our "behavioral inquiry"
Can't pay attention for more than a minute
Will not write
Mom's a little challenging
Easily fatigued on tasks
Shuts down
I'm fed up with him!
Medium low
Below grade level in rcad'ig
Picks at other kids
Physically slower:
I Always 20 feet behind
S Heavy
I Takes forever to get out materials
Middle of 7 kids lives with grandma row
Got a 55 on first chapter test in math
My lowest in math
Terrible attitude
-Low in math
Distractible
Never ever engaged ever ever
Constantly distracting those around him
Lost during instruction
Not interested
Struggle
He's low
Verbal answers usually wrong


/ Contradicts his brother
Doesn't get along with brother
Lies/stretches truth
SCurses at other students
SLast teacher said, "Oh, you are
have problems with him."


going to


2. After distilling the liud-T markers that defined "school successful" and "nol school
success ful2J -wavietoS what kinds of themes emerged that would help me build a
Aeftifion of each school identity. I built a taxonomy of what the "school successful"


218


is
Very bright
A good kid
Class clown:
Likes to make people laugh
Funny kid
Really friendly
Everyone loves him
Has a lot of home support
Did better every quarter (improved)
Volunteers information
Now he's much better



V A. ', Ut'









APPENDIX E
FREQUENCY OF MARKERS MENTIONED BY EDUCATORS


"School Successful" Cultural Model "Not School Successful" Cultural
94 Total Markers Model
121 Total Markers

Academic Performance/Skills Behaviors
24 = 26% 51 = 42%


Intelligence* Academic Skills/Performance
19 = 20% 24 = 20%


Dispositions Ranking
18 = 19% 14 = 11%


Behaviors Role of Family
11=11% 12 = 10%


Unspecific Positive Markers* Dispositions
10 = 11% 11 =9%


Role of Family Disability*
5=5% 5=4%


Other Various Other Various
7=7% 5=4%



*These categories are only associated ith the "School Successful" cultural model.


219










APPENDIX F
MARKERS THAT MAKE UP FOURTH GRADERS' CULTURAL MODELS (GEE, 2002)
OF SCHOOL IDENTITIES AT YEARLING ELEMENTARY SCHOOL


School Identity Markers
"The Patrol Student" Likes to follow the rules
Good role model
Sets a good example
A normal kid
Does good things
A leader
Doesn't jump around
Walks properly
Helpful to teachers (especially when there is a substitute)
"The Good Listens when the teacher's talking
Student" Pays attention in class
Follows directions
Gets good grades
Does nice things
Likes helping people
Gets rewards/recognition (such as extra stamps and privileges)
Smart
Likes learning
"The Bad Likes to play around a lot
Student" Doesn't pay attention in class
Doesn't do what s/he is supposed to do
Gets sent to the principal's/BRTs office
Flunks many grades
Not focused
Doesn't think about the rules
Does anything s/he wants
Does n't listen
Breaks things
Pushes people down
Makes fun of people
In the self contained special education class
"The Crazy Student" Jumps around/"Bounces off the walls"/"Goes loco" during class
Does whatever s/he wants
Almost like a Bad Student, but different
Doodles/draws instead of doing assignments
Always asking to have a class party
Pays attention sometimes but usually not as s/he wants to have fun
Funny


220










APPENDIX G
DARBYS MOVES AND MOTIVES DURING CRITICAL JUNCTURE #2: FORMAL
OBSERVATION OF INTERN LESSON


Move Motive(s) Motive
Code
A. Darby I want the four of us to be able to communicate more 3
asks JJK to easily together during the lesson. 2, 3
leave their I want it to be clear to JJK and to the rest of the class that
assigned we are doing something different than the other students 2
desks and are. 2, 3, 4
join her at a I want the rest of the class to become curious about our
shared table work together and begin to ask questions about it. 1, 2
off to the I want to define JJK as special, sophisticated colleagues
side...and who are in the business of inquiring into the complexities
explains the of teaching and learning and will be positioned as
her purpose consultants.
for asking I want to put JJK together so I can better support them
them to move academically during instruction, especially because I will
there. be adding an additional layer of cognitive work on top of
their normal expectations as students.
B. Darby I want to introduce the tools to JJK that we will use that 3
presents to define our work as a COP. 3
JJK her I want JJK to begin exploring the observation instrument to
observation decrease its "mystique." 1, 3, 4
instrument In the future I will invite JJK to actually write on the 2, 4
and explains instrument, themselves so that they see themselves as
howshe uses data collectors and writers with authentic purposes.
it during the I want others in the classroom to see JJK looking at, using,
lesson. and eventually writing on the observation instrument.
C. Darby I believe J2 is not participating as a "successful student" 1, 2
writes a during the lesson and wants to redirect his attention back
question on a to the teachers' behaviors. 4
card and I want to engage JJK in an authentic writing experience. 1
gives it to I want to communicate with J2 but I do not want to create
one of the 3 a distraction for the interns or to the rest of the class. 2, 3
boys: "J2- I want to begin helping J2 develop his lens as an observer 2, 3, 4
Why do you in the classroom.
think Ms. B. I want the other two boys to become curious about what
is re-reading we are writing about.
the book?" I want to begin the collegial dialogue of supervision with
JJK.
D. Darby I want to communicate to JJK that their input is a privilege 3, 4
asks K if she for me to collect as data and that they, ultimately, have the
can write his choice whether or not to include it. 1, 2, 4
suggestion I want JJK to understand that their thoughts and ideas are 2, 3, 4
on the valuable to me and worthy of being noted and 2, 3,4
observation remembered.
form. I want JJK to see that their ideas and participation can be
data for teacher learning.
I want JJK to know that we will be doing something will
follows a result of their ideas.


221










E. Darby
writes K's
suggestion
on the
observation
form.


F. Darby
ignores J1
who wants to
talk to her at
during a point
in the lesson
where it
would be
inappropriate.


* I want to formalize JJK's feedback as data to be used for
the interns' professional development.
* I want JJK to see that their input is being recorded on the
actual observation instrument as co-observers.
* I want JJK to understand that their thoughts and ideas are
valuable to me and worthy of being noted and
remembered.
* I want to model for the interns how interviewing children in
the classroom and taking anecdotal notes is yet another
powerful way to collect ongoing assessment data on both
teaching and learning.
* I want to communicate to the interns that I am moving
toward positioning JJK as serious participants in the
supervision process.
* I want to help JJK understand the boundaries of our work
together, and they are this: We are a special COP with
special work but whenever our interns are teaching, their
rules for our interaction supersede all. In this case my
power as the supervisor does not transcend their power as
the teachers facilitating instruction. Talking with one
another at this moment was not acceptable.
* I want to build trust with the interns so that they knew the
COP would not undermine their teaching.
* I want to establish with JJK that while I am not directly
responsible for them as their teacher, I did have a teacher
in me. In other words, I was not exactly their friend. I had
the power to be a teacher, if needed, and have authority
over their behavior.


222


2, 3, 4
2, 3, 4
1,4

4
2, 4


1,4



4

(other)











APPENDIX H
MOVES FROM CRITICAL JUNCTURE #6

Data Sources: Field Notes, Artifacts (student work, observation instruments) and
Focus Group Conversation Transcript

1. Interns invite JJKto pre-conference.
2. During pre-conference interns explain the lesson sequence and their reasoning behind each step.
3. J1 says the lesson is "...exercising and doing math (at the same time."
4. Darby re-introduces the Pathwise observation form and explains how she has to fill in 10 boxes at the
same time butwould JJKfill out one each to help me. Darby explains she needs help on these 3 boxes:
fairness, classroom management, and making instructions clear.
5. JJKtalk abouttheir preferences. With the interns each boy assigned himselfto a box.
6. Darbytranslates the meaning of each box into user friendly language and underlines (or adds) key
words in the descriptor for JJKto focus on as their observation lens. Key concept explained about how
to use the instrument: "What you are trying to do is capture the teachers being good...what are all the
ways they are trying to remind and help and support kids to motivated...to be on task."
7. Interns explain how importantthis data is for them as they can't be everywhere at once to observe
these things and to be sure to write suggestions for teaching for things they don't notice (examples
given).
8. Darbyasks interns to predict for JJKthe kinds of things theymight see thatthey/ll be able to record in
their boxes.
9. Interns list: off-task listsystem, tens table race with room markers, rules on the board, etc. For each
one they explained how these might be examples of each of the 3 boxes.
10. Interns converse with one anothermore pre-planning and explanation of rationales behind what they
plan to do (such as thattheywill be very strict about certain rules so that everyone stays safe).
11. Interns come to a point of not knowing their plan for how students will record their responses but
wondering out loud with an idea.
12. J1 says that this idea would be better.
13. Intern says, "Well how do you wantto do that? Because I was trying to keep them hidden."
14. Intern 2 says, "I mean you could just get them and then write the answers up and show it."
15. J1 says, "Then we figure out the answer and figure out the problem, too."
16. Interns play outthat idea as a scenario (JJKwitness their think-aloud) and agree that itwill work.
17. Darby asks us to focus on fairness now. "Fairness means how many kids are getting to participate -
how many kids are getting more a of a chance to practice during the lesson."
18. J1 asks, "Like when we did the, each table, each person has to hold up a card and everybodywould
know what they're thinking? Like that?"
19. Darby: "Exactly."
20. Interns come up with an idea to make the lesson more equitable involving ongoing assessement- how
they needed to know student thinking during the lesson in order to know how to directtheir teaching.
21. J1 says, "Yeah, like some people might not know the answer and you can like go outside with them and
help them with theirmultiplication."
22. Darby says, "You bet, and how are they supposed to know that if theyjust wait until you guys do a
sheet atthe end ofthe lesson and then they grade it that night... I mean, they need to know this right
away, don't they?"
23. Darbyasks,"...can you all tell us anything that J2 might see I your lesson that is promoting more
fairness? Things we could be looking for?"
24. Interns talk about their incorporation of white boards for each studentto hold up responses (K's idea in
action).
25. Darbyasks, "Why does this make the lesson more fair?"
26. J2 says, "Cause..on the white board it is easier and it takes longer on the what you call it?" (worksheet
at the end)
27. J2 continues, "And if you...ifwe do iton Tuesdayand you grade iton Friday, uh, the kids won't learn
more...it's three days."
28. Interns discuss more ways theywill be promoting fairness
29. JJ bring up a question: What should we do if kids fight over markers?
30. Interns problem solve this and make a decision.
31. Darby points outto J1 thatthis is a good strategyto "catch the teachers being good" in preventing
behavior problems. Darbysays, "...you're not focusing your attention on the kids that are misbehaving,
you are focusing on how these teachers are getting kids to have more of a chance for behaving well."


223











32. Darby asks JJKwhat it has been like to be "teacher leaders?"
33. J1: "We can know more aboutwhatthey're thinking. And, they'll know more aboutwhatwe're thinking
and what we're doing in class."
34. Darbyasks, "Has that been different than what you have experienced before in a classroom?"
35. J2 says, "Yes it has been a lot ofthings...we can give facts, whatwe know and they'll start learning
more...
36. J1, "I think we're giving facts (data) and they read it and tryto come up with things..."
37. Darbyasks interns how "having these guys be teacher leaders has helped you two in teaching?"
38. Intern: "Justto be more cognizant of what's going on in my classroom. I know that I really love this
example that with you, J1, in reading...Remy had said something to the class thatmaybe some
students might not have understood...and you rephrased what Remysaid and you helped explain itto
the other classmates and I reallythink after you reemphasized it in a different waythat it helped
students. So I like to think now that maybe now I'll give more chances for students....to saythings in
their own words."
39. Intern: "And for me...it's helped me be able to look atthings from a different perspective. Like we see
things differently as a teacher than they see...then you guys see things as students...actuallytaking
part in the lesson, because we maythinkthings are being effective, or I maythinkthings are being
effective and they're really not...so having your input really helps and especially in the sense that it has
helped us realize that like, we can put you guys more in charge of your learning. Like you guys are very
responsible..
40. Darby, "Did it surprise you to find out how much they can be in charge of their own learning?
41. Intern: "Honestly, on one level, yes, but on another level, no, because I know everybody is so capable
of it. I thinkthe surprising part was just...when theywere given responsibilitytheyjusttook itto a
completely different level... Do you guys agree?
42. Darby, "So, guys, how do you, even if your classmates don't realize it, how have you helped them?"
43. J1: "Bygiving them the facts."
44. J2: "They can learn more about like math..."
45. Interns, "Aso like when you took the participation data. Sometimes we just focus on those student who
are raising their hands because it's easy for us..."
46. Intern 2: "Yes, and it's like the concept of wait time. Theytell us to give students wait time... and that
means just giving you time to think about the problem....
47. Darby, "I always forget to do that."
48. Intern 1: "Exactly. A lot oftimes it's reallyscaryfor us to be up there when we ask you guys a question
and no one responds...like that silence is kind of scaryfor us...and we need to learn to give that wait
time. And like that participation check, like that really helped us to see like, we were calling on, for
example, G all the time because she raises her hand all ofthe time"
49. J1: "Yeah, because people they might now know what you are saying. And in a different way."
50. Darby: "Exactly. Like remember in your group there was one girl you and K realized had not raised her
hand not one time..."
51. Intern: "Yeah, because everybody else...was paying attention and participating. I had not noticed that
one student...just sitting in the back and just writing down the answers without sharing any answers or
ideas. And that really helped me."
52. Darby: "Yeah, me too...
53. Darby: "How has being a teacher leader helped you guys?"
54. J2: "It helped us learn more, like, when we wantto grow up we wantto become a teacher and we have
to start out as interns like Ms. E. and Ms. B..."
55. Darby, "And J1 you are thinking about the...army... and there are definitely leadership roles in the
army..."
56. Intern, "J2, do you think that after we put you in this teacher leader role as a student that you come to
our lessons a little bit differentlythan you would if you were just, 'Oh, I'm just a student.'?"...
57. J2, "I got nothing."
58. Intern 1:"Example of scarywaittime."
59. Intern 2, "Well, I see like when you guys firststarted... after you guys got put in this role the level of your
work has improved. Like you guys are more on focus...on task. And I really think you guys are more
reflective while we're learning."
60. Darby defines 'reflective.'
61. Intern 1: "Also...we've let you in our world and what we are doing. Do you think it's easier to approach
us and to us about your learning than it would be if you didn't have this role as teacher leader?"
62. JJK: Big MMMMMhMMMMs, all at once. Wide eyes.
63. J1: "I justthought (teachers) were aliens (before)...Aliens that came from like Mars...made out of rock."
64. Intern: "Do you guys like to know the reasons we do things?"
65. J1: "Yeah, it gives like, it gives a head start aboutwhat you're doing and we can build on that."


224















































































225


66. Darby, JJKget ready for observation as students come in...
67. (During lesson) J1's box: "How are ourteachers helping kids behave?"
68. J1 lists: "The rules; reminding not paying attention to be quiet 2 times; verbal reminder; 2 minutes; 4
minutes; 2 fingersilence reminder"
69. J1 also explained each piece of data to Darbyverbally.
70. J1 asks during the lesson, "Ms. D., what is the difference between verbal reminders and verbal
warnings?"
71. J2's box: "Creates a climate that promotes fairness."
72. J2 lists: "Smartboard (graph) paper; little passport thingies; letting everyone have a chance so they can
move around."
73. J2 tells Darby later, "You can write the words bigger(on the overhead)so everyone can see the words."
As feedback.
74. K's box: "How are the teachers making sure kids understand?"
75. K's list: "By asking the students to do the questions and iftheycan't, she will help them do it until they
understand it."
76. JJKalso participate in and complete the math assignment on regrouping with multiplication.
77. (Post conference) JJKcan notattend.
78. Interns point out and reflect on how J2 was able to be both a teacher leader and data collector, as well
as keep up with his math assignment with accuracy(his least strong subject). Interns point out again
thatthis reinforces their idea that students need higher expectations in order to succeed. Al J2 needed
was proximity and psychological support (cheerleading) and he was able to continue working the
algorithms.
79. Darbytypes up Observation Summary and includes specific data collected byJJKon the document. All
participants sign this document- it is explained thatthis last document would allow the interns to
graduate. A special note from Darbyto each participant included...











APPENDIX I
FIRST UTTERED MARKERS BY EDUCATORS OF YEARLING ELEMENTARY


Good Student
Totally unfocused
Low reader
3 months below grade level reading
Sweet as can be
Struggling academically
504 for language
Strong suit: personality
Another African American student
Reads well
Recommended for gifted
Skips lines in reading
Gifted
Bright
Has an attitude
Top notch ofthe class
Being tested for gifted
Wonderful!
ESE
ESE
"Our little guy."
Struggles
3 months below grade level reading
Talks a lot
Average
Behavior issues
Safety patrol but bossy...
He's ESE
ESE
Wants to be an engineer
Brothers (twins)
Attention seeker
Another mixed student
Wonderful
Bright
Another motivational issue
ADD/medications
Our "behavior inquiry"
Passed FCAT
Big, round black boy
Picks at other kids
New
Wonderful
Medium high
Probably gifted
Distractible
Good kid
Brothers
D's twin brother


226










APPENDIX J
RANKING OF CATEGORIES FOR SCHOOL IDENTITY BASED ON FREQUENCY OF
MARKERS USED BYEDUCATORS


227


General "School "Not School JJK
School Successful" Successful" 1s 6 Weeks
Identity 94 total markers 121 total markers
215 markers
Behaviors Academic Behaviors Behaviors
29% Performance/Skills 42% 23%
26%
Academic Intelligence Academic Disposition
Performance/Skills 20% Skills/Performance 20%
22% 20%
Disposition Disposition Class Ranking Academic
13% 19% 11% Performance/Skills
17%
Intelligence Behaviors Role of Family Role of Family
9% 11% 10% 11%

Role of Family General Positive Disposition Disability
8% 11% 9% 4%

Class Ranking Role of Family Disability Ranking/Physical/Relational
7% 5% 4% (Each 3%)

Disability Other Other Ethnicity
2% 7% 4% 1%

Other Intelligence
10% 0%












APPENDIX K
SOURCES, NOTES, AND DATA USED TO BUILD JJK'S INSTITUTIONAL IDENTITY
FOR COMPOS ITE #1



Data Source Notes for Analysis Data Extracted
Intern I highlighted key descriptions Brother to another student in class
Classroom of each student as JJK came Used to being enabled to do less work
Observations up in journal entries. These Shuts down and becomes unresponsivewhen ashamed
included two categories: Ashamed of hiswork ("He created his own shelter so others won't
(a) visible behaviors of look at his work.")
JJK Stays off task by using self-distraction behaviors (paper clip)
(b) educator definitions Will attempt to work if he feels safe from judgment
of JJK's Will not read out loud although he reads fluently
dispositions, Voice normal in social situations (like games) but inaudible in
attitude, academic academic situations
performance that Low self confidence
spoke to "what kind Jokes and plays ith friends
of student" JJK is. compares his grades to others
Claims to be good in math but expects low grades
Student behaviors reported Responds to timed challenges and encouragement
by teachers were included Needs challenge and motivation help
only if they were essential to
defining "what kind of
student" JJK is (Example: _
has low self confidence he
hides work, inaudible in class,
etc).


Ihe intention behind
supervision notes is to
primarily (1) help interns
develop as ongoing
assessors and tow iden their
fields ofvisionfor all students
(J and J had not been in their
field of vision during first
month of journal
observations, for example -
common situation w ith pre-
interns w hen they first get to
classroom to not "see" some
of the most struggling
students) and secondarily to
(2) influence classroom
teacher's perception of
students marginalized (in my
judgment) by schooling,
which includes the practices
of labeling by educators.
This work on my part is a
paradoxin the PDS as a
supervisor and support for
studentlearning: to both
call attention to struggling
students so that all students
can be noticed and pushed
tow ard success (not ignored),
and to help all of us elevate
our common conversations
about such students to a
more positive, "can do" level,
by finding their strengths
(including what I interpret as
their "expert school survival
skills!"), rather than focusing
onwhatwe might name as
"deficits."


Kaises his hand to respond to teacher directed questions
All 3 boys told by teacher not deviate from teacher-led model of
writing
Needs teacher scaffolding to take risks with his oN n ideas
Well developed avoidance strategies
Drums a lot; makes strange, inappropriate noises to distract or gain
attention from peers
Raises his hand often to respond to teacher's questions
Writes about Disney World but has never been there
Uses "transition cards" as a writing accommodation
Rarely finishes hiswork


228


My
Classroom
Observations











Telegraphed markers from
focus group interviews -from
previous data analysis.


I highlighted key descriptions
spoken by educators (mentor,
interns, SPED push in
teacher) of each student as
JJK came up in my field
notes. These included two
categories:
(1) visible behaviors of
JJK
(2) educator definitions
of JJK's
dispositions,
attitude, academic
performance that
spoke to "what kind
of student' JJK is.


Student behaviors reported
by teachers were included
only if they were essential to
defining "what kind of
student" JJK is.


Focus group
discussions
from 3rd and
4th grade
teachers and
principal


229


Low
Volunteers incorrect information
Class clown
Really friendly
Everyone loves him
Good home support
No self-motivation
Participates in class but usually has the wrong answers
Lies/embellishes stories
Curses
"Going to be a big (behavior) problem."
"He's the 'other one' (trouble maker)."
Pcks at kids in the class
Physically slower than the rest; loves to write;
Passed the FCAT
Below grade level in reading
African American
Heavy/Overweight
Physically slower (always behind)
Terrible attitude
Talks too much in class
Lives with grandma and other siblings
"One of the lowest students in the class."
"Not sure whichway he'll go."
ESE student
"Our little guy"
African American/LD/"at risk'
"Lots of learning issues"
"Requires a lot of support'
Very little parent support
Rumors of family drug use
Very withdrawn
Below grade level in reading
Did not pass FCAT but should have because he can
read/comprehendw hat he reads
Very low wrier
Lack of motivation
Asks to do much less work than he's capable of
"Lowest student in the class"
Requires a lot of support
Acts like a baby
Pace value trouble
Brother of D- "I'm worried that the to brothers are in class together
since D gets in trouble."
Talks a lot -w ill need to be moved to a new seat
Middle of 7 siblings:'You get that a lot from the African American
community -siblings everywhere."
Needs to be identified for ESE services
Has 10 cousins
No home support
Tough getting things backfrom home (signed papers)


Informal
conversations
with 4th grade
team












APPENDIX L
JJK'S MOVES, DISCOURSE PRACTICES, AND ENACTMENT OF SITUATED
IDENTITIES


Critical The Move Aspect of Discourse Enactment of Situated Identities:
Juncture Practice that Interpretation of "What Kind of
Signifies Enactment Person I Believe I Am"
of Identity andlor
"What Kind of Person I Seem to
be to Others"
1 Characteristics of those they admired: Oral Language Our goals are to be smart, strong,
smart, strong, helpful and generous, generous, upholders of justice
justice-oriented (they set the blacks free),
those that protect the vulnerable

#1 JJK talk about their personal interests and Oral Language We like to be active all the time.
personal dislikes. We do not like to read. One of us is
good at writing.
#1 JJK talk about their identities and school Oral Language We do ok in school. We are all
performances so far in their careers good students. One of us has been
told he has bad behavior.
Ex: "They said they seen my behavior
through the year and they said like... That
they didn't pick me (for patrols) because of
my behavior through the year. I don'tknow
what that means...(but my mom) said you
don't have to be a patrol to be like a good
person."
#3 JJK sitw ith Ms. D. in the table in the back. Use of Space We are doing something special
that no one else gets to do. We are
going to help Ms. D. coach the
interns.
#3 tells Darby he is going to be a Oral Language & I am different than anyone else
drummer. Body Language here.


#3 and maintain eye contact with Body Language Two of us are being good students
interns, right now. One of us is not.
_flips pencil, tilts back in chain, drums on
desk, is the only student in the room
whose body is not facing the front of the
room.

#3 During lesson calls out answers without Oral Language & I am a good student: I know the
being called on first. Body Language answer. Iam a bad student: Iam
being redirected.

#3 Series of written conversations between Use of Special Tools We are getting to write and talk to
Darby and JJK: (index cards -special Ms. D. w hen others are not. We
Sinitiates feecback about the lesson- in that no other can use our new writing skills here.
what couldbe better- withoutbeing students are using We are observing the behaviors of
asked, these tools) our classmates and teachers and
telling herw hatwe see. She is
mentions notinterestedin the treating us as experts. One of us
lesson. They practice use of dialogue offered unsolicited specific feedback
conventions in their writing. about the interns' teaching. One of
us corrected Ms. D's
corrects Darby's understanding about a misunderstanding about a
fact about the presidents. president. Both are enacting their
roles as expert.
#3 raises hand and asks internswhich Oral Language & Iam a good student. Iam raising
president got into fights all of the time. Movement my hand first.
I'm getting ideas for my writing
assignment: Sometimes leaders
get in fights, too.


230











#3 begins writing immediately and Use of Special Tools Iam a good student. Iam a writer.
independently. & Body Language

#3 asks Darby to clarify the directions. He Oral Language I am a good student. Iw ant to
then expresses his dissatisfaction with the follow directions. But I hate w writing.
assignment: "Oh no, it's writing I am not aw riter.
assignment."
#3 comments that it is not good that a Oral Language & People should know how to read by
president could not read until he was 14. Body Language the age of 14, or something is
wrong with them.
3 __ writes the opening of his letter but then Body Language I do not w ant, or do not know how,
sharpens pencil, goes to the bathroom, to do this assignment. What are my
gets a drink of water ... other behavior choices that will not
target me as a "bad student," at
least in this moment?
#3 After talking ideas through frst then Oral Language & Use I am allow ed tow rite it like I would
starts and completes his written of Special Tools say it. Now I can do my work. I
assignment. have been able to restore myself as
a good student.
#4 says he doesn't understand the Oral Language I w art to answer this question.
question and agrees.

#4 answers Darby's question by writing Written Language & Iam an expert. lam helping Ms. D.
back: "There asking us questun. Their Special Tools coach the interns.
kind of testing us on whatwe know"

#4 reads card but does not respond. Body Language I have access to this conversation
because I am part of this group.
#3 _answers Darby's question by writing Written Language & I am an expert. I am helping Ms. D.
back: "If he neds help he can as Special Tools coach the interns.
sombotey"

#4 _wrote back: "To say you, shout it out. Written Language & I am an expert. I am helping Ms. D.
All Special Tools coach the interns. I am allow ed to
tell them w hat to do.
#3 _wrote back: "The kind of explain it to Written Language & I am allowed tow rite on these cards
us it's Ahaaa very Interesting" Special Tools with Ms. D. and _. I am part of this
group.
#3 asks to read K's response. J corrects Written Language & I am a good w riter. I know how to
misspelling on K's card. Special Tools identify and correct the errors of my
peers, like a teacher does.
#3 says out loud, "We could write it!" Oral Language & I am an expert in helping Ms. D.
Body Language coach the interns. I am allow ed to
come up with ideas for thewhole
class to do.
#3 _writes back response to new Written Language & I am an expert in helping Ms. D.
suggestion by Darby: "Sure sowe could Special Tools coach the interns. I am allow ed to
Do it starting right this minte" tell the teachers what and when to
do something.
#3 _writes, "you it would be eazer for M_." Written Language & I am aw are of the performance of
Special Tools my peers. I am concerned about
M_ because he gets in trouble a
lot. lam in a position to help him

#3 At lunch JJK and Darby talk about their Oral Language We know hoN to make connections
specific feedbackregarding their concerns between teaching and learning in
for particular students and their success our classroom. We are giving our
during lessons (M_) and how this expert advice on improving these
strategy will help them. connections.

#4 JJK remind interns to put their new Oral Language We are helping to direct the
strategy into practice before the lesson. teaching that goes on in our
classroom.
#4 points to chair to ask Darby to sit next Body Language; Use I have influence over where Ms. D.
to him. of Space sits down. We are affiliated w th
one another -we are a team.
#4 moves over to our table (not prompted Body Language; Use I am part of this group.
by adult). of Space


231












#4 answers Darby, "Now they can ask Written Language; I am an expert. I know something
every group a question." (can assess Use of Special Tools Ms. D. does not and it is my job to
group thinking all at once) explain it to her.

#4 adds, "It would be harder for the Written Language; I am an expert. I know something
teachers to see a bunch of cards held up Use of Special Tools Ms. D. does not and it is my job to
in the air." (to reduce the amount of explain it to her.
responses for easier ongoing assessment
on the part of the teachers seeing 5
rather than 20 responses at once)

#4 adds, "Just in case he doesn't know Written Language; I am an expert. I know something
the answer." (to check and assess Use of Special Tools Ms. D. does not and it is my job to
individual students) explain it to her.

#4 answers: "There are more people Written Language; I am an expert on how different
answering now." Use of Special Tools choices teachers make can impact
learning and behavior in the
classroom.
#4 answers: "It's runner because Written Language; I am an expert on how different
everyone gets to think of their own answer Use of Special Tools choices teachers make can impact
and write it on a piece of paper and they learning and behavior in the
get to hold it up better because before classroom.
they were just calling on (individual)
people."

#4 said he had no other reasons but he Written Language; I am a member of this group.
agreed with these. Use of Special Tools

4 says his reason in front of the class. Oral Language; Use I am an expert on how different
of Space/Positioning choices teachers make can impact
learning and behavior in the
classroom. Now my expertise is
public -the whole class is getting to
see it.
#4 _says his reason infront of the class. Oral Language; Use I am an expert on how different
of Space/Positioning choices teachers make can impact
learning and behavior in the
classroom. Now my expertise is
public -the whole class is getting to
see it.
#4 actually read the card first and Written Language; I am an expert on how different
responded verbally: "We could use a Use of Special Tools choices teachers make can impact
highlighter or a pen." learning and behavior in the
classroom
#4 read it and wrote back: "Use a big Written Language; I am an expert on how different
pencil." And then said, 'You know the Use of Special Tools: choices teachers make can impact
kind you can change the size." Oral Language learning and behavior in the
classroom
#4 _wrote: "Crayon." But thenwhispered, Written Language; I am an expert on how different
"Or white board with markers and Use of Special Tools: choices teachers make can impact
erasers" Oral Language learning and behavior in the
classroom
#4 _high fives interns. Body Language My ideas are really helping the
teachers do a better Jb.
#5 That day JJK and the interns made a plan Oral Language; We get to meet together as a group
based on intern's felt difficulty: they would Special Tool; Special during lunch when the rest of the
have JJK collect data on participation on Use of Time; Special class is in the cafeteria. We get to
an observation chart. Vocab participation ) use special tools so that we can
collect data and be researchers on
the teaching and learning in our
classroom.
#5 _asks if he can also record students not Oral Language; We have ideas on data that we
participating under that definition. Special Tool; Special could collect. We use the special
Unsolicited. Vocab language of our team to
communicate our competence as
researchers.
#5 JJK talk about symbols they would use to Oral Language; We have ideas on how we might
mark each kind of observation. Special Tool organize our own data.


232











Unsolicited.
#5 then suggests the boys move around Oral Language; We have ideas on how we might
the room ith their sheets during the Special Tool collect the data.
lesson. Unsolicited.

#5 JJK answer yes, that this would "better Oral Language; We know which decision our
prepare" everyone. Special Language teachers should make so that it w ill
help more students learn. We
know hoN to use the right language
to communicate our competence.
#5 JJK and the interns brainstormways to Oral Language; We know hoN to help our teachers
present their role during the lesson to the Special Tool make good instructional decisions.
class, aswell as what theywere
recording.

#5 JJK say yes, they would like to present the Oral Language; We are ready to explain to the class
idea to the class. Special Tool whatwe are doing as researchers.

#5 _wentfirst and said, "We have with us a Oral Language; We are practicing how to explain
spreadsheetfor marking participation." Special Tool; Special ourworkto the class. We are
Vocab (spreadsheet) members of a special group ith a
special language and special tools.
#5 JJK say yes, they can handle doing both Oral Language; We believe we are so competent
tasks at once (student and researcher). Special Tools that we can be both student and
researchers at the same time. We
can carry all of these responsibilities
at once.
#5 (During Lesson): and present to Oral Language; We are members of a special team
class their rehearsed introduction into Special Tool; Special with the interns and Ms. D. We are
whattheywere doing (one does not, even Vocab researchers andstudents. We talk
though he had rehearsed). about and use different language as
a team.
#5 explains the definition of "participation" Oral Language; We are members of a special team
for this observation. He said it meant: Special Tool; Special with the interns and Ms. D. We are
"Giving ideas, saying things out loud to Vocab researchers and students. We use
help the group, and asking questions." special language as a team.

#5 JJKw walked around with their charts to Body Language; We are members of a special team
show the students what it looked like Special Tool with the interns and Ms. D. We are
and how it had everyone's name on it. researchers and students. We own
a part of the teaching here today
(names of students)
6 JJK take their seats for the whole group Body Language; We are members of a special team
portion of the lessonwith me. Special Tool with the interns and Ms. D. We are
researchers and students.
#6 JJK take their roles as students in their Body Language; We are members of a special team
groups, generating ideas on cards. Special Tool with the interns and Ms. D. We are
researchers and students.
6 goes to the bathroom (we think to Body Language I do not want to be a student ifthat
avoid the reading). means I have to read.
#6 and do the reading and begin Oral Language; We are being good students. We
answering the question before _comes Special Tool (reading are competent at reading.
back. passage)
#6 re-reads the passage to upon his Oral Language; I am not only a student but I am a
return and suggests to to circle key Special Tool (reading teacher, too.
words in the passage to support passage and pencil)
comprehension (not a strategy mentioned
in class today!).
#6 JJK verbally tell Darby what to scribe for Oral Language; Ms. D. is here to help facilitate my
them so that they can stay ith their data Special Tool (student role as student.
collection sheets worksheet and
researcher's data
collection sheet)
#6 _tells me he w ants to be sure he can Oral Language; I am both a competent student and
check himself off at least once during the Special Tool (student researcher.
group discussion. worksheet and
researcher's data
collection sheet)
#6 answered 3 questions and marked Special Tools (student I am both a competent student and


233











himself off for participation all 3 times. worksheet and researcher
researcher's data
collection sheet)
#6 After the lesson JJK and Darby sit Use of Space; Special We are a special group. We are
together again and look at their data Tools researchers.
sheets.
#6 Two other students asked if they could Oral Language; Use We share our dataw ith our peers.
look at the data, as well. Together they of Space; Special We are here to help our teachers
discussed patterns as Darby listened, Tools get better at their jobs. Ms. D.
ready to scaffold as needed. Then Darby trusts thatwe can do that.
leaves students to discuss independently.
#6 _'s conclusions about his data (hew rote Oral/Written We can analyze our data and draw
on the sheet): I noticed everybody (in my Language; Use of conclusions about it to help our
group) was participating." Space; Use of Special teachers get better at their jobs. I
Tools (data sheet); can use the vocabulary of our team
Special Vocab as I am a member.
#6 verbally answers: "Becausewe told Oral Language; Use We can make inferences in data
them about the sheet." of Space; Use of analysis to help our teachers get
Special Tools (data better at their jobs.
sheet)
#6 wrote on his data sheet: "M Oral/Written We can analyze our data and draw
participated more than anyone in the Language; Use of conclusions about it to help our
group. He answered every question that Space; Use of Special teachers get better at their jobs.
Ms. E said. But A really needs to Tools (data sheet); We can appropriate the language
answer more questions." Special Vocab that defines our team.
#6 JJK read specific feedbackwritten on Access/Use of We get to read Ms. D.'s observation
Darby's Pathw ise form that they had Special Tool form becausewe are members of a
contributed. (Pathw ise form) special team. She values our
thinking. We know this because
she wrote our ideas down on the
form. What is written on this form
helps our interns graduate from
college.
#7 JJK come to the pre-conference Use of Special Space, We get to skip the morning
Tools, and Time announcements and leave the
classroom in order towork together.
We are members of this special
group designed to help the teachers
get better at their jobs.
#7 says the lesson is "...exercising and Oral Language I am able to make connections
doing math (at the same time)." about the value of the teachers'
Unsolicited. planning and how it benefits
students in ways they had not
thought of before.
#7 JJK talk about their preferences. With the Oral Language; Use We are researchers. We are
interns each boy assigned himself to a of Special Tool deciding which datawewant to
box. (Pathw ise form) collect. All of us will be collecting
different data this time to help Ms.
D.
# says that this idea would be better. Oral Language I am able to help my teachers make
better instructional decisions.
#7 says, "Thenwefigure out the answer Oral Language I am able to make connections
and figure out the problem, too." about the value of the teachers'
Unsolicited. planning and how it benefits
students in ways they had not
thought of before.
#7 JJKw witness think-alouds by interns. Oral Language We are allow ed to have access to
our teachers' thinking and planning.
#7 clarifies his idea of fairness Oral Language; Use I am able to make connections
(unsolicited), "Likewhenwe did the, each of Special Tool between what the teachers are
table, each person has to hold up a card (Pathw iseform); working on to improve theirwork
and everybody would know what they're Special Vocab now with examples from the past. I
thinking? Like that?" am practicing the concepts
important in our team for teacher
learning.
#7 adds (unsolicited): "Yeah, like some Oral Language; Use I am gaining insights now into why
people might not know the answer and of Special Tool teachers dowhat they do. My
you can like go outside w ith them and help (Pathw ise form) thoughts are valued by my
them ith their multiplication." teachers. I am allow ed to contribute


234











these thoughts and connections to
help them learn.
#7 answers Darby's question: "Cause..on Oral Language; Use I understand the practices of a good
the white board it is easier and it takes of Special Tool teacher- I am an expert.
longer on the -w hat you call it?" (Pathw ise form)
(worksheet at the end)..."And if you...ifwe
do it on Tuesday and you grade it on
Friday, uh, the kids won't learn more...it's
three days."

#7 brings up a question: What should we Oral Language; Use We think of things that our teachers
do if kids fight over markers? (unsolicited) of Special Tool do not. They need our expertise to
(Pathw ise form) make this lesson better.
#7 Darby, JJK get ready for observation as Body Language; Use We are special members of a
students come in...move to table. of Special Space special group. We are both
students and researchers.
#7 writes on Path ise form: "The rules; Written Language; Iam a researcher. Iam collecting
reminding not paying attention to be Use of Special Tool observational data to improve my
quiet 2 times; verbal reminder; 2 minutes; (Pathw ise form); teachers' practice. I can
4 minutes; 2 finger silence reminder" Special Vocab incorporate the special language of
our team to show my competency
as a member. lam competent in
understanding the kind of data to
collect to address classroom
management so that the teachers
can see all the ways they are doing
a good job.
7 __ also explained each piece of data to Oral Language; Use I can explain my data.
Darby verbally, of Special Tool
(Pathw ise form)
#7 asks during the lesson, "Ms. D., what is Oral Language; Use I am learning more about teaching
the difference between verbal reminders of Special Tool and supervision. I am now ready to
and verbal warnings?" (Pathw ise form); scrutinize some of the special
Special Vocabulary language used so I am can become
even more competent a member.
#7 writes on Pathw ise form: "Smartboard Written Language; I can blend the language of the
(graph) paper; little passport thingies; Use of Special Tool classroom in w ith my specialwork
letting everyone have a chance so they (Pathw ise form); as a researcher and teacher leader.
can move around.""." Special Vocab I am competent in understanding
the kind of data to collect to address
fairness so that the teachers can
see all the ways they are doing a
good job.
7 __ tells Darby later, "You canwrite the Oral Language; Use I am able to contribute ideas to help
words bigger (on the overhead) so of Special Tool the teachers learn in ways they
everyone can see the words." As (Pathw ise form) could not do without me.
feedback.

7#7 _writes on Pathv iseform: "By asking Written Language; I am a researcher. Iam collecting
the student to do the questions and if Use of Special Tool observational data to improve my
they can't, shew ill help them do it until (Pathw ise form) teachers' practice. I am competent
they understand it." in understanding the kind of data to
collect to address the clarity of
instruction so that the teachers can
see all the ways they are doing a
good job.
#-7 JJK also participate in and complete the Oral/Written We are not only researchers but
math assignment on regrouping with Language; Use of competent math students, too.
multiplication. Special Tool (math
sheet)
#7 (Post conference) JJK cannot attend. Lack of access to We have to be students first. If
They go to specials. Special Time and being a teacher leader takes aNay
Space from our being a student,we cannot
participate at that time.
#7 Darby types up Observation Summary and Written Our ideas are on the document.
includes specific data collected by JJK on Language/Use of Our signatures were included in the
the document. JJK read their parts of the Special Tool final document that will allow our
document and sign it. (Pathw ise Summary interns to graduate and become
Document) teachers of their own classrooms.


235











That makes our ideas real to the
University of Florida.
#8 answer's Darby's question about 'What Oral Language/Use of We get to eat lunch together in the
it has been like to be teacher leaders:" Special Space and classroomwhile the rest of the class
"We can know more about hat they're Time; Special Vocab is in the cafeteria. We are called
thinking. And, they'll know more about (teacherleader) teacherleaders by the adults. We
whatwe're thinking and what we're doing can articulate that being a teacher
in class." leader means having access to
teachers'ways of thinking, and
allow s teachers access to students'
ways of thinking.
#8 adds: "I think we're giving facts (data) Oral Language/Use of We can articulate that being a
and they read it and try to come up with Special Space and teacher leader means doing the job
things..." Time; Special Vocab of action researcher (collecting
(teacherleader; facts) data, sharing the data with
teachers, and then seeing the
teachers change their practice as a
result)
#8 answers Darby's question about"how Oral Language/Use of We can articulate that being a
differentthis being a teacher leader and a Special Space and teacher leader means doing the job
student has been than hat you Time; Special Vocab of action researcher (collecting
experienced before in a classroom:" 'Yes (teacherleader; facts) data, sharing the data with
it has been a lot of things...we can give teachers, and then seeing the
facts,whatwe knew and they'll start teachers change their practice as a
learning more..." result)
#8 JJKw witness interns and Darby talking Oral Language/Use of We have access to the teachers'
about how their participation has made Special Space and special language, conversation,
them better teachers and specific reasons Time; Special Vocab thinking. They can tell us exactly
(and examples)why. why we are teacher leaders.
#8 answers Darby's question about hew Oral Language/Use of We can articulate that being a
their work as teacher leaders has helped Special Space and teacher leader means doing the job
their classmates and their teachers: "By Time; Special Vocab of action researcher (collecting
giving them (interns) the facts." data, sharing the data with
teachers, and then seeing the
teachers change their practice as a
result thus helping their
classmates).
#8 adds: "They can learn more about like Oral Language/Use of We can articulate that being a
math..." Special Space and teacher leader means we can help
Time; Special Vocab our classmates ith math through
changing of teacher behavior.
F#8 JJKw witness Darby and interns talk about Oral Language/Use of We have access to the teachers'
their own insecurities as teacherswhich Special Space and special language, conversation,
lead to less-than-optimal instructional Time; Special Vocab thinking, feelings.
practices. (e.g., wait time)
#8 makes a connection ith hoN this Oral Language/Use of We are able to elaborate on our
negatively impacts students: "Yeah, Special Space and teachers' ideas -we can offer more
because people they might not know what Time; Special Vocab perspectives into how their actions
you are saying. And in a different way." impact students I the classroom.
#8 answers Darby's question about hcw Oral Language/Use of Being a teacher leader gives us
being a teacher leader has helped JJK: "It Special Space and insight into the adult orld of work,
helped us learn more, like, w henwe want Time; Special Vocab including the learning and stages
to grow upwewant to become a teacher adults have to go through to
and we have to start out as interns like become professionals.
Ms. E and Ms. B..."
#8 JJK: Big MMMMMMMMMs, all at once. Oral Language/Body We really feel better about the
Wide eyes. In response to intern's Language; Use of relationships we have ith you and
comment: "Also...weVe let you in our Special Space and it has enhanced our learning
world and whatwe are doing. Do you think Time; Special Vocab conditions dramatically.
it's easier to approach us and to us about (eg., wait time)
your learning than it would be if you didn't
have this role as teacher leader?'
#8 adds (unsolicited): "I just thought Oral Language; Use Before Iwas a teacher leader I had
(teachers) were aliens (before)...Aliens of Special Space and no idea hatteachers did and why.
that came from like Mars...made out of Time
rock."

5#8 answers intern question, "Do you guys Oral Language; Use We like having access to the
like to know the reasons we do things?" of Special Space and thinking of teachers because it


236











"Yeah, it gives like, it gives a head start Time gives us a rationale for whatwe are
about what you're doing and we can build doing, and scaffolds our learning. It
on that." provides more equity in having the
chance to learn.
#9 _answers Darby's question about Oral Language; Use Our work as teacher leaders
"How you have changed since you of Special Space and changed the entire class. Everyone
became a teacher leader": Like the Time (4 of us staying in the class became more
whole class did...Everybody in class for lunch and productive.
started doing more w ork. through recess)

#9 _: I'm already good in my writing. Oral Language; Use I am a great writer.
of Special Space and
Time
#9 answers Darby's question about Oral Language; Use We saw specific students change
who has changed since you of Special Space and as a result of our being teacher
became a teacher leader:" Time leaders, including ourselves and
"Jtavias, Jhn, me,Trent..." others outside of our COP.

#9 _: I have been doing more work. Oral Language; Use Specifically, as individuals our
: Writing, math... of Special Space and writing and math skills have
: Writing. Pretty muchwriting. Time improved sincewe became teacher
leaders.
#9 D: Was it fun working together to Oral Language; Use Our work as teacher leaders in this
help the teachers get better? of Special Space and COPwas very fun.
All (same time): Yeah/Mmmhmm. Time
#9 : I think everybody in the class Oral Language; Use Every person in the class has
has changed. of Special Space and changed because of ourwork as
Time teacher leaders.
#9 : Uh... since uh (choosing Oral Language; Use The interns have changed, too, as a
words carefully)we've been giving of Special Space and result of our teacher leadership.
ideas to uh Ms. B and Ms. E, Time Specifically, this is because we
they've came upwith....they've have generated ideas to improve
added onto our ideas and they said the teaching and learning we did
it to the w hole class and the class together, and they have been able
has learned more. to take these ideas and expand
upon them. They made our ideas
: (behind voiceice: Yeah, and public, too, so we got credit for our
they liked it. role in their learning. The entire
class has learned more as a result.
And the class liked w hatwewere
doing.
#9 : Especially D_. Oral Language; Use We can identify specific students
D: Especially D_- inw hat way of Special Space and whowe believe have been directly
have you seen this impact D_? Time impacted by our work as teacher
: He's...not getting in trouble leaders. D used to get in trouble a
much more. lot. Now he is not getting into as
SAnd more writing. much trouble and his writing skills
have improved.
#9 _answers Darby's question, Oral Language; Use The reason our role as teacher
"How does being a teacher leader of Special Space and leader has impacted our teachers
help you classmates and teachers Time and peers is because the interns
improve?" Cause they're taking really listen and apply our ideas to
...our examples, so they could get improve their practice.
better.

#9 : Mostly everybody in the class. Oral Language; Use I can offer a specific example of
I improved in math a lotA. we took of Special Space and how my job as teacher leader has
a test todayA and I think I'm going Time influenced my performance as a
to get a hundred, cause I student previously weak in math: I
studied.....uh, that um, pretest aced a test today because I actually
thing from yesterday studied. Being a teacher leader has
motivated me to study.
#9 D: Have you all seen any changes Oral Language; Use We see changes in one another.
in each other since you've become of Special Space and One of us has been aweakwrler.
teacher leaders? Time But now he is generating ideas as a
answers Darby's question about writer, especially since he is also
"Have you all seen changes in working with Ms. E He has also
each other since you became become a stronger teacher leader
teacher leaders?": immediately ) over time.


237






















































































238


I've seen uh, seen more since
hewasworking with Ms. E,uh, I
think_ has been getting more
ideas... Better and better at being a
teacher leader.


#9 _: "(And _), (h)e actually helped Oral Language; Use Another one of us has become a
people w hen they need help in of Special Space and leader for the entire class. For
math. And he explained it to them Time example, he helps people w ith their
An' den like when you get done math. He explains the math and
with a problem he'll explain it to stays to see you do it on your oNn.
you den, you do it on your ow n." He has also been producing more
: Well, he sort of acts like a work as a result of being a leader.
leader...(And) (h)e has been doing
more w ork.

#9 Darby asks: "...Can you please The reason being a teacher leader
tell me...try to explain why being a Oral Language; Use impacts our being good students is
teacher leader is making you better of Special Space and that other people are respecting us.
students?" Time We have the special status of
: Because the people are interns. We have high expectations
looking up to us! on us. We have to think harder
Darby: How does that change than everbefore. This makes us
your being a student? better students.
: Uh, it uh, it makes us like be a
interns.
SUh, it's been helping us like....
: (addng) A lot.
S...we haven't been thinking this
hard before...








APPENDIX M
ARTIFACT GIVEN TO JJK A DAY BEFORE OUR LAST SEMI-STRUCTURED
INTERVIEW



Hi J, J, and K,

At recess I want to interview the 3 of you in the classroom, if that's
ok with you.

Here are some questions to think about:


1. What advice do you have for all teachers who want to improve?


2. What advice do you have for me? I also want to improve as a teacher's coach.


3. How have the three of you changed since you became teacher leaders?


4. If we could talk to your 5th grade teachers today, what would you want them to know
about the three of you?


239








APPENDIX N
SAMPLE DISCOURSE ANALYSIS EXCERPT FROM JUNCTURE #9 (FINAL SEMI-
STRUCTURED INTERVIEW WITH JJK)






I1 Darby: How does that change your being a student?

2 -: Uh, it uh, itr.A ta cetu 1 .l .am.
IJJkt3 eWs III AAEA\ a* // .r AtM a e 1
4 Darby: Like interns? 0 (S.4-L iZ- VW'
5 [ ): )eaiH.
6 Darby: Okay. Ooooh.
7 Wliat are youthinindE p^ a U S f
p8 E4: Uh, it's been helping us like....

C9 (adding) Alot. ( .c4 krtn o, 7
10 [IQ: .. we haven't been thinking this hard before ... [ c.,Lti vx&-C 1'l at er e-T1L
11 Darbv: Oh okay. .
12 IJ: ...like you know sometimes....
.3 Darby: iiiscolege ki a weiC doing. Dat- d4ewh CoeP co "' oll
Da---------- ~ ~~~"-rll~ I\ I A-t w t"
14 C1 We don't, we don't uh...
515 E ; (Ir up1 f'oornsethinig stink.L Ai'S-
16 :\ c do n'tu, -.
^ 17 ow some of t s E: Ois T
,O Sm czoivsw-s/T s
18 i d we've learned it as we've been helping Y ,lflg .f *l rAl h
19 h, Ms. :and Ms. Z:h.


240









REFERENCES


Abt-Perkins, D., Hauschildt, P., & Dale, H. (2000). Becoming multicultural supervisors:
Lessons from collaborative field study. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 16,
28-47.

Apple, M. (1993). Official knovLedge: Democratic education in a conservative age.
New York: Routledge Press.

Aronson, J., Blanton, H., & Cooper, J. (1995). From dissonance to disidentification:
Selectivity in the self-affirmation process. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 68, 986-996.

Atkinson, P. & Coffey, A. (2004). Analysing documentary realities. In D. Silverman
(Ed.). Qualitative research: Theory, method and practice (2nd ed., pp. 56-75).
London: Sage Publications, LTD.

Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American
Psychologist, 37, 122-147.

Barton, K. & Levstik, L. (2004). Teaching history forthe common good. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Basu, S. & Barton, A. (2010). A researcher-student-teacher model for democratic
science pedagogy: Connections to community, shared authority, and critical
science agency. Equity & Excellence in Education, 43(1), 72-87.

Berger, P. & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the
sociology of knowledge. New York: Anchor Books.

Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste. London:
Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Bowers, C., & Flinders, D. (1991). Culturally responsive teaching and supervision: A
handbook for staff development. New York: Teachers College Press.

Brandt, D. (2001). Literacy in American lives. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.

Buch, E, & Staller, K. (2007). The feminist practice of ethnography. In S. Hesse-Biber &
P. Leavy (Eds.), Feminist research practice (pp 187-221). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.

Buckingham, D. (2003). Media education: Literacy, learning and contemporary culture.
Maiden, MA: Polity Press.


241









Cantor, J. (2002). Who's teaching the urban poor? Supporting an emerging social
justice educator in a professional development school. Equity & Excellence in
Education, 35(3), 225-235.

Charmaz, K. (2003). Qualitative interviewing and grounded theory analysis. In J.
Holstein & J. Gubrium (Eds). Inside interviev4ng: Newlenses, ne concerns
(pp.311-330). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Charmaz, K. (2005). Grounded theory in the 21st century: Applications for advancing
social justice studies. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds). The Sage handbookof
qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 507-536). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.

Chase, K. (2005). Narrative inquiry: Multiple lenses, approaches, voices. In N. Denzin
& Y Lincoln (Eds). The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 651-
680). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Clift, R. & Brady, P. (2005). Research on methods courses and field experiences. In M.
Cochran-Smith and K. Zeichner (Eds.), Studying teacher education: The report of
the AERA panel on research and teacher education (pp. 309-424). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Cobb, J. (2001). Graduates of professional development school programs: Perceptions
of the teacher as change agent. Teacher Education Quarterly, 28(4), 89-107.

Cochran-Smith, M. (2004). Walking the road: Race, diversity and social justice in
teacher education. New York: Teachers College Press.

Cochran-Smith, M. & Lytle, S. (1993). Inside/Outside: Teacher research and knowledge.
New York: Teachers College Press.

Cochran-Smith, M. & Lytle, S. (2009). Inquiry as stance: Practitioner research for the
next generation. New York: Teachers College Press.

Coffey, A. & Delamont, S. (2000). Feminism and the classroom teacher: Research,
praxis and pedagogy. London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Cokley, K. (2000). An investigation of academic self-concept and its relationship to
academic achievement in African American college students. Journal of Black
Psychology, 26,148-164.

Comber, B. & Cormack, P. (1997). Looking beyond 'skills' and 'processes:' Literacy as
social and cultural practice in classrooms. Reading: A Journal about Literacy and
Language in Education, 31(3), 22-29.

Connelly, M. & Clandinin, J. (1990). Stories of experience and narrative inquiry.
Educational Researcher 19(5), 2-14.


242









Creswell, J. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Crossley, N. (2003). From reproduction to transformation: Social movement fields and
the radical habitus. Theory, Culture & Society, 20(6), 1-20.

Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the
research process. London: Sage Publications.

Dana, N. & Yendol-Hoppey, D. (2009). The reflective educator's guide to classroom
research: Learning to teach and teaching to learn through practitioner inquiry (2nd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1999). Performance-based assessment and educational equity.
.In J. Banks & C. Banks (Eds.), Multicultural education: Issues and perspectives
(pp. 382-401). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley& Sons.

Darling-Hammond, L., Bullmaster, M., & Cobb, V. (1995). Rethinking teacher
leadership through professional development schools. The Elementary School
Journal, 96(1), 87-106.

Darling-Hammond, L. & Sykes, G. (2003). Wanted: A national teacher supply policy for
education: The right way to meet the "highly qualified teacher" challenge.
Education Policy Analysis Archives, 11(33). Retrieved from
http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/vl1 n33/

Davidman, P. (1990). Multicultural teacher education and supervision: A new approach
to professional development. Teacher Education Quarterly, 17, 37-52.

Deaux, K. (1993). Reconstructing social identity. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 19, 4-12.

DeWalt, K. & DeWalt, B. (2002). Participant observation: A guide for field workers.
Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.

Duff, P. (2002). The discursive co-construction of knowledge, identity, and difference:
An ethnography of communication in the high school mainstream. Applied
Linguistics, 23(3). 289-322.

Eder, D. & Fingerson, L. (2003). Interviewng adolescents. In J. Holstein& J. Gubrium,
Inside Interviewing: New Lenses, New Concerns (pp. 33-52). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.

Egan-Robertson, A. (1998). "We must ask our questions and tell our stories:" Writing
ethnography and constructing identities. In Egan-Robertson, A. & Bloome, D.
(Eds.). Students as researchers of culture and language in their own communities
(pp. 261-284). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.


243









Egan-Robertson & Bloome, D. (Eds.) (1998). Students as researchers of culture and
language in theirown communities. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, Inc.

Egan-Robertson, A. & Willett, J. (1998). Students as ethnographers, thinking and doing
ethnography: A bibliographic essay. In A. Egan-Robertson and D. Bloom (Eds.).
Students as researchers of culture and language in their o wn communities (pp. 1-
32). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, Inc.

Emerson, R., Fretz, R. & Shaw, L. (1995). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.

Erickson, F. (2005). Culture in society and in educational practices. In J. Banks & C.
Banks (Eds.), Multicultural education: Issues and perspectives (pp. 31-60).
Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley& Sons.

Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language.
London: Longman Publishers.

Fine, M. (1991). Framing dropouts: Notes on the politics of an urban public high
school. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Fine, M. (1994). Dis-stance and other stances: Negotiations of power inside feminist
research. In A. Gitlin (Ed.), Power and method: Political activism and educational
research (pp. 13-35). New York: Routledge.

Fine, M. & Weis, L. (2003). Silenced voices and extraordinary conversations: Re-
imagining schools. New York: Teachers College Press.

Flores-Gonzalez, N. (2002). School kids/Street kids: Identity developmentin Latino
students. New York: Teachers College Press.

Gay, G. (1998). Cultural, ethnic, and gender issues. In G. Pajak (Ed.), Handbookof
research on school supervision (pp. 1184-1227). New York: Macmillan Library
Reference.

Gay, G. (2005). Educational equality for students of color. In J. Banks & C. Banks
(Eds.), Multicultural education: Issues and perspectives (pp. 211-241). Hoboken,
NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Gee, J. (2000). Identity as an analytic lens for research in education. Reviewof
Research in Education, 25, 99-125.

Gee, J. (2002). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method. London:
Routledge Press.

Gee, J. (2004). Situated language and learning: A critique of traditional schooling. New
York: Routledge Press.


244









Gee, J. (2008). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses (3rd ed.). New
York: Routledge Press.

George, P. & Alexander, W. (2003). The exemplary middle school (3rd ed.). Belmont,
CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.

Glaser, B. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity: Advances in the methodology of grounded
theory. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.

Glesne, C. (1999). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. New York:
Longman.

Goodman, J. (1992). Elementary schooling for critical democracy. Albany, NY: State
University of New York Press.

Gordon, K. (1995). Self-concept and motivational patterns of resilient African-American
high school students. Journal of Black Psychology, 21(3), 239-255.

Grant, C. & Zozakiewicz, C. (1995). Student teachers, cooperating teachers, and
supervisors: Interrupting the multicultural silences of student teaching. In J. M.
Larkin, & C.A. Sleeter (Ed.), Developing multicultural teacher education curricula
(pp. 259-278). Albany: State University of New York Press.

Halton, N. & Smith, D. (1995). Reflection in teacher education: Towards definition and
implementation. Teaching & Teacher Education, 11(1), 33-49.

Hanisch, C. (2006). The personal is political. Retrieved from
http://www.carolhanisch.org/CH writings/PersonalisPol.pdf

Harding, S. (1987). Introduction: Is there a feminist method? In S. Harding (Ed.),
Feminism and methodology (pp. 1-14). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

Hargreaves, A. (1994). Changing teachers, changing times: Teachers' work and
culture in the postmodern age. New York: Teachers College Press.

Heath, S. (1983). Ways vuth words: Language, life, and work in communities and
classrooms. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Hebert, T.P. (1998). Gifted Black males in an urban high school: Factors that influence
achievement and underachievement. Journal for the Education of the Gifted,
21(4), 385-414. Retrieved from http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com/hww/results/
getResults.jhtm I?_DARGS=/hww/results/results_common.jhtml.33

Heubert, J. & Hauser, R. (Eds.). (1999). High stakes: Testing for tracking, promotion,
and graduation. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Hinchey, P. (2004). Becoming a critical educator: Defining a classroom identity,
designing a critical pedagogy. New York: Peter Lang.


245









Holland, D. & Lave, J. (2001). History in person. Santa Fe, NM: SAR Press.

Holland, D. & Leander, K. (2004). Ethnographic studies of positioning and subjectivity:
An introduction. Ethos, 32(2), 127-139.

Holmes Group. (1986). Tomorrow's teachers: A report of the Holmes Group. East
Lansing, MI: Author, 1986.

Holmes Group. (1990). Tomorrow's schools: Principles for the design of professional
development schools. East Lansing, MI: Author, 1990.

Holmes Partnership (2008, June). History & Work. Retrieved from
http://www.holmespartnership.org/history. html

Howard, T.C. (2003). "A tug of war for our minds:" African American high school
students' perceptions of their academic identities and college aspirations. The
High School Journal, 87(1), 4-17.

Imig, D., & Switzer, T. (1996). Changing teacher education programs: Restructuring
collegiate-based teacher education. In J. Sikula, T. Buttery, & E. Guyton (Eds.),
Handbook of research on teacher education (2nd ed., pp. 213-226). New York:
MacMillan.

Jacobs, J. (2007). Coaching for equity: The transformation of field supervisors'
pedagogy in a professional learning community. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
The University of Florida, Gainesville.

Jones, M. & Yonezawa, S. (2002). Student voice, cultural change: Using inquiry in
school reform. Equity & Excellence in Education, 35(3), 245-254.

Jorgensen, D. (1989). Participant observation. London: Sage Publications.

Kalantzis, M. & Cope, B. (2000). Changing the role of schools. In B. Cope & M.
Kalantzis (Eds.), Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures
(pp. 121-148). London: Routledge Press.

Kress, G. (2004). Literacyin the newmedia age. London: Routledge Press.

Kubey, R. (2004). Media literacy and the teaching of civics and social studies at the
dawn of the 21st century. The American Behavioral Scientist, 48(1), 69-78.

Kvale, S. (1996). InterViews: An introduction to qualitative research and interviewing.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Ladson-Billings, G. (2001). Crossing over to Canaan. San Francisco: Josey-Bass.

LaVan, S. (2004). Cogenerating fluency in urban science classrooms. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, The University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.


246









Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Lewis, C., Enciso, P. & Moje, E. (2007). Introduction: Reframing sociocultural research
on literacy. In C. Lewis, P. Enciso & E. Moje (Eds). Reframing sociocultural
research on literacy (pp. 1-11). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Publishers.

Lin, A. (2008a). The identity game and discursive struggles of everyday life. In A. Lin
(Ed.) Problematizing identity: Everyday struggles in language, culture, and
education (pp. 1-10). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Lin, A. (2008b). Modernity, postmodernity, and the future of "identity." In A. Lin (Ed.)
Problematizing identity: Everyday struggles in language, culture, and education
(pp. 199-219). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Lin, S. (2009). Action research in teaching and learning: A practical guide for
conducting pedagogical research in universities. London: Routledge Press.

Luke, C. (2002). Recrafting Media and ICT Literacies. In D. Alvermann (Ed.),
Adolescents and literacies in a digital vorld (pp. 132-146). New York: Peter Lang
Publishers.

Luke, C. & Gore, J. (1992). Introduction. In C. Luke & J. Gore (Eds.). Feminisms and
critical pedagogy (pp. 1-14). New York: Routledge Press.

Lykes, M. & Coquillon, E. (2007). Participatory and action research and feminisms:
Towards transformative praxis. In Sharlene Hesse-Biber (Ed.), Handbook of
feminist research: Theory and praxis (pp. 297-326). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.

Markus, H. & Nurius, P. (1986). Possible selves. American Psychologist, 41, 954-969.

Marlow, M., Kyed, S. & Conners, S. (2005). Collegiality, collaboration and Kuleana:
Complexity in a professional development school. Education, 125(4), 557-567.

Mason, J. (1996). Qualitative researching. London: Sage Publications.

Maykut, P. & Morehouse, R. (1994). Beginning qualitative research: A philosophical
and practical guide. London: Falmert Press.

McCarthey, S. (2001). Identity construction in elementary readers and writers. Reading
Research Quarterly, 36(2), 122-151.

McCarthey, S. & Moje, E. (2002). Identity matters. Reading Research Quarterly, 37(2),
228-238.


247









McCulloch, G. (2004). Documentary research in education, history, and the social
sciences. New York: RoutledgeFalmer Press.

McDermott, R. (1988). Inarticulateness. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Linguistics in Context:
Connecting Observation and Understanding (pp. 37-68). Norwood, NJ: Ablex
Press.

McDermott, R. (1996). The acquisition of a child bya learning disability. In S. Chaiklin
& J. Lave (Eds.), Understanding practice: Perspectives on activity and context (2nd
ed.) (pp. 269-305). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

McLaughlin, C., Carnell, M. & Blount, L. (1999). Children as teachers: Listening to
children in education. In P. Milner & B. Carolin (Eds.), Time to listen to children
(pp. 97-111). London: Routledge Press.

McLaren, P. (2003). Life in schools: An introduction to critical pedagogy in the
foundations of education (4th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education.

McLeskey, J. & Waldron, N. (2000). Inclusive schools in action: Making differences
ordinary. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.

Meeus, W. & Dekoviic, M. (1995). Identity development, parental and peer support in
adolescence: Results of a national Dutch survey. Adolescence, 30, 931-944.

Mehan, H. (1996). Beneath the skin and between the ears: A case study in the politics
of representation. In S. Chaiklin & J. Lave (Eds.), Understanding practice:
Perspectives on activity and context (2nd ed.) (pp. 241-268). Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.

Mehan, H. (2006). A sociological perspective on opportunity to learn and assessment.
In P. Moss, D. Pullin, J. Gee, E. Haertel, L. Young (Eds.). Assessment, equity,
and opportunity to learn (pp. 42-75). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Mishler, E. (1999). Storylines: Craftsartists'narratives of identity. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.

Moje, E. (2004a, March). Doing identity: On the complexities of researching social
identities with urban youth. Paper presented at the Society for Research on
Adolescence, Baltimore, MD.

Moje, E. & Lewis, C. (2007). Examining opportunities to learn literacy: The role of
critical sociocultural literacy research. In C. Lewis, P. Enciso & E. Moje (Eds.),
Reframing sociocultural research on literacy: Identity, agency, and power (pp. 15-
48). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Moje, E. & Luke, A. (2009). Literacy and identity: Examining the metaphors in history
and contemporary research. Reading Research Quarterly, 44(4), 415-437.


248









Murrell, P. (2001). Development of practice and teacher preparation in the age of
education reform. Journal of Teacher Education, 52(1), 78-83.

NAPDS (2008, June). NAPDS Releases Policy Statement on Professional Development
Schools. Retrieved from http://napds.org/

NCATE (2001, Spring). Standards for Professional Development Schools. National
Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. Author, 2001.

New London Group (1996). A pedagogy of social literacies: Designing social futures.
Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 1-30.

Nieto, S. (2005). School reform and student learning: A multicultural perspective. In J.
Banks & C. Banks (Eds.), Multicultural education: Issues and perspectives (pp.
401-420). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley& Sons.

Noddings, N. (2006). Critical lessons: What our schools should teach. New York:
Cambridge University Press.

Nolan, J. & Hoover, L. (2004). Teacher supervision and evaluation. Hoboken, NJ:
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Oakes, J. (1999). Limiting students' school success and life chances: The impact of
tracking. In A. Ornstein & L. Behar-Horenstein (Eds.), Contemporary issues in
curriculum (2nd ed., pp. 227-234). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Oakes, J. (2005). Keeping track: Howschools structure inequality (2nd ed.). Boston:
Yale University Press.

Ovando, C. (2005). Language diversity and education. In J. Banks & C. Banks (Eds.),
Multicultural education: Issues and perspectives (pp. 289-316). Hoboken, NJ:
John Wiley & Sons.

Page, M. (2003). Race, culture, and the supervisory relationship: A Review of the
literature and a call to action. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 18(2), 161-
174.

Parker, W. (2003). Teaching democracy: Unity and diversity in public life. New York:
Teachers College Press.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Thousand Oaks:
Sage Publications.

Persell, C. (2005). Social class and educational equality. In J. Banks & C. Banks
(Eds.), Multicultural education: Issues and perspectives (pp. 87-109). Hoboken,
NJ: John Wiley & Sons.


249









Peshkin, A. (1988). In search of subjectivity One's own. Educational Researcher,
17(7), 17-21.

Ramalho, E. Garza, E. & Merchant, B. (2009). Lessons from country borders:
Preparing leaders for social justice and diversity through a district and university
partnership. School-University Partnerships: The Journal of the National
Association for Professional Development Schools, 3(2), 80-97.

Rodgers, C. (2002). Defining reflection: Another look at John Dewey and reflective
thinking. Teachers College Record, 104(4), 842-866.

Rogers, R. & Fuller, C. (2007). "As if you heard it from your Momma:" Redesigning
histories of participation with literacy education in an adult education class. In C.
Lewis, P. Enciso & E. Moje (Eds.). Reframing sociocultural research on literacy:
Identity, agency, and po ver (pp. 75-114). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Inc.

Roth, W., Tobin, K., Elmesky, R., Carambo, C., McKnight, Y. & Beers, J. (2004).
Re/Making identities in the praxis of urban schooling: A cultural historical
perspective. Mind,Culture, and Activity, 11(1), 48-69.

Roth, W., Tobin, K. & Zimmermann, A. (2002). Coteaching/Cogenerative dialoguing:
Learning environments research as classroom praxis. Learning Environments
Research, 5(1), 1-28.

Ryan, E. & Deci, R. (2002). The paradox of achievement: The harder you push, the
worse it gets. In J. Aronson (Ed.), Improving academic achievement: Impact of
psychological factors on education (pp. 62-90). Orlando, FL: Elseveir Science.

Sarup, M. (1998). Identity, culture, and the postmodern world. Athens, GA: University
of Georgia Press.

Seiler, G. & Emelsky, R. (2005). The who, what, where, and how of our urban
ethnographic research. In K. Tobin, R. Elmeskey& G. Seiler (Eds.). Improving
urban science education: New roles for teachers, students, and researchers (pp.
1-20). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Seiler, G. & Gonsalves, A. (2010). Student-powered science: Science education for
and by African American students. Equity & Excellence in Education, 43(1), 88-
104.

Sfard, A. & Prusak, A. (2005). Telling identities: In search of an analytic tool for
investigating learning as a culturally shaped activity. Educational Researcher,
34(4), 14-22.

Shor, I. & Freire, P. (1987). A pedagogy for liberation: Dialogues on transforming
education. South Hadley, MA: Bergin & Garvey Publishers, Inc.


250









Skeggs, B. (2008). The problem with identity. In A. Lin (Ed.) Problematizing identity:
Everyday struggles in language, culture, and education (pp. 11-34). New York:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Skrtic, T. (1995). Deconstructing/Reconstructing public education: Social reconstruction
in the postmodern era. In T. Skrtic (Ed.), Disability and Democracy:
Reconstructing (Special) Education for Postmodernity (pp. 233-274). New York:
Teachers College Press.

Sleeter, C. (2005). Un-standardizing curriculum: Multicultural teaching in the
standards-based classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.

Smyth, J., W. (1985). Developing a critical practice of clinical supervision. Journal of
Curriculum Studies, 17(1), 1-15.

Snow-Gerono, J. (2009). Voices less silenced: What do veteran teachers value in
school-university partnerships and initial teacher preparation? The Teacher
Educator, 44(4), 248-267.

Southeast Center for Teaching Quality (2004, August). Unfulfilled promise: Ensuring
high quality teachers forournation's schools. Chapel Hill, NC: Author.

Spradley, J. (1979). The ethnographic interview New York: Holt, Rinehart, and
Winston.

Steele, C. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and
performance. American Psychologist, 52, 613-629.

Stein, P. (2001). Classrooms as sites of textual, cultural, and linguistic reappropriation.
In B. Comber & A. Simpson (Eds.), Negotiating critical literacies in the classroom
(pp. 151-169). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Steinberg, S. & Kincheloe, J. (1998). Students as researchers: Creating classrooms
thatmatter. London: Taylor & Francis.

Street, B. (2001). New literacies in theory and practice: What are the implications for
language in education? Linguistics and Education, 10(1), 1-24.

Stringer, E. (2007). Action research in education. Columbus, OH: Pearson Prentice
Hall.

Tajfel, H. (1978). Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social
psychology of intergroup relations. London: Academic Press.

Tobin, K. (2006). Learning to teach through coteaching and cogenerative dialogue.
Teaching Education, 17(2), 133-142.


251









Tobin, K., Elmesky, R. & Seiler, G. (2005). Student voices on urban science education:
A collage of student researcher perspectives. In K. Tobin, R. Elmeskey & G.
Seiler (Eds.). Improving urban science education: Newroles for teachers,
students, and researchers (pp. vii-xvi). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield
Publishers.

Tobin, K. Seiler, G. & Walls, E. (1999). Reproduction of social class in the teaching and
learning of science in urban high schools. Research in Science Education, 29(2).
171-187.

Tomlinson, C.A. (2001). Howto differentiate instruction in mixed ability classrooms (2nd
ed.) Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Toohey, K. (2000). Learning English at school: Identity, social relations and classroom
practice. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters, LTD.

Torres, M. (1998). Celebrations and letters home: Research as an ongoing
conversation among students, parents, and teacher. In A. Egan-Robertson and D.
Bloom (Eds.). Students as researchers of culture and language in their o w
communities (pp. 59-68). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, Inc.

Tunks, J. & Neapolitan, J. (2007). A framework for research on professional
development schools. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, Inc.

United States. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform: A report
to the Nation and the Secretary of Education, United States Department of
Education. Washington, D.C.: National Commission on Excellence in Education.

Valli, L., Cooper, D. & Frankes, L. (1997). Professional development schools and
equity: A critical analysis of the rhetoric and research. In M. Apple (Ed.), Review
of Research in Education (pp. 251-304). Washington, DC: American Educational
Research Association.

Van Dick, R. Wagner, U., Stellmacher J., & Christ, 0. (2005). Category salience and
organizational identification. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 78, 273-285.

Wahab, S. (2003). Creating knowledge collaboratively with female sex workers: Insights
from a qualitative, feminist, and participatory study. Qualitative Inquiry, 9(4), 625-
642.

Wallace, C. (2001). Critical literacy in the second language classroom: Power and
control. In B. Comber & A. Simpson (Eds.), Negotiating critical literacies in the
classroom (pp. 209-228). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.


252









Wenger, E., McDermott R. & Snyder, W. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice: A
guide to managing knovwedge. Boston: Harvard Business Press.

Wiedeman, C. (2002). Teacher preparation, social justice, equity: A review of the
literature Equity & Excellence in Education, 35(3), 200-211.

Willis, A., Montavon, M., Hall, H., Hunter, C. Burke, L, Herrera, A. (2008). Critically
conscious research: Approaches to language and literacy research. New York
Teachers College Press.

Wink, J. (1997). Critical pedagogy: Notes from the real world. White Plains, NY:
Longman Publishers.

Wolk, S. (1998). A democratic classroom. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Woodruff, A., & Schallert, D. (2008). Studying to play, playing to study: Nine college
student-athletes' motivational sense of self. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 33(1), 34-57.

Wortham, S. (2004). From good student to outcast. Ethos, 32(2), 164-187.

Yeager, B., Floriani, A. & Green, J. (1998). Learning to see learning in the classroom.
In A. Egan-Robertson & D. Bloome (Eds.). Students as researchers of culture and
language in theirovwn communities (pp. 115-139). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Yendol-Hoppey, D. (2005, February). Professional Development Communities.
(Available from the Office of Development & Alumni Affairs, University of Florida,
College of Education, PO Box 117044, Gainesville, FL, 32611-7044).

Zeichner, K. & Liston, D. (1996). Reflective teaching: An Introduction. Mahway, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Zeichner, K. M., & Tabachnick, R. B. (1982). The belief systems of university
supervisors in an elementary student-teaching program. Journal of Education for
Teaching, 8(1), 35-54.


253









BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Darby Delane grew up on the northeast coast of Florida where she started an

early career as a musician. As she became increasingly dissatisfied with the extensive

and lonely hours in the practice room, she packed her pick-up truck and moved to

Gainesville. There she pursued her passion for ethnomusicology and ethnographic

research in Latin America. Upon graduation with a master's degree in 1994 she had no

job prospects, so she begged the local school district to give her a chance in the

classroom. She promised to take night classes for as many years as it took to secure a

viable certification. How hard could it be? Two nights before the next school year

started, she was given an assignment as a high school special education teacher. After

three terrifying months without a clue, and more nights than she cares to remember

lying face down sobbing on her bedroom floor, she realized she had, indeed, finally

found her calling in life: she was an educator. She has embraced the privilege ever

since. Today she is tremendously fortunate to have the opportunity to continue her

career in the College of Education at the University of Florida. Darby currently lives in

Micanopy, Florida, with her partner, Farhad, their beautiful son, Rami, and their hound

dog, Skeeter.


254





PAGE 1

1 AN INVESTIGATION OF THE COCONSTRUCTION OF SCHOOL IDENTITIES: COLLABORATING WITH FOURTH GRADERS IN THE SUPERVISION OF PROSPECTIVE TEACHERS By DARBY CLAIRE DELANE 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 2010

PAGE 2

2 2010 Darby Claire Delane

PAGE 3

3 To C ourage

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This text represents one of many critical junctures in my life. Creating it has helped me make sense of this extraordinary, miraculous, and tricky experiment called living. Indeed, the personal is always the po litical (Hanisch, 2006). My path in this world continues to be marked by divine beings that have come in the forms of mentors, teachers, and coaches of all ages, ethnicities, genders, faiths, and paradigms. Each one of them has helped me design and redesi gn my own identity as a human being in ways that would allow me to put service and justice at the center of my work. I can only name a few of these people here. There are many more. My first teacher was my mother, and I mean that quite literally. Since the age of five I have apprenticed alongside of her as she traveled her own journey as a white southern woman in the field of education first in the 1970s as a special education teacher (for students then called emotionally disturbed), then as a college professor, and then as a professor in residence at an urban professional development school. My earliest memories include being in her classroom as she taught and loved the children that the other teachers would not, and hearing her tell my friends and me to never, ever call anyone a nigger, or a retard. These experiences shaped the very core of who I am as an educator and mother today. Almost forty years later I am privileged to continue collaborating with her as her one of my most valuable colleagues. I struggled as a doctoral student in the Academy. I resisted leaving my middle school classroom for years, believing I would be losing a huge part of myself. Enter Diane Yendol Hoppey. She came into my life at precisely the right time and began helping me see that I did not ever have to choose between my identities as a teacher, a researcher, a writer, and especially as a learner. Then she proved it. She not only

PAGE 5

5 encouraged me to dig deep and write straight from my classroom she got me publis hed. She not only encouraged me to explore my talents as a socially conscious supervisor, coach, and teacher she helped me get a great job that would let me do these things. It was her job. Diane believed in me. She reached her hand out to me across the divide between theory and practice and held on tight until I could learn to fly in that great, blue expanse that lies in between. This is now my new home. There is no way you are going to be part of Diane Yendol Hoppeys life and not bump into Nancy Dana along the way. With Nancy I have forged one of the most exciting research and writing collaborations of my life. She is one of those people who can make life into art, and I hang on each and every one of her words so I can learn to do the same. The way she paints ideas with words liberates my soul. She is meticulous, she is preciseshe is right on. I cannot wait to learn to bring my scholarship to this level. It has been the highest privilege to partner with her and I hope she will keep me around for years to come. Then there is Barbara Pace. How can I even explain what Barbara has done for my thinking and my practice? Her imprint on me is all through this paper, and I know she will recognize it. Yes, she is a fabulous teacher. But she has al so been one of those mentors I can literally pass in the bathroom, or down the stairwell, who can, at just the right time, give me just the right piece of literatureor sometimes just the right wordso that I can unlock a conundrum that has been buzzing ar ound like a bee tangled in my hair. I think Barbara is a magician. I must mention Elizabeth Washington. If only I had a few more lifetimes as a doctoral student (but I think nine years has been enough)! I have been jealous of my

PAGE 6

6 friends who have gotten to work so closely with this fine scholar and activist. She was integral in helping me figure out how to use my social studies teacher identity to explore the new world of elementary education a kind of mysterious and frightening place for a secondary school teacher like me to find herself. Keeping in touch with my professional identity as a middle school teacher was absolutely critical to becoming the researcher and writer I am today, and this part of me still refuses to go gentle into that good night She probably does not know this but Elizabeth is the one who taught me that the practice of democracy is really just a very highly evolved form of love. She made it acceptable for me to embrace this practice of love in whatever classroom I found myself She is an inspiration. As a teacher I worked what felt like 24 hours a day to transform my practice so that I could promote social justice and first serve the needs of learners, rather than the demands of policy makers and corporations. However, my cl assroom, like any classroom, can only be transformed to the degree that the larger school/district (or university) community and culture allows it to be. I did not want to accept responsibility for leading my colleagues beyond my own classroom until I had the opportunity to encounter the teaching and scholarship of Dr. James McLeskey and Dr. Paul George. These visionary men taught me that our efforts to emancipate and democratize our classrooms are limited until schools are structured to facilitate these goals from the inside out. They helped me build a strong plan for inclusive, heterogeneously organized classrooms organized by differentiated instruction, and they inspired me to lead my district and university colleagues to do the same. I am still worki ng tireless ly toward this vision for education.

PAGE 7

7 The kind of work these men and women have led me to do is not easy. It takes courage. You have to have angels standing by at all times, and I ve got them. Some of my angels are Suzy Colvin, Lacy Redd, Jim Brandenburg, and Kevin Berry. They let me play, invent, and dream. They protect me and they coach meand then they let me be really needy sometimes, which is not the most flattering side of me. In those needy moments they help me up off the floor and sh ow me I am ok. These are the kind of educational leaders I am so blessed to collaborate with in my community. I have not even mentioned all of the public school teachers, principals, and students who keep me inspired, grounded, courageous, and honest. It has literally taken a village to socialize me into the profession of higher education, and this village will continue to shape, guide, and lift me. But I have to commend one person above all others in her commitment to my growth. Buffy Bondy is the only person in my doctoral program that stood by me the entire way through from the very beginning to the very end. This was not always easy to do. Not only was I a nontraditional student, I was kind of a pain at times. Buffy never abandoned me, even w hen I threatened to quit and even when I did sort of quit once or twice. Buffy is my rock. And she is really smart, too. She opened my entire vista to critical pedagogy. She helped me name my reality one that was not acknowledged by my profession, or by my culture, in general. She helped me find my voice. She had the courage to keep listening to me and to help me make my words. She did this when others would not. Then there is my esteemed colleague and best friend, Farhad Joon, who continues to l ight my way through the ambiguities, fears, and loneliness that qualitative researchers and critical educators inevitably experience. Hes the one there with me

PAGE 8

8 late at night when the doubts come up and those powerful old voices demand that I behave and be a good girl, or when answers will not come fast enough. And he reminds me that this work that we do can never be manualized, packaged, or reproduced. As such this work is spirit, and nothing less. As I finally finish the laboring and I give birth to this dissertation, I celebrate the birth of my son, Ram who was born exactly one year ago. Rami, as you patiently sit here on my lap while I type with one hand, I have a strange feeling that the circle of life is poised to go on. I look forward to al l you have planned to teach me. I dedicate all of my work to you. Doostet daram.

PAGE 9

9 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .............................................................................................................. 4 LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................... 13 LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................... 14 ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................. 15 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................. 17 Background .......................................................................................................................... 17 The Professional Devel opment School Movement ........................................................ 20 Social Justice Scholarship from the Professional Development School (PDS) Movement ......................................................................................................................... 23 Research Problem and Significance ................................................................................ 24 Research Question ............................................................................................................. 26 Introduction to Participatory Action Research ................................................................ 28 Key Concepts ...................................................................................................................... 30 Dissertation Organization .................................................................................................. 32 2 REVI EW OF THE LITERATURE ...................................................................................... 33 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 33 What Is Identity? .................................................................................................................. 33 Gees Four Len ses for Identity .......................................................................................... 3 5 The Social Construction of School Identities .................................................................. 37 School Identities and School Performance ..................................................................... 40 Critical Reflection and Inquiry with Children ................................................................... 45 Communities of Practice .................................................................................................... 49 Literacy and Identity Studies ............................................................................................. 51 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 54 3 RESEARCH METHODS .................................................................................................... 57 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 57 Research Question ............................................................................................................. 58 Theoretical Perspective ...................................................................................................... 59 The Research Context ....................................................................................................... 60 Participant Selection ........................................................................................................... 67 The Partic ipants ........................................................................................................... 69 The Inner Circle: Our Community of Practice ........................................................ 70 The Embracing Circle: Our Support Team .............................................................. 71

PAGE 10

10 The Many Is: My Situational Subjectivities .................................................................. 72 Freedoms and Limitations ................................................................................................. 77 Freedoms ...................................................................................................................... 78 Limitations ..................................................................................................................... 79 Research Methods .............................................................................................................. 82 Participant Observation............................................................................................... 83 Data Collection Methods ............................................................................................. 85 Observations .......................................................................................................... 86 Semi structured interviews and focus groups .................................................. 89 Document collection ............................................................................................. 90 Data Analysis ................................................................................................................ 91 Stage 1: Situating JJKs school identities within the landscape of fourth grade ........................................................................................................ 91 Stage 2: Documenting JJKs community of practice (COP) journey and changing identities ............................................................................................ 93 Stage 3: Situating JJKs school identities at the end of the study ............... 95 Analyzing Observational Field Notes ........................................................................ 95 Analyzing Interviews and Focus Groups .................................................................. 98 Analyzing Artifacts ..................................................................................................... 101 Trustworthiness ................................................................................................................. 102 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 106 4 CHANGES IN JJKS SCHOOL IDENTITIES AND PERFORMANCES OVER TIME .................................................................................................................................... 108 Cultural Models for School Identities at Yearling Elementary School ...................... 109 How Educators Define School Identities ................................................................ 109 First uttered markers by educators .................................................................. 110 General categories of school identities defined by teachers ....................... 113 How Fourth Grade Students Define School Identities ......................................... 117 The Patrol Student Identity ....................................................................................... 118 An Initial Composite of JJKs School Identity at the Beginning of the Year ............. 120 Fourth Grade Perspectives on JJKs School Identity .................................................. 124 A Second Composite of JJKs School Identity at MidYear ....................................... 126 Comparing the First and Second Composites of JJKs School Identity ................... 129 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 131 5 EXPLAINING THE CHANGES IN JJKS SCHOOL IDENTITIES AND PERFORMANCES OVER TIME .................................................................................... 134 Layer 1: The Story of our COP through Nine Critical Junctures ............................... 135 Critical Juncture #1: Initial Interviews with JJK and other Student Candidates .............................................................................................................. 137 Critical Juncture #2: Selection of JJK as Members of the COP ........................ 138 Critical Juncture #3: First Formal Teaching Observation ................................... 139 Critical Juncture #4: First Informal Teaching Observation ................................. 145 Critical J uncture #5: Second Informal Teaching Observation ........................... 147

PAGE 11

11 Critical Juncture #6: Second Formal Teaching Observation ............................. 149 Critical Juncture #7: Third Formal Teaching Observation.................................. 156 Critical Juncture #8: Final Conversation in our COP .......................................... 161 Critical Junctur e #9: Final Semi Structured Interview with JJK ......................... 164 Layer 2: JJKs Enactments of Situated Identities over Time ..................................... 169 A Narrative of JJKs Expanding Identity over Time ..................................................... 170 Layer 3: Motives behind the PDS Supervisory Role .................................................. 175 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 178 6 DISCUSSION .................................................................................................................... 179 Overview of the Study ...................................................................................................... 179 Guiding Pr inciples for Building Student Teacher COPs for Supervision in the PDS .................................................................................................................................. 182 The Critical Role of the Community of Practice ........................................................... 194 Creating Belonging and a Space of Resistance .......................................................... 195 Questions Remaining for Further Study ........................................................................ 199 Implications for PDS Work and Beyond ........................................................................ 201 Collaborating with Students in Teacher Inquiry .................................................... 201 Including Children in Discourses of Power ............................................................ 202 Activating Muliliteracies ............................................................................................. 203 Doing Democracy and Reforming Schools ............................................................ 204 Preparing Children for the New Work Order of the 21st Century ...................... 205 Literacy and Identity Studies: A Call for Putting Theory into Action ................. 206 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 208 APPENDIX A EXCERPT FROM FIELD NOTES WITH NUMBERED CRITICAL INCIDENTS ..... 213 B EXCERPT OF ANALYSIS OF CRITICAL INCIDENTS .............................................. 214 C EXCERPT OF TEACHER CONVERSATIONS ABOUT MS. SS FOURTH GRADERS .......................................................................................................................... 215 D MARKERS THAT MAKE UP TEACHERS CULTURAL MODELS OF SCHOOL IDENTITIES ....................................................................................................................... 216 E FREQUENCY OF MARKERS MENTIONED BY EDUCATORS ............................... 219 F MARKERS THAT MAKE UP FOURTH GRADERS CULTURAL MODELS (GEE, 2002) OF SCHOOL IDENTITIES AT YEARLING ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ............................................................................................................................ 220 G DARBYS MOVES AND MOTIVES DURING CRITICAL JUNCTURE #2: FORMAL OBSERVATION OF INTERN LESSON ....................................................... 221 H MOVES FROM CRITICAL JUNCTURE #6 .................................................................. 223

PAGE 12

12 I FIRST UTTERED MARKERS BY EDUCATORS OF YEARLING ELEMENTARY 226 J RANKING OF CATEGORIES FOR SCHOOL IDENTITY BASED ON FREQUENCY OF MARKERS USED BY EDUCATORS ............................................ 227 K SOURCES, NOTES, AND DATA USED TO BUILD JJKS INSTITUTIONAL IDENTITY FOR COMPOSITE #1 ................................................................................... 228 L JJKS MOVES, DISCOURSE PRACTICES, AND ENACTMENT OF SITUATED IDENTITIES ....................................................................................................................... 230 M ARTIFACT GIVEN TO JJK A DAY BEFORE OUR LAST SEMI STRUCTURED INTERVIEW ....................................................................................................................... 239 N SAMPLE DISCO URSE ANALYSIS EXCERPT FROM JUNCTURE #9 (FINAL SEMI STRUCTURED INTERVIEW WITH JJK) ........................................................... 240 REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................... 241 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ..................................................................................................... 254

PAGE 13

13 LIST OF TABLES Table page 1 1 Espoused principles for social justice and equity in the national PDS community ....................................................................................................................... 21 4 1 Categories of first uttered markers by educators .................................................... 112 4 2 Categorical breakdown of markers of JJKS school identity at the beginning of fourth grade ............................................................................................................... 121 4 3 Categorical breakdown of markers of JJKS school identity by the middle of fourth grade ................................................................................................................... 129 5 1 Making bids for identity and asserting positionalities (Critical Juncture #9) ....... 165 5 2 Power and positionality: Turning the conversation with new information .......... 166 5 3 Jot notes to expanded notes ...................................................................................... 176

PAGE 14

14 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 4 1 Educators cultural model of the Successful Student school identity. ............... 114 4 2 Educators cultural model of the Unsuccessful Student identity. ....................... 115 4 3 How educators defined JJKs school identities at the beginning of the school year. ................................................................................................................................ 130 4 4 How educators defined JJKs school identities by mid year. ................................ 131 5 1 Sample written dialogue between Darby and JJK. ................................................. 141 5 2 (Boy 1) Data collection and analysis of student participation during parallel groups ............................................................................................................................ 153 5 3 (Boy 2). Data collection and analysis of student participation during parallel groups ............................................................................................................................ 154 5 4 (Boy 3). Data collection and analysis of student participation during parallel groups ............................................................................................................................ 154 5 5 (Boy 1): How are our teachers helping kids behave? .......................................... 158 5 6 (Boy 2): How are our teachers creating a climate that promotes fairness? .... 159 5 7 (Boy 3): How are teachers making sure kids understand? ................................. 159

PAGE 15

15 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 AN INVESTIGATION OF THE COCONSTRUCTION OF SCHOOL IDENTITIES: COLLABORATING WITH FOURTH GRADERS IN THE SUPERVISION OF PROSPECTIVE TEACHERS By Darby Claire Delane August 2010 Chair: Elizabeth Bondy Major: Curriculum and Instruction Through the current uses of high stakes testing designed to measure state definitions of learning, chronic inequities are being perpetuated in the public school systems by organizational practices that sort students. Tracking both in and between classrooms legitimizes the social inequalities of the larger society by segregati ng and denying educational equality (DarlingHammond, 1999; Fine & Weis, 2005; Gay, 2005; Oakes, 1999), creates social identities defined by school failure that limit life chances (Fine, 1991), and disables the social and economic conditions needed to uphold a democratic society. The Professional Development School (PDS) movement was designed to address this kind of inequity reproduced in schools. My research sought to identify and disrupt school identities associated with school failure in a PDS, an educ ational context in which I supervise prospective teachers. I wanted to know how the school identities and performances of three fourth grade students, marginalized by school sorting practices, would change during and after collaborating as coaches and res earchers in a community of practice designed to support the professional development of their two interns.

PAGE 16

16 Research was conducted from a social constructionist epistemology and from the theoretical perspective of Participatory Action Research grounded in feminisms. Ethnographic field methods were used, and included participant observation, semi structured interviews and focus groups, and document analysis. Analysis methods utilized both grounded theory and discourse analysis. Methods and findings that ca me from the research were organized around two subquestions. First, how did the three students formal, institutional identities change over the course of the study? Second, how can the process of this change be explained? Chapter 4 describes how the in stitutional, school identities of the three fourth grade participants were defined by educators in the PDS at the beginning and at the end of the study. Chapter 5 lays out the journey the three students, two interns, and I took as a community of practice, documenting the change in discourse identities of the three students. Implications from this research are related to collaborating directly with students in teacher action research in the PDS and beyond; teaching children discourses of power; enhancing classroom learning by capitalizing on multiliteracies; engaging children in democratic school reform; preparing children for the 21st century work world; and calling into action the wealth of knowledge generated by literacy and identity scholarship.

PAGE 17

17 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Background Just weeks before this writing, both houses of the Florida legislature passed Senate Bill 6, a bill designed to eliminate tenure and allow all salaries and contracts of public school teachers to be driven by the test scores of their students. Senate Bill 6 was ultimately vetoed by the governor. However, this close call represents the current national political obsession for promoting high stakes testing as the end all for defining th e quality of public school teaching, and it is rooted in a social efficiency logic that upholds that the purpose of schooling is to satisfy the employment needs of an expanding capitalistic economy (Sleeter, 2005; Wolk, 1998). Under the pressures of one size fits all accountability practices coupled with ever increasing responsibilities, teachers are experiencing an unprecedented intensification of their time, leaving them little time or energy to retool their skills, continue ongoing learning, or even eva luate the very curriculum they are mandated to teach (Apple, 1993; Hargreaves, 1994; Sleeter, 2005). Robbing teachers of their time, and their emotional, political, and intellectual stamina means that the imposed curriculum remains firmly in place. This ultimately leads to the deskilling of the profession and a profound increase of school dependency on pre packaged, mass produced curriculum that clearly benefits corporate interests (Hargreaves, 1994; McLaren, 2003; Shor & Freire, 1987; Sleeter, 2005). In addition, teachers are effectively marginalized from the conversations in which they could attempt to name and evaluate the complexities of their own situated work, including the pedagogical relationships among teachers, diverse learners, and the curricul um (Cochran Smith & Lytle, 1993; 2009).

PAGE 18

18 Through the current uses of norm referenced testing designed to measure state definitions of learning, chronic inequities are being perpetuated in the public school systems by organizational practices that sort stu dents and punish schools (DarlingHammond, 1999; Fine & Weis, 2003). The current standards movement merely supports individualistic, economic aims for education and has never shown evidence that closing achievement gaps will also close economic gaps (Sleeter, 2005). In fact, educational achievement among students of color continues to remain low despite half a century of programs, reform, and funding schemes to change the situation (Gay, 2005). Standardized test scores are emphasized as a central criteri on for tracking students by so called ability groups, and then placing students into separate classes (or separate groups within classes) with different curricula (Heubert & Hauser, 1999; Persell, 2005; Sleeter, 2005). This solution supposedly benefits the students in that it reduces differences between student needs and allows lessons to be homogenized (George & Alexander, 2003). But excessive tracking, rather than intelligent and strategic grouping, is dangerous because it conveniently locates failu re or deficiency within individual students and lowers expectations for student success (Gay, 2005; Persell, 2005). Tracking actually serves as a system for legitimizing the social inequalities of our larger society by segregating and denying education al equality, particularly for Latinos and African Americans who are disproportionally placed in the lowest tracks (Gay, 2005; Oakes, 1999). Tracking also benefits only a minority of students, leaving the majority with needs unmet (McLeskey & Waldron, 2000). This is because less effective teachers are

PAGE 19

19 typically assigned to teach lower classes, stigmas are attached to students in these classes resulting in lowered expectations, and the curriculum often lacks rigor and relevance to student interests (Darl ing Hammond, 1999; George & Alexander, 2003; Oakes, 1999; Persell, 2005). Furthermore, these common problems associated with tracking do not even take into consideration the fact that most schools in the United States continue to be racially segregated, as a whole (Gay, 2005). Fine and Weis (2005) urge schools (to) challenge the social stratifications of race, ethnicity, and class that currently define, and could destroy, America (p. 1). Their call is particularly pressing at a time in history when unequal opportunities abound, and where many schools continue to be deprived of access to stable and high quality resources, including teachers (Darling Hammond & Sykes, 2003; The Southeast Center for Teaching Quality, 2004). These trends have compelled many critics to point out that the practices imposed on schools have, in fact, disenfranchised more students than ever before from economic opportunity and social equity (Apple, 1993; Brandt, 2001; Hinchey, 2004; McLaren, 2003). Social identities that are dev eloped by tracking and segregation are central to school failure (Mehan, 2006). Tajfel (1978), in Van Dick, Wagner, Stellmacher and Christ (2005), defines social identity as the cognitive, emotional, and evaluative dimensions of membership within a group. This includes how one defines the self as a part of the group, the emotional meaning associated with being a member of that group, and the way the group is valued and positioned by those outside of it. Often, poor and otherwise marginalized children who do not learn to read in school do not do so because they are without the ability to read. Instead, it is because they are not

PAGE 20

20 members of the in group (Gee, 2004). In other words, they do not learn to read because they are repeatedly excluded from priv ileged academic grouping where norms are set by white, middle class values and ways with words (Heath, 1983). As mentioned, the domination of high stakes testing increases inequity because of the implications of tracking and sorting practices public school s believe they must employ in order to keep the school house open and save jobs. But what are the consequences of school identities generated by testing and sorting, and how do these school identities shape the quality of teaching and learning that indivi dual children experience in schools? What are the life long implications of childrens visions of themselves and their potentials? Such questions demand our attention. If tracking and ability grouping create tenacious school identities that promote school failure and potentially limit ones life chances (Fine, 1991), then we must consider their catastrophic implications for our democracy (EganRobertson & Willett, 1998; Oakes, 2005). We must also consider their power in destroying the precious national resources of talent, potential, and innovation needed for the United States to stay competitive in an increasingly globalized economy. The Professional Development School Movement Public school teachers and children have not been the only constituents in e ducation under assault in the last decades. As a response to the era in politics, education, and the media provoked by the publication of A Nation at Risk ( United States National Commission on Excellence in Education 1983), a consortium of research universities with professional education programs, called the Holmes Group, assembled in 1987 to consider a nd address the political attack upon university teacher education programs (Holmes Partnership, 2008). The Professional Development School (PDS)

PAGE 21

21 movement was one major outcome of this dialogue. The PDS movement calls for the simultaneous and continuous renewal and restructuring of schools, districts, and their partnering university institutions (DarlingSmith, Bullmaster & Cobb, 1995; Holmes Group, 1990) through the integrated learning of its stakeholders, including all P 12 students, prospective teachers, and university school and district based educators. Stakeholder learning in the PDS is to be anchored by ongoing cycles of inquiry, or the process by which educators problematize, systematically co investigate, and then improve their own practices (Hol mes Group, 1986; Holmes, 1990; NCATE, 2001). In the last two decades the PDS educational community has been formalized by the principles and aims set out by the Holmes Group (1990), NCATE (2001), and more recently by the National Association of Professional Development Schools (NAPDS, 2008). In each of these visions for PDS partnerships, there is a primary focus on student learning and advancing equity for all children (Valli, Cooper & Frankes, 1997). In Table 1.1 below are excerpts from the pr inciples espoused by each of these three organizations, articulating this common emphasis. Table 1 1 Espoused principles for social justice and equity in the national PDS community Principle #3 (Holmes, 1990) Teaching and learning for understanding for everybody's children: In PDS learning communities teachers can work to overcome the educational and social barriers raised by an unequal society. Key Concept #3 (NCATE, 2001) Students are always to be placed at the center of PDS partnership efforts. PDS partners and candidates examine the curricula of the university and school programs in light of issues of equity and access to knowledge by diverse learners. Essential #1 (NAPDS, 2008) A comprehensive mis sion that is broader in its outreach and scope than the mission of any partner and that furthers the education profession and its responsibility to advance equity within schools and, by potential extension, the broader community.

PAGE 22

22 In the PDS relationship between schools and universities, there is the expectation that stakeholders will consciously blend and exchange roles (NAPDS, 2008; NCATE, 2001) in order to meet the unique educational needs of the university and the school, of which a committed push towa rd correcting inequity in schools is central (Wiedeman, 2002). While school based educators agree to develop their roles as teacher educators, university based partners are then expected to take more direct responsibility for P 12 student learning (Yendol Hoppey, 2005). This has put university partners in a potentially liberating position. Not only can we engage in traditional endeavors of research and supervision in the PDS but we are also given creative license to directly impact academic achievement a nd equitable conditions for P 12 students while we are there. In the PDS relationship the voices from schools can be amplified because schools and colleges of education are able to team together, marshal their resources, unite under common goals for better teacher preparation, and engage in ongoing renewal for both school and teacher education through restructuring and inquiry oriented learning (Darling Hammond, Bullmaster & Cobb, 1995). In doing so the PDS has allowed for new, emic forms of teacher leader ship to emerge, such as veteran teachers taking university teaching and mentoring roles, and university faculty venturing into joint research with teachers in order to rethink the relationship between theory and practice (Darling Hammond, Bullmaster & Cobb, 1995). Such new ways of working together foster a socialization process for new teachers grounded in critical inquiry, collaboration, and the idea of teacher as designer of practice. Teacher leadership, then, becomes an expected and assumed facet of the profession (DarlingHammond, Bullmaster & Cobb,

PAGE 23

23 1995). The leadership element of the PDS mission is critical, as most new teachers in traditional teacher education programs are not socialized into the profession as agents of change for school reform (Coc hranSmith, 2004). Social Justice Scholarship from the P rofessional D evelopment S chool (PDS) M ovement The Professional Development School ( PDS ) movement has mapped out a great deal of territory in the effort to improve practice and create solidarity between schools and teacher education. However, an examination of the last two decades of research and practice reveals that much of this territory has still been left underexplored or undocumented. For example, there are no data that focus on the impact of PDS work on the university supervisor, as research into the unique nature of supervision in the PDS has evaporated in an era emphasizing accountability for measuring student outcomes (Clift & Brady, 2005). PDS research has also failed to demonstrate a strong justification for the value of PDS reform in teacher preparation (Tunks & Neapolitan, 2007), and particularly in the preparation of teachers f or urban school contexts (Murrell, 2001). Most concerning is that PDS research has barely heeded the call to investigate how the PDS promotes social justice for all P 12 learners (Tunks & Neapolitan, 2007; Weideman, 2002). Research focusing on the assessm ent of frameworks, restructuring efforts, and the implementation of policy and standards has dominated the PDS literature in the twenty first century. Only 2% of the research published between 2001 and 2006 has focused on social justice in the PDS (Tunks & Neapolitan, 2007). A few of these studies looked at how the PDS can be a context for promoting the voices of teachers in order to shape teacher preparation and school reform (see Marlow, Kyed & Connors, 2005, and Snow -

PAGE 24

24 Gerono, 2009). Some studies have als o examined how PDS partnerships can prepare prospective and novice teachers for culturally relevant pedagogy and for enacting agendas centered on social justice (see Cobb, 2001, Cantor, 2002, and Ramalho, Garza & Merchant, 2009). One promising study looke d at how forming inquiry groups with high school students helped them problematize and take action on school policies, structures, and cultures that led to inequity (Jones & Yonezawa, 2002). However, none of the PDS studies look directly at how inquiry or iented collaboration between P 12 students and educators can directly lead to changes in identity, and how such changes in identity are directly linked to students school performance. Research Problem and Significance This study looks to identify and disr upt school identities that ensure school failure and inequity in the PDS. The ability for local schools to respond to the particularity of needs presented by their learners and to promote equitable access to education and opportunity is in deep crisis. T his has been exacerbated by political and corporate forces that impose rhetoric and control from well outside the sphere of educational expertise and certainly away from the front lines of the classroom. The PDS movement was designed to disrupt the reprod uction of inequity at the grass roots level but has fallen short of documenting evidence for the attainment of this goal. Nonetheless, PDS collaborative efforts between colleges of education and local school districts still hold the potential for challengi ng the negative impact of oppressive policies and for demonstrating this through research. The PDS partnership presents an unusually rich opportunity for many intelligent, reform minded people with diverse perspectives to reach across traditional barriers and challenge the systematic oppression of teachers and students. However, educators need to find ways to tailor such work so that it folds

PAGE 25

25 easily into natural, daily classroom practices in ways that do not add to the burdens teachers, prospective teachers, children, administrators, and fieldbased university partners already carry. Each PDS partnership manifests itself in unique ways, bringing together university and school based partners in countless configurations of collaborative organization that tr anslate into a myriad of unique projects, roles, goals and outcomes as partners find the intersections between their goals and pursue them for mutual benefit. For this reason my study does not present a model for PDS participants to adopt. Rather, it offe rs just one example of how to deepen the university based educators role in a way that creates more direct, emancipatory learning experiences for P 12 learners and their educational teams, and to bring social justice agendas beyond the boundaries of theor ies and textbooks within teacher education institutions, and directly into the PDS classrooms where theory and practice must meet (NCATE, 2001). In my own case as a university partner in the PDS, I had to determine the most strategic way to position my wor k so that I could take more direct responsibility for promoting equity in classrooms. I did this by examining the shared goals and activities in the PDS partnership, and then finding where my role put me in the closest physical and pedagogical proximity w ith all constituents of the PDS, including school based educators, prospective teachers, and with children, in particular. For me this nexus was located within my tasks associated with prospective teacher supervision. This was the part of my job that placed me inside the classrooms of the PDS where I conducted formal and informal observations of their planning, teaching, and evaluation of student learning.

PAGE 26

26 Putting an equity driven agenda at the center of prospective teacher supervision has enjoyed a small conversation in the teacher education literature. In a dissertation study, Jacobs (2007) worked with university field supervisors of prospective teachers, some of whom were in PDS contexts, in order to cultivate a coaching stance that promoted equity in t he pedagogical practices and values of novice teachers. In her review of the literature she found three approaches to the topic of equity oriented supervision, including a multicultural approach (see Abt Perkins, Hauschildt & Dale, 2000; Davidman, 1990; G rant & Zozakiewicz, 1995; Page, 2003), a culturally responsive approach (see Bowers & Flinders, 1991; Gay, 1998), and a critical approach (see Smyth, 1985; Zeichner & Tabachnick, 1982) However, no studies in the supervision literature address how P 12 st udents can be invited as direct and active participants in the supervision process. Research Question As a middle school teacher, and now as a university based teacher educator, I have consistently worked to improve my practice as a supervisor of prospecti ve teachers in the field by directly and systematically including children and adolescents in the process of teacher learning through inquiry, and particularly through critical inquiry into teaching, learning, and public schooling. While I have studied th e implications that this work has had on my learning and practice, the learning of my colleagues, and that of prospective teachers, I had not, until now, investigated how student teacher collaboration in teacher learning related to the school performances and identities of children and adolescents. In this study I wanted to know how and why the identities and performances of three struggling students might change during and after participating in a community of practice that supported the supervision of prospective teachers. To

PAGE 27

27 help gain insights into the question, two supporting questions organized the research process. First, how might these students formal, institutional identities (Gee, 2000), as defined by educators in the PDS, change as a result of participating in the supervision of their interns? Second, how could the process supporting this change in their institutional identities be explained? This study focused on the deliberate and purposeful bringing together of children, their teachers, prospective teachers, and myself in order to engage in critical reflection and collaborative inquiry into the supervision of two teaching interns so that we could explore the overlap between theories of teaching and practice (Cochran Smith, 2004; Imig & Swi tzer, 1996). What made this work critical in nature was that it challenged traditional power arrangements in the classroom. Children who participated in the work, some of whom were previously marginalized in the classroom and in the system of schooling i n many ways, were being positioned to develop the knowledge, skills, and dispositions needed to carry a role of expert not only in the educational affairs of other children but in the professional affairs of adults. In reconfigurations of social and power relationships, students were asked to co engage in the problematizing of teaching and learning through inquiry. Essentially, in this process, students were repositioned as teaching coaches to allow their voices to develop and be heard (McLaughlin, C arnell & Blount, 1999), and to provide novel avenues for developing school identities that had previously been unavailable in the traditional social and pedagogical arrangement of the classroom. During my regular routines of supervision in the PDS, three s tudent participants who were not winning in the game of testing and sorting in this PDS were recruited to

PAGE 28

28 collaborate with me in the inquiry oriented professional development of two interns placed in their classroom as co teachers. Together, the six of us worked in what ultimately became a community of practice. In this community we shared a purpose and distinct set of practices that were guided by the inquiry question, How can we (the adults) become better teachers? Our work together lasted for four months, or over the course of the fall semester of 2008 when the interns worked in the PDS. Introduction to Participatory Action Research This study was framed, organized, and implemented as a Participatory Action Research (PAR) endeavor, a special form of critical social research. The purpose of PAR is to improve the quality of life by inquiring into social conditions that constrain lives. In doing so it seeks emancipation and transformation for all of the participants of the inquiry, including the researcher (Creswell, 2008; Stringer, 1999; Tripp, 1990). What sets PAR apart from all other research, including other interpretive forms, is i ts mission and propensity for igniting the passions of its participants. Passion fosters ownership, and ownership mobilizes people to invest their time and energy into the collaborative effort (Stringer, 2007). The guiding principles of PAR include ident ifying a collective project; aiming to both study and simultaneously change discourses, practices, and organizations of power and cultures; the seeking out of dialectic tensions; and the expansion of participation by all stakeholders (Glesne, 1999; McTaggart, 1997). The goal in PAR is that participants come to understand how social and educational practices are located in particular social, political, and historical contexts that produce and reproduce these conditions every day (Kemmis & McTaggart, 2005). In doing so, PAR facilitates an awareness of not only what is, but what could be.

PAGE 29

29 There are three discernable characteristics of PAR. These include its participatory, reflexive, and collaborative focus; the upholding of democratic ideals; and its twin co mmitments to both the production of knowledge and the raising of consciousness (Kemmis & McTaggart, 2005; McTaggart, 1997; Schwandt, 1997; Tripp, 1990). PAR focuses on traditionally exploited or oppressed people; addresses specific concerns named by the c ommunity; creates a process whereby education, research, and action are intertwined; allows for all participants to offer their expertise; and provides the opportunity for all stakeholders to learn and transform (Tolman & Brydon Miller, 2001). PAR emphasi zes the politics and power of knowledge production and use (Schwandt, 1997), so it is critical in orientation. The goal of PAR is to interrogate reality in order to change it, so it is emancipatory and potentially transformational because it can change the relationship between theory and practice (Brydon Miller, 2001; CochranSmith & Lytle, 1993; Hendricks, 2006), as well as between individuals, groups, institutions, and cultures (McTaggart, 1997). In a PAR project, there is a component of action, or soc ial change that is explicitly sought. In this case the action focused on how three fourth grade students, identified by school based educators as not school successful, were transforming their sense of school identities through their participation in a community of practice (COP). In turn, this contributed to the larger aim for action shared by PDS stakeholders: working for equity and social justice in the classroom. As members of the senior class of this K 4 elementary school, the fourthgrade st udents who participated in this project had a lot of time to build their school identities within the historical context of a high stakes testing era. These students collaborated directly with me, as well as their classroom teacher,

PAGE 30

30 prospective teachers, and other school support faculty, in supervising their interns. The three students were invited to take privileged roles in this process, and they were asked to participate in making us (all) better teachers. Specifically, these students were called to assist us in our inquiry into how to improve the teaching (and learning) of teacher candidates who were expected to respond effectively and equitably to the needs of all learners in this inclusive classroom. Key Concepts Through the course of this dissert ation key concepts will be used repeatedly. For the sake of providing transparency into the meaning and assumptions I embed in the terms, I have listed some of the most repeated terms and their definitions below. COACHING: A special form of supervision ( never evaluative) usually provided by peers, to facilitate and scaffold teacher learning and growth (Nolan & Hoover, 2004). COMMUNITY OF PRACTICE: A group of people who share a concern, a set of problems, or a passion about a topic, and who deepen their kn owledge and expertise in this area by regularly interacting together over time. In doing so, they develop a unique perspective on their topic as well as a body of common knowledge and practices and a shared identity (Wenger, McDermott & Synder, 2002). DIS COURSE IDENTITIES: The assemblance of specific behaviors, values, symbols, ways of talking, tools, and other expressions we use to be recognized as a particular kind of person (Gee, 2000). INQUIRY: The basic mechanism for professional development and for simultaneous renewal in Professional Development School partnerships. Inquiry involves problematizing teaching and learning through the generation of wonderings, collecting and analyzing data to gain insights into wonderings, and sharing findings with oth ers (Dana & Yendol Silva, 2003). INSTITUTIONAL IDENTITIES: The more formal facets of our social identities forged within institutional contexts, such as schools (Gee, 2000). Examples of institutional identities assigned within school contexts might include being a first grader, ADHD, gifted, a good reader, or a struggling student. MOVES: Enactments of identity, including, behaviors, words, or the use or creation of artifacts or symbols that provide evidence of a repositioning of identity, or a sh ift from an older to a newer identity.

PAGE 31

31 PROSPECTIVE TEACHERS: Interns from the university whose professional development and endorsement as teachers are shared by school and university based partners in the PDS. SCHOOLBASED PARTNER: PDS collaborators wh o come from the school end of the partnership. These can include teachers, students, administrators, and families. Partners can be engaged in several aspects of the collaborative, including prospective teacher education, governance, supervision, and rese arch and inquiry. SCHOOL IDENTITY: School identities, for purposes of this study, refer to the identities children hold as people situated in the social institution of public school, and specifically in terms of how they are highly contextualized in light of social and academic competencies. SUPERVISION: This nonevaluative organizational function is aimed at teacher learning for the end purpose of enhanced student learning. This is not to be confused with evaluation, which aims to make judgments about c ompetent performances of teachers (Nolan & Hoover, 2004). UNIVERSITYBASED PARTNER: PDS collaborators who come from the university end of the partnership. These can include university faculty, adjuncts, administrators, and graduate students engaged in research and inquiry, supervision, and governance affairs in the PDS. At many points in the research process I struggled with conceptualizing and naming the special case of identities for children who are in school. I primarily vacillated between the two terms of school identity and academic identity, both of which are used regularly in the literature. I decided to settle on the term school identity As a caution this term is not used in the sense of identifying ones membership with or allegiance to a particular school. Rather, it is used to situate children as people in the social institution of schooling. School identity rather than academic identity offered a wider spectrum of factors associated with how school aged childrens identities are co nstructed, including those that go beyond the markers of school performance, ability or work ethic. School identities allowed a more holistic inclusion of factors drawing from family, community, and other related contexts (Flores Gonzalez, 2002). Whil e

PAGE 32

32 school identity is still an adult construction, it treats that domain of an individuals identity specifically in reference to how the implications of schooling relate to ones self definition ( Meeus & Dekovic 1995). Dissertation Organization In the following chapters I will explore how the identities and performances of three struggling students changed during and after participating in a community of practice supporting the supervision of prospective teachers In Chapter 2 I review the literature in several areas, including school identities, how school identities and school performance are related, critical reflection and inquiry with children, communities of practice, literacy and identity studies, and James Gees (2000) four lenses for studying the sociocultural nature of identity. Chapter 3 lays out the theoretical perspective framing this research, the context for the study, the methods used to collect and analyze data, as well as issues associated with subjectivities, trustworthiness, and limi tations. The research findings are discussed in Chapters 4 and 5. Chapter 4 describes how the institutional, school identities of the three fourth grade participants were defined by teachers and administrators at the beginning and at the end of the study. Chapter 5 lays out the journey the three students, two interns, and I took as a community of practice, and traces the change in the discourse identities of the three students from an insiders point of view. Chapter 6 concludes the report by considering the implications of the findings for further research and practice that could take place in PDS collaboratives. In particular, I link the findings with the potential of university and school partnerships to interrupt narratives and practice that perpetuate school failure and to foster more equitable learning experiences that build, rather than undermine, democratic societies

PAGE 33

33 CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERA TURE Introduction This study documents how the school identities and performances of three students changed as they became central agents and co inquirers into the professional development and preparation of prospective teachers. This chapter provides the theoretical and conceptual map that framed and informed this work. As is typical of the cr itically conscious researcher, I drew from many domains of scholarship in order to develop the research plan (Willis et al., 2008). First, I will present a sociocultural definition of and model for identity(ies) that served as the foundation for this stud y. I will address the implications of the social construction of school identities that privilege some learners and marginalize others (Lin, 2008). Next, I will outline the relationship between school identities and school performance, and why the identi ties of children should be of deep and abiding concern for PDS educators attempting to make schools equitable places. I will then review projects involving collaborative inquiry and critical reflection with children that strongly influenced my stance as a participatory action researcher in this study. Communities of practice will then be introduced, and how they might hold the potential for mobilizing emancipatory forms of collaborative inquiry with children in the PDS. Finally, I will focus on the body of theory that examines the inseparable relationship among literacy practices, learning, and identities. What I s Identity? Researchers in education struggling to find agreement in defining the social construct of identity (Moje & Luke, 2009), argue that i t must be problematized and not taken for granted (Lin, 2008a), and even go as far as to critique its use as perpetuating

PAGE 34

34 Western, colonialist discourse (Skeggs, 2008). Identity is only one of many ways human beings make sense of personhood(s) (Egan Robertson, 1998; Skeggs, 2008). However, for purposes of this study, it will be used for defining (and being recognized as) a certain kind of person, (Gee, 2000, p. 95), and will include all who one believes one is, as well as who one is perceived to be in different contexts (Gee, 2000). In this study I stand by postmodern theorists and social constructionists who interpret identity not as something that is fixed in nature, nor even as an experience located in the individual. Rather, identity will be treat ed in this study as an ongoing social construct assembled together by histories, cultures, and languages, and having a relational, ever changing, multiple and sometimes contradictory nature (Lin, 2008; McCarthey, 2001; McCarthey & Moje, 2002; Mishler,1999; Moje & Luke, 2009; Sarup, 1998). Individuals can make bids (Gee, 2000, p. 109) to be recognized as a certain kind of person but these identities cannot be sustained without being recognized by others, just as individuals can be recruited to take on par ticular identities but ultimately reject the recruitment effort by his or her community (Gee, 2000). Tatum (1997, in McCarthey & Moje, 2002) found this to be true, and concluded that students identities are fashioned in relation to perceptions held by ot her people. Research in the area of the social construction of identity also reveals that language is critical to identity formation and recognition, because the way we talk about other people (and ourselves) positions us relative to others (Fairclough, 1995). In fact, identities are always dependent upon and embedded within discourses that particular identity groups create (Gee, 2000). Berger and Luckmann (1966) in their seminal publication, The Social Construction of Reality discuss how important ident ity is in negotiating the dialectic between the

PAGE 35

35 individual animal and his/her social world (p. 180), by managing competing tensions between the two. Psychologists and other social scientists have found identity to be helpful in explaining the way we thi nk about ourselves and others, particularly when looking at the intersection between things people do, where one is from, and with whom one is associated (Lin, 2008b). Enciso, Lewis, and Moje (2007) ask how identity can frame research in education. For e xample, educational researchers have found the construct of identity to be a beneficial tool for examining and explaining the reproduction of inequity in schools (Lin, 2008b). Applications of this kind of research might help us reform languages used to c reate stereotypical categories of children in schools and limit the way children and adolescents are positioned as learners (Lin, 2008b). In order to study identity in schools, it is important to have an organizational framework for dealing with the socia l construction of identity. In my case I found it helpful to use a theory proposed by James Gee (2000), which will be discussed next. Gees Four Lenses for Identity James Gee (2000) has conceptualized four lenses through which to examine and interpret identity, two of which became foundational in this study. They include: Institutional identities, Discourse identities, Affinity identities, and Natureidentities. These four lenses are inseparable from one another, and all rely on dialogue between human be ings to exist. For example, being called a good student in school by peers and teachers is the function of ones Institutional identity, or how one is positioned in formal organizations, such as schools. Ones Discourse identity as a good student inc ludes all of the ways his/her behaviors, values, ways of talking, and the tools s/he uses are assigned to such an identity. These might include the willingness to publicly answer questions posed by teachers, the possession and reading of certain kinds of

PAGE 36

36 texts, and the demonstration of behaviors interpreted by those in power as compliance. Ones Affinity identity as a good student has everything to do with whom one affiliates with. Good students will likely feel most comfortable spending social tim e with other good students. They will likely choose one another as friends both in and out of school, elect to do projects together, and sit next to one another in the cafeteria. Finally, a good student can be identified by his or her Natureidentity. For example, teachers in this study often talked about students as being bright, as if intelligence was an innate or biologically determined trait. All four of Gees lenses for identity build upon and reinforce one another, and all rely on dialogue to exist, sustain, and change over time. This is why when one may make bids to be defined as a good student, this identity must be recognized and endorsed as such by his or her community. Gees four lenses for social identity allowed me to operationalize ways of gathering and interpreting data from participants who were diverse in age, gender, ethnicity, and position. While I could have used any of the four lenses to study the school identities of fourth grade participants, I focused specifically on docum enting changes in Institutional and Discourse identities,1 two of the four lenses for studying identity in Gees model. Examining shifts in identity through more than one lens was important because it helped me gain access to multiple layers of co constr uction between individuals and the greater school community. 1 To ease the reader from this point forward, James Gees concepts of I nstitutional identities and D iscourse identities (2000) will be written in lower case and without a hyphen: i nstitutional identities and d iscourse identities.

PAGE 37

37 The Social Construction of School Identities School identities, for purposes of this study, refer to the identities children hold as people situated in the institution of schooling, and specifica lly including how they are highly contextualized in light of perceived social and academic competencies. Flores Gonzalez (2002) studied Latino children and defined children who possessed a school identity as those who gained satisfaction from being in s chool. In fact, having a school identity, or not, meant the difference between being seen as a good kid or a bad kid (Flores Gonzalez, 2002). In this study, however, I use the term school identity as an umbrella for all children in school. I assum ed that all children had some form of a school identity but that it could fall within a range of possible manifestations, ranging from school successful to not school successful. What is important to this study is that school identities of children are created, assigned, and reproduced in ongoing cycles that privilege some and marginalize others (Flores Gonzalez, 2002; Lin, 2008). These identities are cast most typically in light of performance progress associated with childrens behaviors as readers and writers (Moje & Luke, 2009), which are laundered when schools misidentify and then reward classbased cultural advantages, as natural talents or diligence, (Crossley, 2003, p. 43), and then reified as social facts (Mehan, 1996, p. 244). Stu dents and teachers assemble one anothers local identities by drawing from traditional roles of the classroom, the available curriculum, and other resources that position students in recognizable ways (Wortham, 2004). The implications of these local schoo l identity assignments are both immediate and far reaching. For example, how school identities are defined by participants in schools and enacted by individuals clearly has implications for who will or will not have opportunities for specialized literacy learning

PAGE 38

38 (McCarthey & Moje, 2002; Moje & Lewis, 2007), the basic currency needed for creating an identity of school success. Once these kinds of school identities are in place, they have a tremendous impact on the trajectory of ones life chances (Gee, 2000; Mishler, 1999; Moje & Luke, 2009; Wenger, 1998). The people, habits, and value systems that comprise school and political institutions often lead to a collective amnesia about the social construction of school identities. For example, it is easy in t he day to day affairs of school to overlook that school identities, including such formal labels of ADHD or learning disabled, must rely on ongoing social interaction and dialogue in order to be constructed and maintained (Gee, 2000; Skrtic, 1995). Th rough dialogue, labels are essentially recast as biological in nature (Gee, 2000), which they may or may not be. For example, Mehan (1996) followed the transition of a childs school identity from being a regular student to a handicapped student. By l ooking at language used by educators to sort students, and then by documenting the series of events involved in the educational testing for and placement into special education, he made the case for how the students new identity became institutionalized as a social fact through the interplay between conversations and the creations of texts. In the quote below, Mehan traces the actions that thread together the storyline from regular to handicapped, which actually started with the teacher having a proble m: Essentially, the teacher is calling for help. This call starts the process that constructs students institutional identities. These often undifferentiated appeals become refined and specified in official language as they move from regular education c lassrooms to testing rooms and finally to meeting rooms. Through this process, the child becomes an object. The members of the committee do not have access to the teacher student interaction; only the residue of that interaction is represented in a file, a decentered text. At the outset, the child was a participant in discourse with his teacher and his

PAGE 39

39 classmates. But, from that point on, the childs contribution to his own career status drops out. (Mehan, 1996, p. 260) In another study McDermott (1996) presented evidence for how a child was acquired by a disability (p. 300) through common school discourse practices that created categories of school identity based on competency. Bourdieu (1984) would likely call this an act of symbolic violence because an identity was imposed by powerful others, and then legitimized without the childs consent. Indeed, social reproduction demands the occupancy of certain identities that are needed for a culture to continue, and childr en are easy targets. As McDermott concludes, Before any teachers or children enter schools every September, failure is in every (class)room in America. There is never a question of whether everyone is going to succeed or fail, only of who is going to fai l (p. 295). Tooheys (2000) research brought her to the same conclusion when she said that the classroom community somehow arranged itself so as to have successful and unsuccessful members (p. 61). This led her to wonder about McDermotts (1988) original question that sought to deconstruct how schools define their social realities about how some children are learning more, while some children are learning less. There is a complex interplay between schools, as institutions, and their participants w ho work together to underwrite the system of meaning used to define types of people, how they will get recognized, and what, as a result, they are determined to need (Gee, 2000). Institutionalized identities are created from the daily cycles of teachers w ork in the often mundane business of teaching, assessment, and conversation with colleagues and families, as well as how children evaluate and make sense of one anothers performances in the classroom (Toohey, 2000). However, the

PAGE 40

40 implications are incredibly far reaching as a students entire life path is potentially cemented as a result (Mehan, 2006) of the identity assigned to him or her. It is important to keep in mind that poorer children are much more at risk of becoming susceptible to the identities assigned to them by educational and political institutions, as more privileged students have the time and resources outside of school to author themselves in alternative ways (Gee, 2002). This difference brings into question how schools should reconceptual ize their practices if their aim is to serve as a democratizing force in society. A childs socioeconomic class has a significant influence in the way his or her school identity is formed, and in any subsequent labels used by the institution to define it (Gee, 2000; 2002). Gee (2000) points out the difference in label assignments that can occur between a poor (and often black) student, and that of a privileged, (and often white) student. The unsuccessful behaviors of a poorer and black student might invo ke educators to consider his/her identity as a special education or, at the very least an at risk student, who needs a curriculum at his/her level. On the other hand, a relatively privileged white students school identity might be interpreted as an intelligent underachiever who is in need of a more challenging school experience. In either case a school identity has been assigned, and access to different curricula and pedagogy has been determined. School Identities and School Performance Students are successful in school to the extent that they are able to adopt and sustain a school kid identity (Flores Gonzalez, 2002, p. 11), and i dentity is the missing link in the research that focuses on the intersection between learning and sociocultural inter action (Sfard & Prusak, 2005). In addition, because "(l)earning... implies becoming a different person (Lave & Wenger, 1991, p. 53), identity cannot be divorced from how

PAGE 41

41 and what one learns in school, or in any other context where learning is expected. F urther, s tudent identity greatly matters in the development of human literacy practices, including literacies valued in schools. For this reason McCarthey and Moje (2002) urge educators and researchers to consider identity when examining how students resp ond to school practices. There is a large, eclectic body of research that explores the school performances of particular students or groups by addressing motivation, self efficacy, and related personal attributes. For example, Gordon (1995) found that academically resilient African American adolescents have strong self concepts, a commitment to extracurricular goals, and the ability to articulate what motivates them. Hebert (1998) compared two gifted black students, one who was identified as a high ac hiever, and one identified as an underachiever. The high achiever had a strong sense of self that was attributed to personal characteristics, including high aspirations, and strong family support. Similar conclusions drawn by Howard (2003) help explain th e academic identities of African American adolescent boys. Some researchers have further attempted to define the role that academic identity has in motivation, self efficacy, and agency (Bandura, 1982; Cokley, 2000), and how, in fact, disidentification wi th aspects of self concept can occur when there is a threat to them (Aronson, Blanton & Cooper, 1995; Steele, 1997). Studies like this that examine the factors that influence the identities of students can be helpful as educators attempt to unlock the sec rets of academic success and motivation in school, especially for groups of students that teachers and schools struggle to reach. However, taken alone these research narratives tend to perpetuate

PAGE 42

42 the idea that academic success, and even school identities, are located solely within individual students. This view disallows the social nature of teaching, learning and identity development to be explored and harnessed, and in many cases perpetuates a hegemony that blames individual children for school failure ( McCarthey & Moje, 2002), even when the causes are attributed to environmental or physiological factors outside of the childs control. Research by Deaux (1993) suggests that motivation combines with social contexts to shape a myriad of ways in which we define ourselves. Tobin, Seiler and Walls (1999) found in a study of an urban highschool science classroom that the earnest efforts of the teacher to create a transformative curriculum only met with student resistance, and concluded that we must address the multiple layers of student identity if we want to reach learners who are more difficult to teach. Roth et al. (2004) found the same to be true when they observed that participating in the activity of schooling led to students and teachers making and remaking their identities in an urban setting, and that these identities are part of systems of mediated relations that rely on situated activity. Woodruff and Schallerts (2008) grounded theory study of college student athletes found that motivation and identity mutually influence one another, and that dialogue with others was the critical agent of that change. This lends support to Ryan and Decis (2002) assertion that our behaviors must be valued by significant others before we are willing to continue those behaviors, and Gees (2000) idea that ones identities cannot sustain without being recognized and endorsed by others. McCarthey (2001) researched how students perceptions of themselves as literacy learners were either deterred or facilitated by th e context of classroom practices

PAGE 43

43 which relied on an adopted, mass produced reading curriculum. She found that ideas held about students by themselves, their parents, teachers, and peers did influence identity construction, and that the implicit messages c ommunicated through enacting the reading curriculum ended up playing a pivotal role in how students identified themselves as readers, and subsequently as students in school. Wortham (2004) documented an African American students shift from good student to disruptive student, and eventually solidified as outcast student through the course of her ninthgrade year. Like McCartheys (2001) work, Worthams study emphasizes how important it is to consider the complexity of multiple resources teachers and students use, including the curriculum, to cast the identities of classroom participants. Tooheys (2000) work in primary classrooms with six English Language Learners brought her to the same conclusion. By conducting ongoing classroom observations and collecting narratives from adults, she was able to analyze how practices led to school identities. She was able to determine how classroom resources were differentially distributed among classroom participants, and how this led to differentiated access to learning, and subsequently to differentiated identities. These constructs for school identities were dependent on ranking systems in schools organized by academic competence, physical presentation and competence, behavioral competence, social competence, and language proficiency. Her findings led her to emphasize the need to investigate strategies very young students use to accept and resist institutional identities, as well as finding sensitive enough methods of research that can document how young stude nts make sense of the bids (Gee, 2000) from educators to take on particular institutional identities.

PAGE 44

44 Finally, Flores Gonzalez (2002) was compelled to find a pattern that explained why some urban, Latino adolescents dropped out of high school, others gradu ated, and others returned after dropping out. The most significant factor that determined these outcomes had to do with how adolescents positioned their identities in relation to school, and she presents how these identities are formed throughout a childs school career. Through role identity theory, which seeks to explain how our identities are tied to our positions in groups, she gained insights into why some adolescents developed successful school identities, while others did not. Flores Gonzalez (20 02) concluded that schools are accomplices in a system that thrives on producing inequality (p. 162) by offering different kinds of school experiences. In the school she studied, these different experiences led to the creation of two kinds of students: School Kids and Street Kids. Latino students who took on the School Kid identity tended to graduate from high school, while those who took on the Street Kid identity tended to drop out. Finally, seven school conditions were critical in fostering the School Kid identity. These included offering students the opportunity to take on the socially appropriate role of student; providing trustworthy social systems of teacher and student support; creating systems of recognition and rewards; fosterin g warm, intimate relationships with teachers and students; offering constant, positive feedback for successful student performance; allowing students to weave other school related identities into their school identities (such as that of athlete); and pro viding the opportunities to explore and expect viable futures after graduation. The studies outlined in this section make the case, again, that identity matters significantly in learning and in school success (Flores Gonzalez, 2002; Heath, 1983;

PAGE 45

45 Lewis Enciso & Moje, 2007; McCarthey & Moje, 2002; Mehan, 2006). However, there are studies that attempt to go further than naming the link between identity and school success by designing research with a critical action focus. Through collaborative scholars hip and inquiry with children, these researchers place identity at the center of investigating equitable school practices. This body of work features researchers and practitioners who invite students as classroom researchers and co inquirers, knowledge generators, and critical participants in schools. What ties this work together is the transformative nature of the experiences, particularly in how they invite children and teachers to redraw the boundaries of school identities. Focusing strategically on identity has important implications for learning and the development of new literacies, and therefore has the potential to impact academic performance. Some examples will be discussed next as they had a significant impact on the conceptualization of this study. Critical Reflection and Inquiry with Children Reflection, as a meaning making process, threads together a continuous learning experience and must be done in a shared context, often fusing both personal and intellectual growth (Rodgers, 2002). Critic al reflection is not just concerned with the effectiveness of outcomes, or even the examination of goals and assumptions but also with the moral implications for equity. This is because critical reflection situates personal action within greater sociopol itical contexts (Halton & Smith, 1995; Rodgers, 2002) by emancipating us from the taken for granted routines (Zeichner & Liston, 1996). Indeed, critical inquiry can amplify teacher and student voices. John Dewey went as far as to say that the systematic, rigorous and disciplined use of inquiry and reflection with the support of evidence was a prerequisite for a participatory democracy (Barton & Levstik, 2004; Rodgers, 2002).

PAGE 46

46 An inquiry stance allows educators and learners to work together to generate local knowledge, theorize, and interrogate the research and meaning making of others in communities of practice (CochranSmith, 2004). As a stance toward teaching and learning (CochranSmith & Lytle, 2009; Dana & Yendol Silva, 2003), inquiry generates practice by providing evidence for judgments, a framework for knowledge construction, and more transformational learning opportunities than traditional, transmission teaching can (Barton & Levstik, 2004; Cochran Smith, 2004). In addition, inquiry and critical refle ction increase equity in student and teacher access to knowledge by promoting the value of plurality, rather than consensus, through provocative discourse. Finally, inquiry and critical reflection facilitate novel ways to construct knowledge, offering teachers and students the chance to explore situated certainty (Hargreaves, 1994, p. 59) and balance the current over valuing of scientific certainty that school based and university based educators and learners are expected to value, consume and reproduce (Cochran Smith & Lytle, 1993; Hargreaves, 1994). Steinberg and Kincheloe (1998) call educators to teach students to become inquirers in order to both acquire and produce literacies of power. Under this kind of learning paradigm, children and their teache rs can learn new discourses together, and can therefore carve out new identities by linking new words and concepts to their actions (Gee, 2004). For example, rather than learning science from a textbook, children can practice being scientists (Gee, 2009, personal communication) by playing with its specialized language and ways of defining and valuing reality, and by using its special props and symbols. By doing science first, and then reading about it, situated meaning can actually begin to occur among r eaders, inquirers, and texts.

PAGE 47

47 There are researchers and practitioners who do participate with students, for example, in ethnographic research and in critical inquiry (see Basu & Barton, 2010, Egan Robertson & Bloome, 1998, Seiler & Gonsalves, 2010, Stein, 2001, Steinberg & Kincheloe, 1998, and Wallace, 2001). Such collaboration between adults and children can be highly beneficial as a way to democratize teaching and learning; offer the tools necessary for students to use their communities as curriculum; par ticipate in redesigning relationships among teachers, knowledge, and texts, and interrupt traditional positionalities and roles between students and educators. Some of this collaborative inquiry between adults and children has been specifically aimed at t he study of identity for the purposes of increasing access to learning and shaping classroom communities. Egan Roberts (1998) found that eighthgrade students were enthusiastic about reauthoring discourses about themselves as writers and as young women whe n they were given the opportunity to meet with her weekly in a writing club. Another group of researchers, teachers, and students collaborated in a case study on the ever changing identities of students (and teachers) engaged in the socialization process of schooling (Roth et al., 2004). Yeager, Floriani, and Green (1998) had fifth and sixth graders engage in an ethnographic inquiry to find out what it took to be what they called an effective member in their classroom, as well as in the academic disci plines they were studying. As a result of participating in this unusual community of practice, students actively redesigned their relationships with their classroom and with the curriculum. LaVan (2004) investigated how urban high school students and the ir teacher redistributed power, rules, and roles by collaborating in dialogue sessions to improve the relationship between science instruction and equity. Doing so fostered a

PAGE 48

48 collective responsibility toward learning by privileging student voice in the cl assroom. In this case new solidarity between the teacher and her students occurred, and students began to value the science curriculum. Studies like LaVans (2004) feature the theory and practice of cogenerative dialogue (Roth, Tobin & Zimmermann, 2002; Tobin, 2006), and represent some of the most powerful examples available today of researchers working alongside secondary level learners, prospective teachers, and mentor teachers in the classroom for the express purpose of improving teaching and learning, as well as to facilitate social justice. Kenneth Tobin and his colleagues, including LaVan, have paved the way toward a theory that allows students, teachers, and researchers to reorganize their roles and responsibilities in the urban science classroom. For example, Tobin (2006) studied the collaboration between an intern, a mentor teacher, and a small group of students who collected data generated from lessons to resolve contradictions and ineffective teaching practices. These colleagues work from the conviction that the dysfunctional state of urban middle and high school science education is not being corrected through outside mandates, and can only hope to be changed by transforming the relationship that occurs between teachers, students, pedagogy, an d content, through the mechanism of participatory research (Seiler & Emelsky, 2005). This transformation involves the willingness of teachers and students to exchange and value one anothers social, symbolic, and cultural capital. By including students as researchers, and by publishing their findings, previously silenced adolescents and their teachers are able to address inequity in schools and bring attention to inadequate science teaching (Tobin, Elmesky & Seiler, 2005).

PAGE 49

49 Why did these researchers include children and adolescents in inquiry into classroom practices? In a discussion of contributions that ethnographic and sociocultural research has made to education, EganRobertson and Willett (1998) reiterate that some children get valuable educational opportunities, and some do not, and this is often related to their cultural, gender, linguistic, or racial background. This is particularly true when considering the implications for tracking and ability grouping, and how students take up a cultural identit y associated with the academic level they are assigned, serving to reproduce social inequity. Including children in teacher inquiry and ethnographic research opens up access to valuable educational opportunities for students. It also allows educators and students to redefine literacy, classroom practices, and the whole of education together, opening up new venues for doing democracy in the classroom and in the world. Communities of Practice All of the studies outlined in the previous section documenting changes in student identities and/or positionalities within classroom literacy worlds can be tied to one common factor. In each case it can be argued that there was some semblance of a community of practice (COP) mediating the experience, whether partic ipants were conscious of this, or not. As articulated by Wenger, McDermott and Synder (2002): Communities of practice are groups of people who share a concern, a set of problems, or a passion about a topic, and who deepen their knowledge and expertise i n this area by interacting on an ongoing basisOver time, they develop a unique perspective on their topic as well as a body of common knowledge, practices, and approaches. They also develop personal relationships and established ways of interacting. They may even develop a common sense of identity. They become a community of practice. (p. 4) Wenger (1998) and Wenger, McDermott and Snyder (2002) write that we engage in COPs all of the time in our home, work, and recreational worlds. They explain that

PAGE 50

50 COPs develop in many forms, ranging from longterm to shortterm, from synchronous to asynchronous, between individuals who are near and far, and from unrecognized and informal to legitimized and even to institutional forms. Further, no matter what form a COP takes, it will have three aspects: a shared purpose, a sense of belonging, and a distinct practice. A COPs practice includes its common language, history and stories, ideas, values, and special tools that make up the dynamic generation of meaning making the group shares together. In fact, these domains of meaning making are what connect the group together, illuminating the intimate interrelationship between what one knows, ones competencies, and ones identity. COPs bring to light the social embeddedn ess of learning, allowing us to challenge older, individualistic ideas of learning (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Toohey, 2000; Wenger, 1998; Wenger, McDermott & Synder, 2002). In fact, the primary focus of Wengers (1998) theory is that COPs function as social a nd participatory learning sites. Learning as social participation is not just embedded in the events that the community sponsors or creates but in the very process of being active in the everyday practices of the community. Wenger (1998) theorizes that o ngoing learning within a COP occurs via participation that shapes action (learning as doing), how actions are interpreted (learning as experience and meaning), the sense of community (learning as belonging), and identities (learning as ever becoming). It is the profound interconnection between COPs, their practices, and identity construction (Wenger, 1998) that has caught my attention as a participatory action researcher in the PDS. This connection has inspired me to ask if the PDS can be a place where edu cators can consciously create communities of practice with students in ways that directly impact school identities not

PAGE 51

51 only to see these new identities translate into successful school performance but to allow teachers and learners to co construct new, e mancipatory definitions of school success. Researching identity is difficult, not only because it is elusive but because identity itself, is such a contested construct. Theorists are currently trying to problematize identity so that educators can better address its social reproduction in schools (Lin, 2008; Moje & Luke, 2009). Because many camps of scholarship have historically defined identity in conflicting ways (Lin, 2008; Moje & Luke, 2009), it will be important to articulate how I am operationalizin g the concept of identity for purposes of this study. I will begin by clarifying identity in relation to the literature base that informs my praxis as an educator and researcher. Literacyand Identity Studies School literacy practices are a major site for the construction of identity (McCarthy & Moje, 2002), and ideas such as academic tracks, race, ethnicity, gender, and class become the objects of discourse practices that align with and define identity, settin g up boundaries for including and excluding certain children (EganRobertson, 1998). Literacy is at the heart of educations promise to provide citizens the symbolic capital needed to build literate identities and to have the ability to enact this power i n society (Kalantzis & Cope, 2000). The problem is that our literacies are no less than situated, social practices (Buckingham, 2003; Comber & Cormack, 1997; Kress, 2004; Luke, 2002), and students do not come to school with the same set of experiences, lit eracies, or cultural capital from which to work. Yet schools and politicians continue to operate on the assumption that they do (Kalantzis & Cope, 2000; McLaren, 2003; Wink, 1997). Different ways of speaking, or discourses, carry different points of view that

PAGE 52

52 reflect different life experiences (Erickson, 2005), and ones use of language, including the ways one uses English, can profoundly affect ones chances in life (Gay, 2005; Ovando, 2005). And literacies shaped by white, middle class social protocols a nd values are basic prerequisites for gaining access to the typical school curriculum (Gay, 2005). I have situated the rationale for and design of this study within the body of scholarship Moje and Luke (2009) define as literacy and identity studies, a s ocio cultural perspective that has unfolded in three waves over time. These researchers were able to organize the widely diverse perspectives of this literature base into five guiding metaphors. These include identity as difference identity as self identity as consciousness identity as narrative, and identity as position. There are three assumptions that underlie all five metaphors and bind together this body of research (Moje & Luke, 2009). First, all literacy and identity studies assume that identi t(ies) are socially constructed. This means that while identities are lived out within the individual, they require co construction (and maintenance) to exist, as identity is in an ever changing dialectal relationship with society (Berger & Luckmann, 1966). Second, literacy and identity scholars generally see identit(ies) as having a degree of fluidity, or at least pliability, and that individuals experience plural identities that change, depending on situation and context. Finally, researchers agree that ones identit(ies) must be recognized by an audience in order to exist and play out. Moje and Lukes identity as narrative and identity as position metaphors resonated with my interpretive experience while I was engaged in this study. When considering identity as narrative, Moje and Luke (2009) point out a tension in the

PAGE 53

53 literature that I also met when designing the methodology of this study. This tension attempts to define where identity is created and carried out. Is identity located in the words we u se to talk about ourselves and others? Or is identity located in the actions and interactions we have with ourselves and others? When Sfard and Prusak (2005) wanted to operationalize the idea of identity for the purpose of designing and conducting resear ch, they argued that identity is equal to representation. In order to locate identity, we need to focus on the stories that move back and forth between the individual and the community. In this perspective the words, themselves, are identity. This is be cause words have the power to create reality in the moment that they are spoken, including that which comes from our actions and the subsequent meanings of these actions. Wenger (1998) on the other hand, focuses more on defining identity as enactment or t he ways we play out identities through social behaviors, which does include meaning made through words. Worthams (2004) study on how teachers and students co constructed the changing identity of a student in a ninth grade classroom draws from both theori es, a perspective that I also took in this study. From these social constructionist perspectives identities are always situated within relationships. Because relationships often include power differentials (McCarthey & Moje, 2002), such as those between s tudents and teachers, or teachers and policy makers, it becomes imperative to investigate not just how our words carry our identities but also how identities are enacted through social relationships (Toohey, 2000). Moje and Lukes metaphor of identity as narrative was a critical part of the theoretical underpinnings of this study. It allowed me to collect and analyze the words of participants as they co constructed stories that wove together their identities over time.

PAGE 54

54 It could even be argued that the sp eaking and writing of these words became powerful acts of identity construction. However, this metaphor for studying identity did not, by itself, have the explanative power to describe how identities shifted over time, especially in light of power relation ships between adults and children. Moje and Lukes (2009) metaphor of identity as position allowed me to bring in the lens of power and roles that unfold in and between school identities. In a sense, theorists who study identity as position recognize that at any given time there are at least temporary positions, or spaces, available for different identities needed in a society, or in a classroom for that matter, as well as for the relationships between these different positions. These positions call for people to occupy them to some degree in order for a culture, including that of a classrooms, to make sense. While individuals can work to successfully accept, reject (Holland & Leander, 2004; Moje & Luke, 2009), and even reinvent the identity they are be ing recruited for (Gee, 2000), the position will continue to hold definition until it is reassigned with a new meaning, or possibly extinguished from non use. The identity as position metaphor was especially beneficial to making sense of the data that cam e from this study. This was because it allowed me to consider, for example, the ways certain places, times, and objects were symbolically used by participants (Holland & Leander, 2004; Moje, 2004a; Moje & Luke, 2009; Wortham, 2004) to define their politic al identities. These aspects of identity were critical to understanding how students shifted their identities and school performances over time as they participated in a community of practice with adult educators. Conclusion Keeping in mind that the const ruct of competence is highly situated (Duff, 2002), we are freed up to consider school identities as social constructions, rather than

PAGE 55

55 as social facts. In doing so teachers and learners can begin to deconstruct the labels and the groupings that are created and used to identify students (McCarthey & Moje, 2002), and the implications that these narrow definitions of children and adolescents have for their life chances. Targeting school identity is critical for educators in both school and university conte xts if we wish to break the kind of social reproduction in schools that reinforces inequity (Fine & Weis, 2005; Flores Gonzalez, 2002; Lin, 2008). While there is ample research examining how school institutions position different children (Gee, 2000; FloresGonzalez, 2002), some of which has been presented in this chapter, there is still a great need for research that looks at the relationship between the perceptions of others, students self perceptions, and the classroom contexts that contribute to shapin g those perceptions (Gee, 2000; McCarthey, 2001). It is my hope that this study answers this call, and that as a result we are reminded that no powerful strategy for impacting equity in schooling and society can be designed or implemented without taking in to consideration the complexities of student learning (Nieto, 2005) and the sociopolitical structures and systems that shape schooling. The literature outlined in this chapter continues to lead me, as a PDS university partner, to this question: If social justice for all P 12 learners is a core feature of the PDS movement, how can I craft my own professional identity and role so that this goal can become directly embedded in my daily work? In the PDS one of my multiple roles includes that of the supervisor for prospective teachers. Could I tailor this aspect of my job so that P 12 students and I could work directly together in ways that would offer creative avenues toward school success not available through the standard curriculum? Could we create commun ities of practice that allow children to re author their school

PAGE 56

56 identities through direct collaboration with adult learners engaged in inquiry? These questions led me to design a participatory action research (PAR) study, which will be outlined in the next chapter.

PAGE 57

57 CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODS Introduction The purpose of this study was to make sense of how including fourth graders in the supervision of teacher candidates leads to changes in these students positions within formal hierarchies of suc cessful and unsuccessful school identity. This study addresses a core question shared by stakeholders in this particular Professional Development School (PDS) which asks how university school partnerships committed to the integrated learning of school and university faculty, P 12 learners, and teacher candidates can promote equity for all learners in public schools (Holmes, 1990; NAPDS, 2008; NCATE, 2001). Findings from this study may also offer a significant contribution to researchers and practitioners investigating and cultivating social justice within the context of teacher candidate supervision ( Abt Perkins, Hauschildt & Dale, 2000; Bowers & Flinders, 1991; Jacobs, 2007; Ladson Billings, 2001; Zeichner & Tabachnick, 1982). This research is grounded in a social constructionist epistemology. I operated under the assumption that identities are not static but are rather creative works in progress. In light of social constructionism, I define identity as an ongoing authorship th at occurs in the dialectic between the self and others (Berger & Luckmann, 1966, Gee, 2000; Gee, 2002). Therefore, I needed to collect data from the natural conversations and interactions of the participants. This made it important for me to design a qualitative study (Creswell, 1998; Patton, 2002). In this chapter I present the theoretical perspective used to frame the work, research methods, how participants were included, and the context for the study. I will then discuss at length my multiple rol es and subjectivities as a researcher, as well as the freedoms and limitations that

PAGE 58

58 these posed to the research process. Next, I will describe the data collection process and how data were interpreted. Finally, I will discuss the mechanisms in place to strengthen the trustworthiness of the study from beginning to end. Research Question In the PDS in which I work, two problems of practice have led to parallel questions that we have historically shared and investigated through inquiry. First, how do we improve the learning and practices of teachers and prospective teachers? Second, how can we address issues of inequity in our PDS by improving access to relevant and powerful learning for all students? These two questions became two arms of embrace sur rounding my own research question, as well as the activities we planned for gaining insights into my question. Therefore, my research question was grounded within our praxis, or where the reciprocity between theoretical and practical thinking and actions came together in our daily work in the PDS (Wink, 1997). For several years I have actively recruited difficult to teach K 5 students as co inquirers in the supervision process in order to promote the professional development of teacher candidates, vetera n teachers, and myself in the PDS. After seeing me do this for several years, one PDS school based partner remarked that something amazing was happening. She not only referred to the transformation of educators who began to redefine their relationships with and perceptions and expectations of difficult to teach students. She also referred to the classroom community as a whole, and specifically to the students who collaborated most directly with us on the supervision team. I wanted to design a study that would get closer to identifying that something amazing. Specifically, I wanted to know how students who collaborated in the supervision of their teachers interns changed their identities as students in school, as well as how they

PAGE 59

59 changed their aca demic and social behaviors. My central research question was: How and why did the identities and performances of three struggling students change during and after participating in a community of practice supporting the supervision of teacher candidates ? Managing and organizing data collection required the investigation of two supporting questions. First, how might these students formal, institutional identities, as defined by educators in the PDS, change as a result of participating in the supervisio n of the interns in their classroom? Second, how could the process supporting this change in their formal identities be explained? The findings for the first supporting question are reported in Chapter 4, while the findings for the second question are in Chapter 5. Theoretical Perspective Individuals in teacher research and education are positioned in unique ways within the power organization of universities and schools, and so we come to the field with our own agendas (Cochran Smith & Lytle, 1993). I was no different. I grounded my research in a combined theoretical perspective and methodology of feminist infused, critical, or participatory action research (PAR). I made this choice because in my daily practice as a teacher educator I use a lens that acknowledges gendered divisions of power and authority in public school education (Coffey & Delamont, 2000), particularly as the majority of classrooms are peopled by women and children but remain in the theoretical and administrative cu stody of men (Luke & Gore, 1992, p. 2). Organizing this study as a PAR grounded in feminisms was done to increase an opportunity for the transformative praxis of its participants by facilitating and engaging in specific actions that contribute to human w ell being and a more just and equitable world (Lykes and Coquillon, 2007, p. 298). This praxis included my own, and allowed me to consciously

PAGE 60

60 name, embrace, and manage my many subjectivities throughout the research and writing process (Peshkin, 1988). Two core assumptions undergird my work as a participatory action researcher operating with a feminist lens. First, I believe that the activity of research should provide a mechanism for the empowerment of marginalized groups. The primary group identified in this case was children otherized by social constructions of institutional identities defined by school failure. The secondary group identified were educators (all women) operating under increasingly oppressive and isolating conditions in public school s that seriously undermine their ability to see and define children and learning in holistic, humane, and emancipating ways. My second assumption is that I expect my role and work as a researcher to contribute to the decolonizing of the production of know ledge, a domain traditionally owned by researchers who reside far away from the daily, lived experiences of women and children in the classroom (CochranSmith & Lytle, 1993; Fine, 1994; Harding, 1987). In this study the PAR framework helped raise the v oices of children and teachers because it allowed them to contribute to the locating, defining, managing, and ongoing interpreting of our shared problems (Hendricks, 2006; Schensul & Schensul, 1992; Wahab, 2003). The Research Context Yearling Elementary is located in north central Florida, and is considered a Title I school serving prekindergarten through fourth grade. It is one of eight PDS partnerships with the local university. The school is located in a small, rural community approximately 25 miles f rom the university, and supports the education of 517 culturally and linguistically diverse students from lower to middle class backgrounds, with an increasing number of Spanish speaking and migrant families moving into the area.

PAGE 61

61 Sixty six percent of the school population is identified as White, 18% as African American, 9% as Hispanic, and 6% as multiracial. While 13% of the school population is identified for special education services, 90% of these students are fully included in general education as a r esult of a shared commitment between the school and university. Over half of Yearling Elementarys students qualify for free or reduced priced lunch. Under Floridas school accountability system Yearling Elementary is an A school. Since 2005 Yearling E lementary has participated in a close relationship with the local university in order to blend professional development, teacher preparation, and school improvement goals in ways that directly impact learning and achievement of the students and research interests that we share. The school leadership demonstrates a unique commitment to these goals. For example, it is not unusual for the principal to engage in inquiry and to participate in national PDS conferences, or to teach the on site seminar for teache r candidates. In addition, the principal and teacher leaders strategically tailor the work of prospective teachers, who are embraced as part of the faculty, in order to support school and grade level goals, such as inclusion, differentiating instruction, and teacher action research. The supervision for teacher candidates is shared between university and school based faculty but is under the direct responsibility of the Site Coordinator at the PDS. This was the formal role I played at the PDS during this s tudy. As the Site Coordinator I carried out all of the supervision components expected in the PDS. According to Nolan and Hoover (2004), these components include action research, peer coaching, classroom based supervision and coaching by mentor teachers and university field

PAGE 62

62 advisors, and the forming of collegial seminar groups on the PDS site. In addition, observations of teacher candidates with preand post conferences, video analysis, and reflective journaling are employed to address the developmentall y unique learning needs of individual candidates. Formal learning goals for prospective teachers that were negotiated between the university and school included co teaching, accommodating students with disabilities, infusing social studies and democratic classroom practices into the curriculum, blending theory with practice, naming and enacting an espoused platform, differentiating instruction to meet the needs of heterogeneous groups of learners, and developing an inquiry stance for professional developme nt. Two co teaching interns are placed together in each classroom at Yearling Elementary School. Although this is not their first field experience, it is the first time they are expected to perform all the planning, teaching, evaluating, collaborating, political relationship building, and administrative responsibilities of their mentor teachers. The first half of the semester is a critical time to socialize the interns, helping them transition their frame of reference from being a student to being a professional. It is also critical during this time to help them interpret the classroom and school culture; broker their relationships with their children and colleagues; collect data on the needs of their learners; begin to employ accommodations and differe ntiated instruction; become clear on their individual professional development agendas; and begin taking increasing responsibility for instruction and routines. Therefore, during the first half of the semester I am usually present in each classroom at leas t 30 45 minutes a day, three to four days a week. For the remainder of the semester, my classroom presence tapers down as I

PAGE 63

63 conduct observations and coach the interns through their individual inquiry work. At this time I also shift my focus toward being of instructional service to the interns and their mentor teacher in order to help them facilitate their unique classroom goals and to continue supporting and modeling the pedagogical goals for the semester. Throughout the semester the interns meet with me and other school based teacher educators for weekly seminars on the PDS campus, as well as with other instructors in university coursework taught at the school site. Within my normal PDS duties for supervision and classroom facilitation, I add another in gredient that became the impetus for this work: I collaborate directly with elementary school students during formal and informal classroom observations, and in co teaching and planning activities with prospective teachers. The purpose of directly includ ing students in my work is to encourage prospective and practicing teachers to see children as co designers of learning activities and assessments and as collaborators in the reflective teaching process, and to see me model democratic classroom pedagogy. I put these goals into action in a myriad of ways. I might sit at lunch with a group of students and their interns to debrief a lesson just taught, ask the class or specific students for lesson plan input, articulate my own problems of practice in a class room level discussion, have children reflect upon their learning experiences during a lesson or assessment activity, engage interns in think alouds during instruction for all students to hear and respond to, and invite students to collect data with me during instruction. I typically seat myself next to different children everyday so that I can engage in instructional activities from a childs point of view, including gaining perspectives on a lesson from different physical and social locations in the room. This

PAGE 64

64 allows me to collect data for interns and teachers on the effectiveness of their instructional tools and pedagogy. I also sit next to children so that my supervision and coaching tasks and tools are accessible to the children who are interested in my role. Finally, I sit with children to model for the interns how to kid watch for the purpose of ongoing data collection to support differentiating instruction (Tomlinson, 2001), and how necessary it is for teachers to immerse themselves in their chi ldrens social worlds in order to build individual relationships and classroom community. While I do not expect interns to employ these strategies as novice teachers, I continue to model them so that interns, and the mentor teachers I am helping to develop, can appreciate the power they have in enhancing teaching and learning in the classroom. I include children in the supervision process for several reasons, all of which were true in the case of this study, as well. The first is to shape the classroom co mmunities of the PDS by modeling and cultivating the idea that an inquiry stance is desirable and appropriate for all participants, including prospective teachers, children, mentor teachers, and myself. By having students join me to both research and coac h teacher learning, it becomes normed behavior to publicly name problems of practice, to engage in ongoing dialogue about the teaching and learning process, to collect data on our questions, and to make changes as a result of what we learn together. Children are typically enthusiastic participants in this process and can potentially become quite sophisticated in inquiring into the complexities of the classroom. The second reason I collaborate with students in inquiry oriented supervision is to help prospective teachers recognize, value, and then strategically partner with students as rich sources of data for improving the learning conditions of the classroom. Finally, what ultimately drives my

PAGE 65

65 collaborative supervision with students is my personal agenda of improving equitable conditions in schools by providing service in the classroom. For example, a classroom teacher who has come to rely on the work I am willing to do may ask me to forge a relationship with a particular student in order to support his/h er social or academic performance, including that of enrichment or remediation. Or I will notice students that might have been previously invisible to, or even unconsciously marginalized by the interns, who are only just learning to borrow my lens for recognizing and responding to the rich landscape of diverse learners in the classroom. It is common for me to work closely with particular children to amplify their voices, perspectives, concerns, and work products in ways that might not be possible if I were not a participant in the classroom. In doing so I can more effectively coach and empower prospective teachers to teach all learners, especially as interns come to trust me as someone who takes genuine and direct responsibility for student achievement in their classrooms. In turn, it is typical for prospective teachers to report and enact a sense of empowerment because they are confronting their fears of difficult to teach students in a safe learning context where they know their supervisor (and in many cases their mentor teacher) is publicly grappling with her own professional development, as well. In the case of Ms. Ss fourthgrade classroom, the site of this study, it was more difficult for me to cultivate educator learning that included student collaboration than it was for me in other contexts. This was because Ms. S was new to the PDS and its unique goals, had never had interns before, and may have had some apprehension about my expertise and power within the school. All of these new challenges posed a

PAGE 66

66 tall order for any classroom teacher trying to reframe her role as a teacher educator in a school university partnership. Additionally, Ms. S was trying to make sense of my orientation and assumptions as a university supervisor and PDS partner, as was evident through her questions. This set of challenges was typical in my work with new mentor teachers. In this case it required me to scaffold and support Ms. S in her own learning curve, as well as to build at least a working foundation of tru st with her. First, I consulted with and deferred to her regarding how much participation and decision making I would have in the classroom. Second, I stayed as open and transparent as I could regarding my roles and expectations. Third, I was careful to enact my genuine belief that I had little authority or expertise as a teacher in this classroom, or any fourthgrade classroom, for that matter. I made a conscious effort to temper any positionality teachers assigned to me as an educational expert. For example, I chose to sit on the floor while writing field notes to physically mark the work I was doing as a researcher as lesser, and informal in comparison to the regular on goings of the classroom. In addition, I always turned my laptop screen towa rd Ms. S so she was able to see all that I was writing. Finally, I emailed her often to check in, and to get her help in making decisions about how to go about my work in ways that would not disrupt the classroom routine. As a result, Ms. S took many admirable risks in trusting our work process as it unfolded, and was gracious in allotting a space for the interns, children, and me to work together, and a deep, caring relationship developed between Ms. S and me. Had I been able to continue my work with Ms. S over the course of a full year I am convinced that we would have broken even more ground in negotiating, and even blending, one anothers work within the context of the classroom.

PAGE 67

67 Participant Selection During this particular semester I was intimately involved as a PDS university partner in six diverse, inclusive classrooms where co teaching pairs of interns were engaged. Each classroom offered me, as a researcher, plenty of opportunities to locate students who were not considered school successful. I ended up selecting the classroom with the oldest students for two reasons. First, while I experience consistent success in working with primary grade students as collaborators in supervision, I do not yet have the research skills to capture and analyze discourse practices of small children in a way that would help me document, with evidence, changes in school identity. Second, as an educator with a tremendous passion and concern for middle school education, I wanted to work with pre adolescents in order to help them transition academically and socially into middle school the following year. Once the fourthgrade classroom context was established as my primary focus, my colleagues and I then took four weeks to sift out four of the nineteen available students and officially invite them to become members of our community of practice. This decision was the result of a complex interplay between ongoing data collection, negotiation, and indepth discussions. After losing one female, gifted student of interest because her family was not comfortable providing consent, I ended up identifying three boys, JJK, based on a constellation of factors, These include my observations and analysis of teacher talk about and interaction with students; focus interview data I had collected on how former and current teachers situated each students school performances; individual interviews with ten students in the classroom; and my own personal observations of classroom behavior, academic performance, and peer interaction.

PAGE 68

68 In this selection process I had to honor two competing tensions within myself. One was my commitment as a critical action researcher to democratic inquiry. This meant that the voices and personal agendas of the educators must have a primary role in the chil dren chosen, especially as they expected me to take some responsibility for the academic performance of target students. For example, the principal wanted me to focus on students who were below grade level in reading, according to the assessment tools i n place at the time, as she expected my work as a PDS partner to directly support the school improvement plan. My other commitment was to the special issues associated with the learning and growth of the prospective teachers I was supervising. In this ro le I wanted to have the ability to select students who posed the most unique challenges for the interns. Then I could make a plan to support the development of efficacious novice teachers who could effectively respond to all learners in this specific classroom context. I felt I could formally include these three students in the study and continue to effectively fulfill the many other responsibilities I had in the classroom. Teachers did not consistently agree on the same student candidates, although indiv idual recommendations almost always included at least two of the three students that ended up participating. I did three things to lead to a final decision due to the fact that there was not perfect agreement among the adult stakeholders. First, I looked at the total of six students ultimately recommended. I then allowed my own subjectivity as a supervisor to guide me. I narrowed the number of students to those my data led me to believe were the most socially and academically marginalized by both adults and children during instructional time, lunch, and recess. These were the children who, from

PAGE 69

69 my point of view, were not able to fulfill their full learning and social potentials, as a result. My ability to make this final judgment was only possible becaus e of the relatively privileged distance I was able to maintain in the classroom as I was free from the endless layers of responsibilities and decision making complexities facing the classroom teacher and the interns. Choosing these three students allowed m e to include students I believed would be most challenging for the interns to teach without coaching. Second, I had to make sure at least one student demonstrated strong verbal skills, even though these skills were not readily defined or appreciated by teachers in the same way they were by me! I expected that these verbal skills would enable him to scaffold his peers in developing their voices. I hoped that this student would be pivotal in brokering a common, inquiry oriented language and approach to l ooking at the art of teaching and learning, and that he would help us blend our adult and pre adolescent perspectives and languages. Finally, once I had established J, J, and K as the final candidates for participation, I offered the fourth grade team and the principal one more opportunity to argue for a different trio. In the end, the faculty involved in the project expressed wholehearted agreement with the students chosen, although they also expressed their feelings of worry that they had not advocated strongly for a girl to be included. This was a concern I shared, as well, and I assured the teachers I would include girls in the process of collaborative supervision and inquiry, which I ultimately did. The Participants Marking the boundary between peopl e who were considered participants in this study and those who were not was a difficult feat. Many adults and children associated with this classroom signed informed consent forms and actively engaged in designing

PAGE 70

70 and navigating the study, as well as in t he ongoing generation and interpretation of data. However, over time there became two rather distinct circles of participants. Those most intimately involved in the project included those who became the inner circle of our community of practice. Surro unding this inner circle was an embracing circle of educators and fourth grade students who supported, acknowledged, consulted with us, and provided an invaluable critical examination of our work over time. For this reason it is not accurate to say that they were not members of our COP. However, for purposes of this study, I defined the COP as the six of us who met most regularly over the course of the semester for the explicit purpose of promoting the professional development of our two interns. The Inner Circle: Our Community of P ractice The six members that came to be our COP included three fourth grade boys, JJK, two interns placed in the classroom as co teachers, and myself. Due to the parameters of confidentiality, I will not present individual profiles of each of the three boys. As a group, however, they had all grown up in this rural community, and had older brothers, sisters, and cousins who had attended Yearling Elementary before them. They were of both Africanand European American ancestr y, and each represented a different location on the school label continuum of disability and non disability. All three of them were passionate about being outdoors or in the woods, where they could engage in activities popular in rural north Florida, including football, four wheeling, hunting, and fishing. JJK gradually assumed variable and complex roles in the classroom as a result of being in our COP. They were consultants in supervision, co inquirers into effective classroom instruction and learn ing, co designers of curriculum,

PAGE 71

71 fourth grade learners, and valuable data sources for both prospective and veteran teachers, including myself. Our two interns, Ms. E and Ms. B, were in the final semester of their senior year at the university. Both were from affluent coastal Florida communities. They were bright, articulate and passionate about their emerging roles and responsibilities as teachers. As interns they were required to develop and demonstrate proficiency in co teaching, and needed considerable coaching and support in order to successfully meet this goal. After an in depth examination of their visions for teaching, we came to understand that their struggles with co teaching stemmed from having diametrically opposed pedagogical and political orientations. This posed an interesting dilemma for our work in the COP, and ultimately became a rich source for dialogue, negotiation, and the critical examination of our tensions and practices. The Embracing Circle: Our Support Team Our support team included Ms. S, our classroom teacher and mentor to the interns, and the fourthgrade teaching team. We also had the participation of the principal, teachers who had taught JJK in the past, as well as Ms. Ss sixteen other fourth grade st udents. Ms. S was a fifth year teacher who had transitioned into the profession from the business world. She was the team leader for the fourth grade which included four classrooms and five teachers. They had their own separate building on campus. All four of these classrooms included students with disabilities and were co taught and supported by a special education teacher who shared her time among the four classrooms. Our principal, a savvy instructional leader, worked directly with us to help positi on this study within the normal school routine and educational agenda. She was also an invaluable, ongoing resource for understanding the historical careers of the

PAGE 72

72 students who participated in this study, and for helping to link the PAR to the school impr ovement plan. Ms. Ss classroom of nineteen students represented a heterogeneous group of general, special, and gifted education students. However, Ms. Ss students mixed with the rest of the fourth grade students for reading instruction, which was grouped by ability for this portion of the day. Seven of Ms. Ss students were considered to be African American, eleven were of European American ancestry, and one student with an East Indian background had recently moved from the Caribbean. English was the f irst language of all the students. The most emphasized aspect of the curriculum in the classroom was writing. This was because the first high stakes writing test in the state of Florida is in fourth grade. Ms. Ss students expressed pride in their work in writing, especially because their teacher was a teacher leader in the district for supporting writing instruction. The Many Is: My Situational Subjectivities As this study was embedded in my normal professional and social world, it is important to un derstand the complexity of my role as a participant observer. Different times and situations demanded multiple subjectivities, or Is (Peshkin, 1988) from me. These Is had to be systematically acknowledged as they directly impacted the data collecti on and analysis process over time. I experienced these many Is as different identities which allowed me to shift my positions as needed. In naming them publicly I could alert participants, including myself, as to which hat I was wearing at a given tim e. These included: CoInquirer with our PDSs twelve interns, University Supervisor, Ms. B and Ms. Es Teacher and Coach, Middle School Teacher, PDS Partner brokering

PAGE 73

73 standards for teacher preparation within the context of this schools improvement goal s, Change Agent, Peer CoTeacher, and, finally, a pregnant, first time Mother to Be. Enacting multiple roles and identities is common practice for me as a university partner in the PDS. However, adding the formal role of researcher into the mix initial ly posed a challenge for me. It became easier to manage my researcher role when I incorporated it into my normal identity as CoInquirer with my interns in the PDS. My Co Inquirer role became the primary framework I used for organizing all of the other roles and responsibilities I had in the classroom and in the school. Being my interns Co Inquirer allowed me enormous flexibility because I could invoke and act upon my other identities, depending on the context. For example, as a CoInquirer my intern s might ask me to collect data on how a particular portion of a lesson was effective for a certain group of students. If this request was made during a formal observation, I could easily collect the data for them as their Supervisor by sitting at that gro ups table and taking a close up picture of an aspect of learning going on there. If this request was made during a non observed lesson, I could quickly become their CoTeaching Peer and collect the data while being assigned instructional responsibility for that group. I cultivate this Co Inquirer identity in my relationship with my interns in the PDS in order to be able to explicitly model the inquiry process through my own work, and to demonstrate inquiry as a lifelong stance for all teachers (including myself). This allows me to blend my supervisory responsibilities with the teaching and learning tasks associated with the interns seminar with me, as well as with the other courses associated with their internship. As my interns CoInquirer, I can also directly serve their needs by becoming a data collection source for their own inquiries into teaching

PAGE 74

74 and learning in the classroom. I do this to help them develop a lifelong collaborative stance to inquiry, in which I work myself out of a job later by being replaced, or at least joined, by other colleagues, including their mentor teachers. As a Co Inquirer I am able to use my relatively more powerful position as a Supervisor to elevate and endorse a passion and sense of ongoing wondering (Dana & Yendol Silva, 2003) into the relationship and into the classroom culture. This makes my work with interns more dialogic, datadriven rather than emotional or judgmental, and safe for exploration and experimentation. It allows prospective teachers, mentor s, and students to witness first hand as I wrestle with my own felt difficulties (Dana & Yendol Silva, 2003), which includes the naming and studying of my own dilemmas of practice. As this inquiry stance gets increasingly more normalized in the classroom community, it often becomes the impetus for teachers, children, interns and I to interrogate school practices that diminish equity. This happened in this case, as well, and allowed me to activate my identity as a Change Agent, another subjectivity that had to be examined during the course of the research process. As the interns Supervisor, I could carry out my responsibility for creating a learning context for interns that would offer the most access to the goals associated with the internship, as defined by the university, standards of professional associations, the states department of education, and the needs of the students in the PDS. I was also responsible for coaching and then collecting the evidence of mastery of these learning goals through a fo rmal observation system, and providing opportunities for remediation when needed. My identity as Ms. B and Ms. Es Teacher was very closely aligned with that of being their Supervisor. However, this subjectivity had a subtle difference in

PAGE 75

75 that it captu red more accurately how the students and mentor teacher made sense of my role in the classroom. They knew I taught the interns in a separate seminar each week, and they knew that we were incorporating some of our assignments in the classroom. The student s expressed great enthusiasm for seeing Ms. B and Ms. Es Teacher with them in the classroom, as well as hearing that their academic performance as a class had a direct role in helping their interns get an A in their class. Again, bringing out this subje ctivity as Ms. B and Ms. Es Teacher within my own work as a researcher and in my day to day work in the classroom contributed to a culture whereby all participants were positioned and encouraged as ongoing learners. I was no exception. The way we made s ense of my stance as a learner came out in my role as CoInquirer, as well as in my self identification as a Middle School Teacher. Naming myself as a Teacher, and frequently drawing from over a decade of history as a teacher in their district, allowed me to relate with my Yearling Elementary colleagues and equalize our aims, statuses, and local concerns. Naming myself as a Middle School Teacher helped me amplify my identity as a learner within this group of experienced elementary school teaching profes sionals, a group I was genuinely in awe of. It helped to insulate me from assumptions people had about me as someone from the university. It was common for me to ask teachers and students to help me understand something happening in a lesson, or to expl ain to me what the social worlds of fourth graders were all about, by reminding them that I was only a middle school teacher. While I did recognize, embrace, and act upon my own pedagogical expertise in the classroom, I was sensitive to the contextual d ependency of my skill set. I had no illusions that my skills held any great currency in the teaching of fourth grade, especially

PAGE 76

76 as I had not been in the classroom for two years, and because I had taught a content area in middle school that was not assess ed by high stakes testing. As a PDS Partner the way I conducted, interpreted, and acted upon research mattered. This role colored my subjectivities in a very real sense as I was trying to accomplish many things with the work I was doing. Ultimately it t urned my focus and interpretative lens toward some aspects of the unfolding process of this PAR, and away from others. My work had to serve my constituents, which included the college, the school, and the greater PDS research and practice community at lar ge. Serving them, I limited my focus to two formal concerns shared by these groups, including how PDS work could impact achievement and equity. This meant that I ignored, and likely did not even recognize, many other worthy stories that could have been t old. Finally, at the time I was engaged in this study, I was in the first two trimesters of an unpleasant pregnancy that diminished my sense of professional efficacy in every way. On the other hand, it also contributed immediately to humanizing my presenc e in the classroom as I had to excuse myself often to the restroom, or sit down and take a breath. Most of all, it was the most critical factor in forging a bond between Ms. S and me. We spent most of our time talking about pregnancy and what I should ex pect as a new mother, and I highly valued her mentorship and support during this time. Being pregnant helped me feel more a part of the tribe of teachers for the first time in my life. This was because I could now engage and connect with teacher conver sations about pregnancy, birth, and child rearing topics that naturally wove in and out of daily conversations about teaching, learning and schooling.

PAGE 77

77 Freedoms and Limitations Because this study was framed as a Participatory Action Research (PAR) endeavor, several limitations are posed for the greater research community. PAR positions the participants of the study, including the anchoring researcher, in ways that make their political agendas and subjectivities inseparable from the interpretations of the studys outcomes. Also, action and change are central in PAR. This means that while researchers study and name phenomena, they are simultaneously and deliberately influencing social change. This makes the focus and the findings of PAR an ever moving tar get. Finally, the findings from a PAR are highly tied to context, so they may or may not be easily generalized. These very same limitations, however, are also what offer the delimitations of this study. In a PAR researchers can embrace their subjectivities as an integral component of the research context and allow them to be embedded in the conclusions drawn from the study. It can be argued that this embrace of subjectivities allows the researcher to deepen her effectiveness as a participant observer as sh e is then freed up to bring all of herself into the social agenda setting, the naming of phenomena, and the generation of solutions. Finally, while the findings from this study may not be reproducible, they were beneficial to both the immediate and surr ounding participants, particularly in regard to shaping a more equitable educational experience for children. In this way this study created conditions that emancipated participants in ways that may not have been otherwise possible. Other freedoms and lim itations inherent to this study deserve a closer look, and were primarily due to the unique problems and opportunities that presented themselves by my relationships and positionalities with different participants. First I will discuss

PAGE 78

78 freedoms that these relationships provided. Then I will examine some of the limitations that relationships presented. Freedoms In order to understand how I positioned myself as a participant observer in this experience, it is important to highlight my historical relationship s with the faculty at this school. Beyond the university based relationship with the faculty that I had forged over time within the PDS partnership, several of my relationships at the school went even further back. These were woven within prior professio nal experiences when I had been a teacher in the community. In addition, some of the newer faculty had been directly under my university supervision as prospective teachers in other schools. Some were currently students with me in graduate school, and so me were teachers I had taught alongside years ago in the middle school setting. This included the principal. Not only had she and I taught together thirteen years before, we also shared the unique struggles of completing our doctoral programs together wh ile working as full time educators. This experience provided a unique bond between us in both the school and university setting. For faculty for whom I was new, these historical relationships served to quickly position me as part of the school community in ways that may not have been otherwise possible. For example, in introductory conversations with new teachers, the principal and other teachers often mentioned that we had taught together, or that we were students together at the university. I was oft en referred to by these people first as their friend or co worker, rather than the PDS field advisor. Other key university based partners with the school often expressed to me that my historical relationships granted

PAGE 79

79 me social and political access t o particularly strategic members of the faculty that they could not achieve. Limitations However, my direct history with some of the faculty, and particularly with the principal, may have actually hindered my efforts to shape this study as a Participatory Action Research endeavor. My goal was to share power with stakeholders, such as the fourth grade students, the interns, and Ms. S, to determine core questions and to plan actions taken during the study. However, I worried that my friendship with the prin cipal, for example, may have inhibited the level of voluntary informed consent that participants actually experienced. I already knew that educational researchers, regardless of gender, are historically positioned as having a higher social status than those whom they study (Cochran Smith & Lytle, 1993) and that this issue would be an ongoing tension I would have to deal with. Not being completely sure how voluntarily the adults and preadolescents participated in the study worried me at times, especiall y as the goal of a PAR is to diminish oppressive power relations. I believe I was somewhat successful in addressing and negotiating power with JJK and the interns, even though I was a true gatekeeper and authority figure for all of them, to varying degrees I was also mindful of feminist concerns involving the possibility of making them objects of knowledge (Eder & Fingerson, 2003). To reduce these concerns I was careful to use strategies such as self disclosure, reciprocity, group interviews, democratizi ng the research process, using the ideas and specific words of participants in meaningmaking, and embedding the research context within the natural context (Eder & Fingerson, 2003). Finally, both the interns and the three boys had other professionals in t he building or at the university who frequently checked in with them to

PAGE 80

80 be sure they continued to feel comfortable with their participation in the study. However, I had a much more difficult time feeling at ease with my researchers role in relation to Ms S. Specifically, I worried about coercion and inadvertently violating Ms. Ss personal sense of boundaries as the classroom teacher. Ms. S had to share her classroom and instructional decisions with several other professionals throughout the school day and I was sensitive about my being yet one more adult asking for a stake in classroom affairs. Ms. S was beginning her second year at Yearling Elementary, and she was new to the PDS concept and how it reorganized the traditional roles and responsibiliti es in the school. She often commented to her interns that she had never experienced the supervision process the way she was seeing it unfold at this school. For example, she was not used to the university supervisor being in the classroom above and beyon d times of formal observations of intern lessons. Nor had she been introduced to the idea of the university supervisor building relationships with students or helping out in the teaching. I worried that she may have felt compelled to consent to this study only because she thought I was friends with the principal and did not feel she could say no. Because of the intense demands on Ms. Ss time and energy as a fourth grade teacher trying to prepare her students for a high stakes test, there was little room for discussing these unspoken tensions. My hypersensitivity with not stealing Ms. Ss valuable time may have ultimately ended up becoming a barrier to the potential power that Ms. S could have experienced in this PAR. For example, I did not always get to speak directly to her about my ideas, or about the thinking behind my actions. Instead, I had to rely on other methods for communication, such as mentor teacher meetings, or think alouds with the

PAGE 81

81 interns during instruction, and personal emails to communicate to Ms. S the reasons behind my actions and plans, and to encourage her to define her own. Over time Ms. S did appear to trust me more. This happened after two critical points in our r elationship. First, at the beginning of the study she was able to articulate her boundaries with me. For example, she asked that I only come to the classroom when the interns were present. Her being able to tell me this was an important accomplishment because it gave me a chance to show my deference to her authority. The second critical juncture in the relationship came with my announcing my pregnancy to her. The pregnancy became a touchstone of commonality that we could talk about over time. As a mot her of two, she told me stories and provided invaluable wisdom and guidance as I embarked on the journey of becoming a first time mother. By the end of my time in her classroom we were able to share with one another deeply personal and even painful experi ences regarding pregnancies and children. However, Ms. S remained quite peripheral to the community of practice that developed among the interns, JJK, and me. This limited our ability to influence the classroom culture as significantly as we may have. I n turn, this may have reduced the power that the COP had on impacting the performance and identities of JJK. Ultimately, the greatest limitation to this study was that it can never be defined as more than an exploratory PAR. This is for several reasons, some of which have just been mentioned. First, my role as the site coordinator at the school meant that my power with interns, children, and even with faculty, was real. Second, children were not granted access to the initial agendasetting and design st age of this PAR. Over time, however, this changed as children went from peripheral to highly active participants and

PAGE 82

82 designers of the research process. However, to demand that teachers and children in this rural school step too far beyond their comfort z ones of traditional school roles and practices with a high stakes writing test looming would have been unethical and irresponsible of me. Even more importantly, at that particular time, it would also have dishonored the context specific goals of the PDS partnership, itself, of which I was responsible. Ultimately, the democratic commitment embedded in this PAR was treated as an unfolding process, rather than as an assumption. Through more cycles of exploratory PAR at this PDS, the democratic participation of children and their educators is highly likely to increase as they garner more stamina for risk taking while meeting their regular demands. Research Methods In this section I will pro vide a description and rationale for the use of participant observation to address the research question, and why I worked as an ethnographer with a feminist lens. Next, I will outline the data collection methods chosen and the rationale for each one, foc using on the three stages of data collection that occurred. Finally, I will discuss how data were analyzed and interpreted. I will note, however, that in order to create the highly dynamic and flexible conditions needed for PAR, there could be little standardization for methodology or implementation (Creswell, 2008). As Maykut and Morehouse (1994, p. 123) articulate, (C)oncomitant action on the part of the researcher allows the research design to emerge over time, suggesting the direction for subsequent data collection efforts. That being said, data collection did follow a planned sequence and framework, driven by the central questions I had at each stage of the project. Data analysis, on the other hand, emerged in response to the data I was able to coll ect as events and unanticipated opportunities unfolded.

PAGE 83

83 Participant Observation In this study I investigated how student identities were co constructed through a COP devoted to collaborating in the supervision of two prospective teachers. The shared quest ions of our COP were: How can we make better teachers? and specifically, How can we help Ms. B and Ms. E teach all students in an equitable way? In order to foster the most optimal conditions for data collection in this endeavor, I had to continue deepening my role as a participant observer in the PDS In doing so I would be able to enhance the intersubjective knowledge co created between myself, as a researcher, and the participants with whom I was inquiring (Stacey, 1991), in a way that would get at issues of equity in the classroom. Participant observation is used by researchers who partake in the daily lives of communities so that they can get closer to both explicit and tacit meanings constructed within a group, and so that they can systematica lly record and analyze information gained from observing and participating in the communities in which they work (DeWalt & Dewalt, 2002). Participant observation was appropriate in this research context because I was already a key player and aninsider in the PDS community. Participant observation allowed me to increase the quality of the data collected, the interpretation of that data, and the formulation of new research questions (DeWalt & DeWalt, 2002), some of which will be shared in the final chap ter. Through participant observation, findings are potentially richer than those gathered by methods that do not situate the researcher within the research. This is because data are contextualized in ways that would be nearly impossible, otherwise. Ongoing analysis also has potentially more power with participant observation. For example, in this study ongoing data collection and analysis in the field provided many insights into what was important to participants,

PAGE 84

84 including the specialized ways that chi ldren, young prospective teachers, and seasoned educators used language in different ways and for different purposes. This allowed me to craft highly contextualized interview questions, collect the most luminous artifacts, and better interpret these data relative to my day to day experience within the classroom community (DeWalt & DeWalt, 2002; Glesne, 1999). Feminist ethnographic field methods were used in this PAR for three reasons. First, I needed to spend prolonged time in the field to get at the ever yday life of participants. Second, the focus of the research was identity, and third, I knew that my findings would need to be told in narrative form (Creswell, 1998). As a participant observer I collected data on participants behaviors, words, use of sy mbols, space, and time, and their interactions. This was done through observations, different forms of interviews, and artifacts. What made the ethnographic field methods feminist is contestable but I make this argument for three reasons, supported by Buch and Staller (2007) and Crotty (1998). First, I came to the research question with the intention of carving out a space for the voices and decisions of women and children (who are within the realm of womens work), an agenda that I publicly espouse as a stakeholder in the PDS. Second, my theoretical lens emphasized the relationship between women, children, and the powerful political forces that act upon them from outside of the classroom. Finally, in the process of data analysis I was paying specific attention to how the current No Child Left Behind political agenda pushes teachers, and subsequently their students, into institutional practices and belief systems that sort children into narrow, and fairly fixed categories of winners and losers, a practice done without the active consent of children (and many of their teachers), and that while increasingly

PAGE 85

85 difficult to challenge over time, has real life consequences. In applying a critical action component in this research, I was continuing a quiet revolution for children, and the women who educate them, by recognizing that we can learn how to give or reject consent for the identities and labels that institutions mark us with, and find creative ways to stretch, reshape, and even disrupt them. Data Co llection Methods Lykes and Coquillon (2007) write that we are looking for an approximation of understanding (p. 298) when approaching a research question through a participatory, feminist theoretical perspective, an approximation that resides at the nexu s where feminisms, participation, and action come together. Therefore it is important to select data collection methods that honor and capture the many different ways of being and doing in the world (Lykes & Coquillon, 2007, p. 301). This meant I needed to find data sources that considered multiple perspectives and ways of communicating for individual adults and children, as well as those co researchers who helped us build meaning together (Wahab, 2003). Ultimately, methods were chosen based on how approp riate they were for recognizing and capturing the problem and phenomenon of focus, as well as how they facilitated co discovery (Lykes & Coquillon, 2007). A constellation of different data collection methods were used to shed light on the relationship bet ween student collaboration in the supervision of teacher candidates and student identity and school performances. These included observational field notes and the collection of a wide range of artifacts which were generated and gathered during semi struct ured conversations occurring both in and outside of the classroom. Semi structured individual and focus interviews were also employed.

PAGE 86

86 The decision to use these data forms was based on two reasons. First, because I would be involved with this classroom for an extended period of time, it was important to locate methods that were powerful enough to answer the research question but as unobtrusive as possible to maintain the regular classroom routine. Second, methods had to be user friendly enough to manage while participants and I simultaneously met the demands of our other work responsibilities. Observations, interviews, and artifacts are data forms that are readily accessible and can be incorporated into the structure of a school day. They are also the co llection methods modeled for teachers and candidates in the PDS as they learn to engage in inquiry. Therefore, these collection methods had an additional teaching function in our PDS. Observations Observations were conducted during semi structured convers ations with educator participants, such as the thirdand fourthgrade teachers, the principal, and the interns. In every case I recorded field notes, and in many cases these conversations were also audiotaped to aid my memory. This was especially import ant because these conversations often included three or more educators speaking together. The goal of recording these conversations was to capture critical incidents (Stringer, 2007), or moments where educators used key words, phrases, or labels to describe what kind of student (and/or person) (Gee, 2000, p. 99) students were, and how they defined their school performances. In my data analysis these words later came to be called markers of student identity. Observations of students were also conducted during regular school activities, and during semi structured conversations, in order to better understand how JJK enacted school identities while participating in collaborative supervision with me. Again,

PAGE 87

87 learning within communities of practice is embedded in the very process of being active in the everyday practices of that community (Wenger, 1998). Therefore, it was important to capture what participants did while they worked out their identities as collaborators in the supervision of prospective teache rs. This led me to the extensive recording of observations through field notes. Field notes offered a wider cross section of data than interviews and audio recordings could do alone. This is because interviews and audiotape, while highly valuable, only capture snapshots of subjective meaning (Emerson, Fretz & Shaw, 1995). In addition, observations were indispensible because I needed to document shifts in JJKs enactments of identity that occurred within the interactions they had with one another I also found it difficult to structure interview questions in a way that would lead to how JJK defined their school identities. While it was both important to use methods that captured how they talked about their school identities, I put my focus on how JJ K did their identities (Moje, 2004a; Moje & Luke, 2009). This required a great deal of observation of their social interactions in the classroom context, including words they used, behaviors they exhibited, and tools and symbols they used. In order to c apture enactments of identity in relationship with one another, I needed to use field notes to record critical incidents enacted by JJK (see excerpt of field notes in Appendix A). In the analysis of these data, critical incidents were later labeled as moves. Appendix B provides an excerpt of how field notes were analyzed for critical incidents. For JJK moves were behaviors, words, or the use or creation of artifacts or symbols that provided evidence of discourse practices that challenged their prev iously defined institutional, school identities. For example, if J, J, or K offered

PAGE 88

88 feedback or ideas for the teaching and learning process, this was recorded as a single discourse move because it indicated how this student was moving from a previous cl assroom identity not associated with leadership and on toward repositioning himself in the classroom as a teacher leader. Sometimes moves were marked as more significant than others. In the previous example, had this students feedback been solicited by an adult, it was marked as a regular move. If the feedback was offered without a cue or prompt, it was marked as a more important move. This is because the move was interpreted as more spontaneous. It would have indicated that the student was independe ntly generalizing this new aspect of his identity, and making his own judgment as to when and where it was appropriate to enact it. As such, we believed that it was more important because it likely expressed an increased ease or fluency with this part o f his emerging identity. All field notes were recorded in three stages. First, jot notes, (DeWalt & DeWalt, 2002; Emerson, Fretz & Shaw, 1995), or anecdotal notes of moves and contextualizing information were recorded. These notes were taken during sem i structured conversations and observations during classroom related activities. These later aided my memory of specific events, behaviors, and keywords or phrases in conversations that occurred as they related to my research question (Stringer, 2007). I consciously tried to use the verbatim principle, or the use of participants own ways of talking and labeling categories or ideas (Stringer, 2007). After leaving the classroom I expanded these jot notes to include a record of the events as they occurred (Emerson, Fretz & Shaw, 1995; Spradley, 1979), including details about the people, places, acts, activities, events, objects used, purposes, timing and sequencing, and emotions in

PAGE 89

89 which these events took place. Finally, these jot notes were expanded fur ther into meta notes that focused on my interpretations and inferences about the observed events relative to my research question (DeWalt & DeWalt, 2004; Emerson, Fretz & Shaw, 1995), including the role my contextual subjectivities had in these interpret ations. Semi structured interviews and focus g roups Adults participated in recorded, semi structured focus groups with me at the beginning and at the end of the four month research period. At the beginning of the school year teachers were asked to share what they thought I needed to know about each of Ms. Ss nineteen students. At the end of the project teachers were asked what next years middle school teachers needed to know about JJK as incoming 5th graders. These major interviews acted like book ends that contributed to making sense of JJKs institutional identities at the beginning, and then at the end of the study. Semi structured interviews and focus groups were also used with student participants at the beginning and ending points of the PAR in order to allow them to reflect on their lives and to share stories that might help me build a picture of their self defined identities. These were recorded and transcribed. Interviews were designed to help bring out student voices regarding what kind of people and students they were, and to learn more about what was important to them in ways I might not have been able to capture otherwise (Eder & Fingerson, 2003). In addition, since the first interview occurred before students began collaborating wi th me in supervision, I was able to gauge the kinds of discourses and communicative rules that they used (Eder & Fingerson, 2003). This helped me to better craft our semi structured conversations that occurred later because I could start hybridizing their vocabulary and values with the formal discourses associated with teacher education and supervision. For example,

PAGE 90

90 JJK identified early on in the study the need for teachers to make learning fun, a word I used initially in our COP. Later, I consciously codeswitched by replacing this word with engaging when I spoke. JJK later appropriated this term, as well, into their spoken and written language. Document c ollection Finally, the ongoing collection of artifacts was central in capturing moves and key language that were recorded in field notes and in interviews, as well as to provide ways for participants to express themselves that were otherwise not available (Mason, 1996). Artifacts included those gathered from discussions and COP related activities, such as graphic representations by students and teachers, lesson materials, journals kept by the interns, student grades, handwritten notes, emails, work samples, and formal supervision data collected during observations of prospective teachers. In this s tudy artifacts were not just powerful data sources for documenting student identity. Their symbolic use also shaped our identities as members of the COP (McCulloch, 2004). For example, the fact that JJK knew I saved all of their hand written notes about their teaching ideas, or the data they collected during observations, helped them understand how central their roles were in my job as a teacher educator. Therefore, their production of these artifacts marked their special status in the classroom. The ar tifacts they designed and/or used became vital to shaping a new layer of their school identity in the classroom. They provided evidence of how these students not only situated themselves as classroom leaders but how they acted upon this identity, and how they were recognized as such by others.

PAGE 91

91 Data Analysis The overall goal for analysis was to investigate the relationship between JJKs collaboration in the supervision of the prospective teachers in their classroom, and how their school identities and inter pretations of their performances were co constructed over time. Data analysis occurred in an ongoing, recursive manner and was framed by the overarching goals for each stage of data collection. In Stage 1 the goal was to gain the general landscape of i nstitutional identities that Ms. Ss students represented, and then to situate JJKs institutional identities within this schema. In Stage 2 the goal was to document and explain the changes in JJKs discourse identities (Gee, 2000) throughout the work we did together in the COP. In Stage 3, I looked again at how JJKs institutional identities were defined by adults to see if there was any change in this layer of how they were defined in school. These stages will be explained in more detail in the followi ng sections. Stage 1: Situating JJKs school identities within the landscape of fourth g rade Stage 1 was accomplished by going through transcriptions of focus group interviews and field notes in order to create a master inventory of markers, or words us ed to identify kinds of students in school. Appendix C is an excerpt of how field notes were organized that captured data about students in teacher conversations, and Appendix D provides the complete list of markers distilled from those interviews and o bservations of teacher conversations. In this way I used focused analytic coding by looking lineby line for ideas and themes that were framed by my question, What kinds of students do we have in Ms. Ss classroom (Emerson, Fretz & Shaw, 1995)? I also kept track of markers used by individuals to see if certain role players focused on different aspects of school identity. Markers used by teachers included examples such

PAGE 92

92 as bright, struggling reader, or totally unfocused. Markers used by students i ncluded examples like bad student, patrol student, or smart. While coding all of these markers, I memoed as I went along, allowing categories to distill. For example, I clustered the markers of bright and being tested for gifted under the cat egory of Intelligence. Next, I did a frequency count of the number of markers in each category. The numbers allowed me to make judgments about the robustness of each category. The strength of each category became especially important later in defining th e two overarching cultural models (Gee, 2002) of school identities that almost immediately began emerging from the data. One of these models captured school identity associated with school success (School Successful) and one captured identity associated with school failure (Not School Successful). Each of these cultural models held some categories that the other did not, or emphasized some categories more than the other did (see Appendix E). Next I worked to sort each of Ms. Ss students by identifyin g who was considered to be School Successful, and who was Not School Successful. I thought that this might help me better situate JJKs school identities, as well as how they were positioned and assigned power within the classroom community. I accompl ished this by examining each separate marker assigned to individual students within the context of teacher talk. This was important to do as some markers could indicate either school success or school failure, depending on how they were used. For example, the marker of quiet could be used to indicate a successful school identity (as in well behaved) or an identity associated with school failure (as in withdrawn).

PAGE 93

93 I then used the same data set to create a portrait of JJKs combined institutional identity. In creating this composite I drew from all of the markers that emerged from transcriptions of focus group conversations with teachers, observations of teacher conversations, artifacts produced from these interactions, and semi structured interviews with students. I then sorted the total of 61 markers assigned to JJK that I retrieved from the first four weeks of school into the categories educators used to define school identities. Finally, I wanted to know how JJK situated themselves at the beginni ng of the school year, particularly in relation to the schema of adult and student defined school identities. After collecting interview data from each of the boys, and recording field notes about the words they used to describe what kind of person I am I built a picture of the kinds of markers they used to describe themselves. I then sorted these markers into categories of Successful and Not Successful cultural models, as defined by the analysis process described above. At this point I had a pic ture of JJKs institutional identities, as defined by themselves and by others, at the beginning of their fourth grade school year. While most of this institutional identity was created from adult generated markers, I was able to substantiate this model b y cultural models built from markers gathered from students, including JJK (see Appendix F ) Later I would be able to create a new portrait of their institutional, school identities at the midpoint of their fourth grade year and make comparisons between the two. Stage 2: D ocumenting JJKs community of practice ( COP ) journey and changing i dentities Stage 2 of data collection marked the middle to late period of the study in which our community of practice (COP) was in action. There were three goals for an alyzing data collected from Stage 2. The first was to locate, name, and describe the critical

PAGE 94

94 junctures that occurred over time and defined the path that our COP ultimately took. Critical junctures were those distinct events that marked our special missi on for and our membership in the COP. These events defined us as a team of six people, both from our own perspectives, as well as from those who were more peripheral to the group. Each critical juncture that happened through time fortified our sense of belonging to and responsibility for one another, and even enhanced a sense of privilege associated with our work that I believe was perceived by our supporting team of students and teachers, as well. Examples of critical junctures include the six of us sitt ing at lunch together to talk through our plans and ideas for the next lesson, or working as a team during a formal observation of the interns to collect data and accomplish shared goals, such as differentiating instruction so that students had more ways t o express their learning. Critical junctures were only those events that were carried out by all six members of our inner circle, regardless of how many other teachers or students were weaving in and out of the COP at different times. The second goal for Stage 2 of the analysis was to document how JJKs discourse identities (Gee, 2000) were enacted throughout these critical junctures. After creating a chronological inventory of all of JJKs moves, categorizing them, and then interpreting the meaning of each of these moves (see data analysis excerpts in Appendices B and L), I synthesized a new composite of JJK by creating a storyline that represented how I made sense of their change in discourse identities. In doing so I allowed myself, as the researcher to borrow methods from narrative inquiry (Chase, 2005) and claim my role in the study as a storyteller (Connelly and Clandinin, 1990). The grand narrative I wrote, capturing JJKs shift in identity, helped me make sense of

PAGE 95

95 the many different pieces of e vidence that I had collected across time and from multiple data sources. Putting the analysis into story form also helped me translate my findings in a way that would help participants better understand. This was especially important for member checking purposes. Finally, the last goal of analysis for Stage 2 was to make sense of the moves I made throughout the critical junctures. I wanted to build a picture of what it meant to be an active agent who includes students in the supervision of interns for t he purpose of establishing more equity in the classroom. I did this by collecting all of my moves, putting them in sequential order, and then thematically analyzing them based on the motives I had for each action I took (see sample of a Critical Juncture #2 in Appendix G). In my researchers notebook I had been diligent in tying my behaviors with my subjectivities, making it relatively easy to code them and allow themes to emerge. Later this analysis would help me understand and become more conscious of the guiding principles of my work, and how to operationalize these principles for others. Stage 3: S ituating JJKs school i dentities at the e nd of the s tudy The goal of analyzing data from Stage 3 was exactly the same as that of Stage 1. The aim was to c reate a composite of JJKs institutional identities at the end of our work together as a COP. I then compared the composites of JJKs institutional identities from Stage 1 with those from Stage 3 to see if there had been a shift in the way adults in the school defined their school identities and performances over time. Analyzing Observational Field Notes My lens for observations and the recording of field notes was very specific to my needs as both a supervisor and as a critical action researcher. In both cases I actively sought evidence of change, and especially evidence I believed was indicative of positive

PAGE 96

96 improvements in classroom equity, teaching, and learning. Because my subjectivity as a change agent was so strong, I needed a method of analysis that would help me gain some distance from the field notes. For this reason I analyzed field notes with coding methods borrowed from grounded theory (Stringer, 2007). Social justice researchers use grounded theory in data analysis in order to anchor agendas for future actions, policies, or practices. They do this by explicitly pointing out connections between the before, the during, and the after processes about which they are theorizing (Charmaz, 2005). This was especially applicable in light of the three stages of this PAR. First I defined my sensitizing concepts (Jorgensen, 1989), which in this case were school identity and performances. Then I explored how these sensitizing concepts played out in light of the deliberate action of collaborati ng with students in supervision. Finally, I looked to see if this collaboration had made any change in identities. Thus the cycle was poised to repeat itself. However, how these sensitizing concepts played out in the field had to be established, or earn ed, through the data analysis process (Charmaz, 2005). I did this by coding each line of my field notes. Initial codes were defined by short episodes of behaviors and words I had recorded. These codes were later analyzed for frequency and for those tha t helped me conceptualize the data. For example, during episodes where our COP was actively engaged together, I used codes to mark, and later categorize, the different moves made by COP members. This allowed me to define the kinds of actions that our COP members took that might explain the change in JJKs identities. Going even further, I distinguished these moves by how they exemplified different features of discourses, including ways participants used words, space, time,

PAGE 97

97 tools, and body language to express being a certain type of person(Gee, 2002), and/or to express their positionality in the COP, or in the classroom. I was then able to look more closely at the discourse moves JJK made over the four month period of our COP. I used this sequence of m oves to tell a story of JJKs change in school identities over time. For example, I recorded the body language of the three boys during instructional episodes over the four month period. At the beginning of the study, one boy often had his head down on h is desk or had his body and legs facing away from the teachers and his peers during instruction. In time we interpreted this behavior as one of his few strategies for maintaining his sense of choice in the classroom. By the middle of the study, his body was usually oriented toward his teachers or group members during instruction and he was making full eye contact with the people to whom he was speaking. These changes in body language, alone, do not explain his change in school identity over time. However this small piece of data contributed to an overall picture built from an inventory of different recorded discourse moves that pointed to a likely change in how this student was making bids for a new identity and position in the classroom bids that were driven by choice. Next, memo writing (Glaser, 1978) helped me build a bridge between coding and reporting the findings (Charmaz, 2004) as memo writing helped me to raise (my) codes to conceptual categories (Charmaz, 2003, p. 322). Memos allowed me to s tudy the data in a new way by helping me take apart initial codes, define them, raise new questions, evaluate which data communicated more than others, and unlock my assumptions in the codes and the relationships between them. These new insights contribut ed to my emerging theoretical categories and also revealed any gaps in the

PAGE 98

98 data that I might want to go back and fill in with theoretical sampling (Charmaz, 2004). For example, it was difficult to capture observations of JJK talking about their changing i dentities, although coding revealed many actions they took that suggested the enactment of new identities. Seeing this gap in the data later helped me create a protocol for a conversation with JJK that I thought would create an opportunity for them to bet ter articulate their changing identities with words. Analyzing Interviews and Focus Groups During Stages 1 and 3 of this study I built composites to represent my interpretation of the co construction of JJKs institutional identities. These representations came from data collected from JJK, their teachers, and other students. To build these composites of institutional identity, I privileged data gathered from adult definitions of JJKs identities and performances, because educators in schools hold tremen dous power over the formal domains of a childs identity. However, I also wanted to collect data that would include the perspectives of children, because even institutional identities are socially created and maintained (Gee, 2002). Semi structured inter views and focus group sessions, co authored (Kvale, 1996) by children, teachers, and myself, allowed me to capture inter subjective conversations about JJK. I had tried individual interviews with JJK at the beginning of the study but found that interviewing the boys in isolation from one another failed to produce rich data on how each of the boys defined his identity. From this point on I made sure to interview groups of students together to allow them to co construct meaning by using their relationship s and shared stories as common touchstones. I used two methods for analyzing transcripts of these conversations, based on the purpose for which I collected the data. I used grounded theory methods for those

PAGE 99

99 conversations I was using to build taxonomies for institutional identities assigned to children. For example, in teacher focus groups at the beginning of the study, I examined the markers and labels used by teachers to define different students, and then coded and classified them as outlined earlier. On the other hand, the purpose of recording and transcribing the conversations that occurred within our COP was different. These conversations were captured in the attempt to find evidence of JJKs changing discourse identities, guided by the question: W hat discourse practices do JJK use that provide evidence of their emerging identities as teacher leaders? Therefore, I needed to not only be able to look at JJKs behaviors and values but how they used language. Discourse analysis was used to make conn ections between JJKs language and their identities. I did not use discourse analysis for every recorded conversation that occurred within our COP. After a preliminary analysis of all of the transcripts, I chose two episodes of conversation because they contained more building tasks (Gee, 2002) of how identities and relationships were being played out within the COP than any other transcripts. These two conversations came from the final COP meeting between JJK, the interns and me, and from the final fo cus group conversation I had with JJK. It makes sense that these final conversations would manifest considerable evidence of changed identities and relationships. At this point the COP was as highly evolved as it was going to be. We had grown more estab lished in our sense of belonging and purpose, we shared common understandings and an ease with sharing power, and our work together had come to its most heightened level of sophistication.

PAGE 100

100 I followed Gees (2002) recommendations for analyzing multiple layers of data in exactly the same way for each of the two episodes of conversation. As displayed in the data excerpt in Appendix N, I re organized the transcripts into lines or spurts of conversation, and then into stanzas, or groups of lines that hung together as a theme or single topic. Next, I listened again to the recordings and used bold print to mark stressed words, as well as other intonations. I also wrote my ideas about how I, as a participant in the conversation, interpreted the different tones that were used, which included irritation, dominance, submission, and the posing of suggestions versus directives. These tones helped give me a hint into how each speaker positioned him or herself in the conversation at a given moment. I also marked who inserted new information into the conversation as yet another way to gauge how each participant in the conversation defined his/her positionalities in relation to one another. Next, I used three of Gees (2002) eighteen questions that allowed me to focus o n socioculturally situated identity and relationship building. I used them also to see if any other themes or questions might converge within the data set. Finally, as themes emerged, and then began converging together, I was able to organize them into motif baskets (Pace, 2002, personal communication). By doing frequency counts, I was able to determine which motifs, or themes of meaning, were the most robust in the data. For example, in the final focus interview with JJK, one salient motif was that of one boys resistance whenever I made the attempt to position him as an expert teacher leader, or whenever I positioned myself as a student/learner. It was not until after one of his peers recognized him as a great writer that he proceeded to make s eventeen uninterrupted bids (Gee, 2000) for the identity of expert, or teacher leader. Discourse

PAGE 101

101 analysis allowed me to theorize, in this case, that perhaps preadolescents do not passively accept, or trust, bids by adults to identify them as colleagues in the learning process, and will only do so once their peers endorse the idea. Finally, while I analyzed the episodes of conversation, I had to remind myself repeatedly about the reflexivity of language. For example, what a boy said did not only reflec t how he positioned himself within our relationships but it also simultaneously created how he did so (Gee, 2002). Analyzing Artifacts Interviews and observations were critical in building a picture of JJKs school identity, and in being able to document i ts change over time. However, I needed artifacts to help me have examples of how tools and texts were used by the COP members to redesign JJKs school identities. Artifacts were also used later to cross check oral accounts or observations, to illustrate a descriptive account (Atkinson & Coffey, 2004), and in many cases to offer additional texts for conversational analysis. For example, emails and notes exchanged between COP members were used as extensions of our oral conversations, so I applied the frame work I used for discourse analysis to these artifacts, as well. As an example, in handwritten notes passed between JJK and me during a teaching observation, I analyzed the moves within these co constructed texts, included who contributed new information, who accepted bids to enact a teacher leadership stance, and the kinds of voices JJK used to frame their ideas, suggestions, and even directives in the supervision process. Making sense of the documents generated in this study involved strategic decision making. I knew that no document stood alone, separated from its authors, its interpreters, and even other documents and contexts (Atkinson & Coffey, 2004). Therefore the artifacts I collected were closely analyzed in relation to the context, which

PAGE 102

102 included the meaning assigned to them by their designers and/or interpreters. For example, in one recorded episode an intern spoke to me about one of the student participants in the study. She expressed great enthusiasm about a writing sample she had collected from one of the three boys that demonstrated his ability to generalize a strategy she had taught him in a completely novel way. I not only collected the artifact but I recorded how she talked about it, the key words she used, and, specifically, how it captur ed a critical moment of school success, from her perspective. Without her words that contextualized the writing sample, the document would have likely lost its potential power to illustrate evidence of change in this students school identity and perfor mance. Trustworthiness Four mechanisms were used to strengthen the integrity of this study. First, there was an ongoing, embedded system of member checking. Second, triangulation was built into the data collection plan and the analysis process. Third, I committed to meticulous record keeping of the data analysis steps. Finally, there was a constant attempt to name and to tame my subjectivities during all phases of the data collection, analysis, and writing process (Peshkin, 1988). Because of the nature of this study as participatory action research, member checking became a normal and ongoing feature of our work. There were three major ways that member checking was accomplished. First, I made it a habit to create follow up questions for JJK over time in order to double check or revise my interpretations of their ideas and artifacts. This served many purposes beyond member checking. It allowed JJK yet another opportunity to hear how I translated their ideas into the professional discourse of supervisi on. It also gave all of our COP members a chance to

PAGE 103

103 review JJKs ideas and begin the process of putting them into action. Most of all, this form of member checking emphasized to the COP, as well as to the classroom, that JJKs ideas were central to the su pervisory relationship between the interns and me. JJK also read, revised, and approved my interpretations of their data collection and analysis in both informal conversation and in formal observation summaries. Member checking with the interns and teacher s was also in place. First, I asked teachers to confirm my interpretations of how they defined the performances and academic standings of J, J, and K. One of the most rewarding mechanisms for member checking occurred during preparation for a national con ference presentation in which the interns and I planned to share our preliminary findings. This opportunity allowed us to have a chance to co construct our analysis of artifacts being exhibited as evidence of JJKs changing identities and classroom perfor mances. The presentation also gave the interns a chance to use their own voices and to emphasize their unique perspectives and experiences in the PAR. The principal was also present at this conference presentation and took the opportunity to weave in her own perspectives about our preliminary findings. This unique member checking scenario led me to revisit the data set and reorganize it so that I could look at changes in JJKs institutional identities separately from those changes in their discourse ident ities. The principal also read the final manuscript to verify that it was, from her point of view, an internally balanced representation that captured the school culture, the ways educators at Yearling Elementary made sense of their students, her understa nding of JJK, as well as how all of these factors played out through my unique subjectivities as a critical action researcher.

PAGE 104

104 The interns and the special education teacher became invaluable member checkers throughout the research process. They not only provided evidence of discourse moves made by JJK, they also helped me make sense of them over time. More importantly, they took a central role in how the COP would move forward on its unique trajectory. Their analysis of moves was especially appropriate as they were critical to the recognition work necessary for JJK as they attempted to enact, or pull off (Gee, 2002) their new identities. JJK did not directly member check the data set of discourse moves. However, these interpretations were triangulated from situation to situation and across data sources. Our interpretations of JJKs moves over time then became the main texts the interns and I drew from as we composed informal questions for the boys along the way in our ongoing conversations. This all owed us to further verify how close our interpretations were to JJKs constructions. For example, one of the moves I included for analysis was the fact that JJK had been able to secure informed consent from their families in the form of a signed document. In the final interview the boys referred to this artifact as the blue paper, and said that it marked, for them, the beginning point of our journey together. The blue paper was the first moment in which they tried to make sense of my role, the roles of the interns, and our relationship as a group. For this reason the blue paper became symbolic of an important move in our work as a COP. Through triangulation I was able to document, at a much later time, that JJK had indeed experienced it in closely the same way. The triangulation of data collection and analysis, as well as a commitment to meticulous record keeping and reflective journaling throughout the analysis process,

PAGE 105

105 also helped to fortify the trustworthiness of my findings over time. I tried to build texture into the analysis of the process and outcomes of the study by including a diverse set of data collection sources that captured multiple perspectives and points in time. For example, through the discourse analysis of a conversation with JJ K, I was able to gather evidence of the boys making explicit connections between their roles as teacher leaders and their academic improvement. I was able to substantiate these findings by adults in separate conversations. This allowed me to have confide nce that JJKs institutional identities as school successful were, indeed, a co constructed reality. I was also able to cross reference connections between their enactment of new school identities with changes in their school performances through classr oom observations and artifacts. As analysis unfolded over time, I documented every step I took in the process so that I could remember the sequence. This was especially important to do as analysis was messy, requiring the interpretation of multiple data forms and the multiple layers of questions embracing our work, including those centered on the school identities of JJK, as well as our COPs wonderings associated with making better teachers, and how we could improve access to relevant and powerful learning for all students. Documenting the process of analysis this way helped me make informed decisions as I came to each point in the analysis process. This was because I recorded my rationales for each of the decisions I made, allowing me to become more strategic as analysis continued. As mentioned earlier in this chapter, it was vital for me to remain in conscious contact with the many Is or subjectivities that I brought to this project as a participant

PAGE 106

106 observer (Peshkin, 1988). In addition to this I had to maintain a constant critical interrogation of my own position, as it was always a privileged one in the classroom. This was due to my role as the lead researcher and because I take an educational leadership position within this PDS. Educational researchers, regardless of gender, are historically positioned as having a higher social status than those they study (Cochran Smith & Lytle, 1993; Harding, 2007). As I made the claim that this study was approached through the methodology of a PAR, my positionality became an ongoing consideration in issues related to voice and power, especially as there were true tensions between the academic modes I was expected to uphold and the reflexive and collaborative demands of PAR (Wahab, 2003). While I never attempted to deny my power or positionality in the study, I did try to be as transparent as possible with the many strategies I used to balance power between participants and myself. Conclusion Ethnographic field methods were used in this study in order to interpret the multiple layers and nuances of how and why JJKs school identities changed over time through their dialogue and collective actions (Emerson, Fretz & Shaw, 1995). Through the theoretical perspective of Participatory Action Research (PAR), I was free to claim and work within my natural subjectivities. This helped me maintain my role as a participant observer with very real roles and responsibilities in this PDS. PAR also allowed me to more effectively honor the intersubjective researcher participant relationship (Wahab, 2003), including that which occurred within myself, and to better distribute power among participants. In the next two chapters I will share interpretations from the data analysis process. Chapter 4 will presen t how JJKs formal school identities were defined at the beginning and then again at the conclusion of the four -

PAGE 107

107 month period where we formed and developed a COP in order to become better teachers. Chapter 5 will outline the story of our COP, how it unfo lded over time, and how it functioned as a platform for experimenting with new situated identities, or possible selves (Markus & Nurius, 1986).

PAGE 108

108 CHAPTER 4 CHANGES IN JJKS SCH OOL IDENTITIES AND P ERFORMANCES OVER TIM E As discussed in Chapter 2, students are typically sorted and categorized in public schools. The labels for these categories change over time but are generally defined by different degrees of school success, whereby mainstream texts and literacies are privileged (McCarthey & Moje, 2002). Being categorized as a good student in school by peers and teachers is the function of ones institutional identity, or how one is positioned, in formal organizations such as schools (Gee, 2000). In this chapter I will make the case that JJKs i nstitutional identities changed significantly between August and December, or over the first half of their fourth grade year. During this period of time JJK participated in a distinct community of practice (COP), along with their two interns and me. By t he end of the study their institutional, school identities shifted from mostly unsuccessful students to being more successful students. In Chapter 5 I describe how participation in the COP facilitated this change in their school identities. To make th e case that JJKs institutional identities clearly did shift over time, I will share the insights I gained from multiple levels of and methods of data analysis. First, I will present the general cultural models (Gee, 2002) for institutionalized, school id entities that were closely shared by students and teachers affiliated with Ms. Ss fourth grade classroom at Yearling Elementary. Then I will situate JJKs school identities within this shared schema by presenting a single composite of JJKs institution al identity, as defined by teachers and the principal at the beginning of their fourth grade school year. I will then present a new composite of their institutional identity at the end of four month period of work in the COP. Finally, I will compare thes e

PAGE 109

109 two composites to demonstrate how the adults in Yearling Elementary had come to redefine JJKs formal, school identities. Cultural Models for School Identities at Yearling Elementary School Cultural models for school identity held by the fourth graders and by educators were closely aligned at Yearling Elementary School. It was important when developing these cultural models to consider the perspectives of both adults and children in light of the assumption that identity is socially constructed (Berger & Luckmann, 1966; Gee, 1999; 2000; 2002). First I will present how adults defined school identities, and then I will present how fourth graders defined students in school. How Educators Define School Identities In a series of focus group interviews, I asked the principal and teachers at this PDS, What should we know about (Ms. Ss nineteen) students as incoming fourth graders? I explained that I needed their data on each child so that the interns and I could quickly begin building a social and academic pic ture of each child for the purposes of learning to differentiate instruction. They used two general methods to communicate what kind of student each fourth grader was: telegraphing (Pace, personal communication, August 17, 2008) and storytelling. By using labels, which I called markers, teachers could quickly communicate short, telegraphed codes for different kinds of students. Each code could be packed with mutually understood meaning and assumptions. For example, referring to a student as a Level One in the state of Florida can generate a great deal of meaning in increasingly timecompressed teacher conversations (Hargreaves, 1994), including the score a student got on the state wide assessment, what ability group s/he is placed in for reading, what socioeconomic group s/he possibly comes from, and the intensity of teacher support

PAGE 110

110 that the student demands. Telegraphing was the most common way that teachers shared information about their perceptions of students with me and with each other. A total of 215 telegraphed codes, or markers, were collected from teacher talk about Ms. Ss students, and a total of seventeen stories were also collected which enhanced the meaning of these markers. These stories were important for me to pay attention to for two reasons. First, teachers had great difficulty talking about nineteen separate students under constant time constraints. Therefore, spending time telling stories underscored how salient particular markers were for describing key students. Stor ies were also used when a commonly shared marker needed further clarification. For example, when one teacher marked a student simply as No home support, she elaborated on information she had on the familys personal struggles as a way to correct any pot ential misconceptions that the family was negligent or uncaring. First uttered markers by educators What words do educators choose first to define each of Ms. Ss nineteen students? Considering how difficult it was for me to gain access to teachers time in order to discuss students in focus groups, this became an interesting and relevant question. I wanted to examine any patterns that might emerge from the 48 first uttered markers used by teachers and the principal to describe these students (see Appendi x I for the full list). I looked at how markers grouped into categories, and if I could determine the importance of each category based on how many markers it contained. For example, out of all of the first uttered markers describing Ms. Ss 19 students, I captured ten for the category of Behavior, and only one for the category of Childrens Aspirations in Life. This example allowed me to conclude that when teachers must economize time when socially constructing student identity, or when they are sim ply

PAGE 111

111 expressing the most immediate information that comes to their minds about a child, behaviors become a much more important way to define children than by their hopes and dreams. I then wanted to compare the categories that emerged from this group of fir st uttered markers with the categories that emerged from the entire collection of markers used to describe Ms. Ss students. When looking at the entire data set, would other categories emerge as more important in the social construction of childrens scho ol identities? Do teachers have to make decisions on how they will identify children depending on how much time is available for communicating this information? I also wanted know if adults with different roles in relation to the children would change h ow they identified the saliency of different categories of school identity generated. For example, would the teachers from the previous year, the current teachers, and the principal focus on different categories of school identity? Ten categories emerged from the first uttered markers (see Table 4.1 below). The most robust categories included behaviors, academic skill, intelligence, and disability (in this order). Positive labels that captured the generic idea of the good student identity, such as Gr eat kid, or Wonderful student were also a prominent form of telegraphed markers but more so with the fourth grade teachers who had only known the students for a few weeks. Other less prominent first uttered markers included how students ranked against one another in teacher defined academic terms, ethnicity, family and community relationships, physical appearance, and disposition. The fourth grade teachers, who had the shortest histories with these students, used far more labels associated with behavior, and every one of these markers was negative. Educators

PAGE 112

112 with longer histories with these students did not tend to name behaviors first. Rather, they highlighted constructs of intelligence and aptitude, academic skills, and disability. Table 4 1 Categories of first uttered markers by educators Marker Type 3 rd Grade teaching team Principal 4 th Grade teaching team Total markers Behavior 1 1 8 10 Academic Skill 3 3 2 8 Intelligence 5 0 1 6 Disability 2 3 1 6 General Positive 1 1 3 5 Rank Against Peers 3 0 0 3 Relational 0 2 1 3 Ethnicity 0 3 0 3 Physical 0 1 1 2 Disposition 1 0 1 2 I reflected on why the educators with longer histories with the students might immediately name fewer behavioral attributes than their colleagues who had just inherited them. Perhaps experience and history with students matter in the interplay between children and adults as they co construct institutional identities. For example, the opportunity of refining class management plans over time may have diminished many undesirable behaviors of key students, or had allowed teachers the time to reframe these behaviors within the richer context of a longterm relationship with each child. Finally, the principal maintained a different emphasis on identity categories tha n the classroom teachers. The principal was the only educator whose first uttered markers named ethnicity. She was also the only adult whose first uttered markers named her relationships with students and their families over time. The salience of ethnic ity made sense to me as I reflected on how principals in Florida must attend closely to race in order to meet Adequate Yearly Progress, mandated by the No Child

PAGE 113

113 Left Behind Act of 2001, and to achieve their grade from the state each year. It also made sense that as a principal, and as a prominent leader and resident of this rural community that she would first perceive students as members of family networks as she watched younger siblings enter Yearling Elementary behind their older brothers and sister s. Indeed, as principal she was positioned to work with families over time. General categories of school identities defined by teachers After building and ranking categories of first uttered markers of school identity, I started the process over again. T his time I created categories from the entire collection of 215 markers generated when teachers spoke about each of Ms. Ss nineteen students. The first column of the table in Appendix J displays the breakdown of these general markers by category. The fi rst three categories of general school identity matched those of teachers first uttered markers, including their rankings. These included behavior, academic performance/skills, and constructs of intelligence. However, the fourth ranked category of frequ ency for general school identity was disposition, rather than the undefined, positive markers, such as Great, or Wonderful student. The remaining categories were ranked in this order: the role family played, class ranking, disability, ethnicity, physical attributes, and relationships. In most cases when ethnicity and relationships were mentioned, they were not associated with the cultural model of the Successful Student. What was most salient when the taxonomy for a general, formal school identity em erged was that categories continued to polarize. For the entire collection of 215 markers, 90% of them were used to sort how successful or unsuccessful students were in school. The remaining markers could not be interpreted as one or the other. Educ ators use markers to sort students in reference to how school successful or

PAGE 114

114 unsuccessful they are. Appendix D lists all of the markers captured from educator descriptions of each of Ms. Ss students. After analyzing this list I created a picture of t he proportions that each category held within what emerged as two cultural models of school identity: the Successful Student, and the Unsuccessful (or Struggling) Student. This is represented in Figure 4.1 below. Notice that in the Successful Stud ent model that academic performance carries the most markers, while intelligence and dispositions follow very closely. In fact, academic performance, intelligence, and disposition combine as 2/3 of this model. Figure 41. Educators cultural model of the Successful Student school identity. The Successful Student meets the following criteria in rank order: 1. S/ he is perceived to possess necessary academic skills and performances marked by daily reading, math, writing, and yearly standardized test scores. 2. S/he is perceived to have high intelligence. Intelligence was most highly described as giftedness or being smart or bright, and spoken of as if this were an inherent quality. 3. S/he is perceived to have dispositions and personality traits v alued by teachers. The most popular marker was sweetness. Other traits included friendliness, helpfulness, humor, and leadership qualities. 4. S/he is perceived to have behaviors desirable to teachers. These include raising hands, good manners, self monit oring, and a certain quality and frequency of participation in class. 5. When asked what kind of student a child was, teachers responded with general labels, such as Good Student, or Wonderful. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 1. Academic 2. Intelligence 3. Disposition

PAGE 115

115 6. The student is supported by strong family collaboration wit h the school. The family of the Successful Student is willing to share the responsibility for educating the child. 7. Other markers included: creativity, physical traits, ethnicity (non white), relational, metacognitive ability, and the expression of goal s and aspirations. Using the same data set I then created a representation for the cultural model of the Unsuccessful Student. This is represented in the Figure 4.2 below. Notice that for the Unsuccessful Student behavior is the most salient category holding at least 1/3 of all markers for this cultural model. It is also interesting to note that while constructs of intelligence are not even included in the Unsuccessful model of school identity, ranking performances against a students peers is i ncluded. Finally, it is important to distinguish between Criteria One and Four, as they may seem to be identical at first glance, and because they interrelate. Criterion One refers to the behaviors of children. When teachers talk about this aspect of sc hool identity, there is an implicit emphasis on the choice that children are making to perform these behaviors. Criterion Four refers to teachers definitions of the dispositions of children. When teachers describe this part of school identity, there is an implied meaning that these are aspects of Nature identities (Gee, 2000), or traits or attributes that are biological, or that children are predisposed to have. Figure 42. Educators cultural model of the Unsuccessful Student identity. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 1. Behavior 2. Academic 3. Class Rank 4. Family Role

PAGE 116

116 The Unsuccessful Student meets the following criteria in rank order: 1. S/he is perceived to have undesirable behaviors. The most common included behaviors such as: disengagement/lack of focus, lack of motivation, poor attitude, inappropriate behaviors that underm ined relationships with teachers and peers, and disruption. 2. S/he is perceived to possess a lack or low level of the necessary academic skills and performances valued by the school. These, by far, were named as reading fluency, decoding, and comprehension. Writing and math came next in importance. 3. S/he is perceived to be ranked in the lower range of academic performance as compared to the rest of the class in the areas of reading, math, and writing. 4. S/he is perceived to have dispositions and personality t raits not valued by teachers. These crossed over into ideas associated with behavior but included spacey, bossy, or withdrawn. 5. S/he may be perceived to have a disability of some kind. 6. Other markers might include weak family support, ethnicity (non w hite), and physical traits that impede school success. There were further implications from both tacit and explicit verbal expressions from teachers that differentiated the Successful from the Unsuccessful student. In particular, the Successful Stu dent required less teacher attention and was perceived as more independent. These qualities generated more teacher satisfaction with the teaching and learning relationship. Once I had defined the landscape of school identity, I then wanted to see how educators sorted each of Ms. Ss students. What emerged was a surprise. Only one student in the entire class carried markers that perfectly fit one of the two models. In this case this student exemplified the Successful Student. Most of the collection of markers positioned each student somewhere on a continuum between Successful and Not Successful. Samples from the dialogue about Abby captured from the past and

PAGE 117

117 current t eachers demonstrate how the majority of students were defined by a kind of hybridized school identity. The words in italics are the markers I extracted for purposes of building a taxonomy of school identity: (Shes) as sweet as can be but very, very low. Second to the lowest kid in the class (Shes a) fluent reader but has no comprehension Hear she passed the FCAT but should be tested (for special education). Shes eager to please well mannered but struggles in writing. Notice that although teachers identified Abby as one of the lowest kids in the class, this did not seal Abbys fate as an Unsuccessful Student. She was also seen to hold many qualities of the Successful Student, including behaviors and dispositions, as well as appropriate skills in some academic areas. In a story told about one of the male students in Ms. Ss classroom, a third grade teacher spoke about the tension teachers feel regarding students who linger between the two poles of successful and unsuccessful, a situation often implicitly presented as a childs personal choice. She summed up her tale about a summer school essay that the student wrote with these words: And now I wonderwhich way will he (decide to) go? How FourthGrade Students Define School Identities Once I had a picture of how educators constructed (and/or reproduced) the institutional identities of children, I wanted to compare this to how fourthgrade students defined school identities. From both individual and focus group interviews, I learned tha t students also have their own taxonomies for kinds of students in school. While students did not always name them in the same ways as teachers, different categories of students did follow fairly consistent patterns. In one focus group three girls iden tified

PAGE 118

118 labels to explain how they sorted one another in the classroom. These are listed in Appendix F, along with the markers they used for each school identity. Fourth graders will agree that the Patrol Student is an almost mirror image of the Good St udent, but they insist that there is a difference between the Bad Student and the Crazy Student. While their behaviors often look the same, the Crazy Student is strategic with his/her behaviors, conscious about when and where to break the rules, as explained by these two students: E: Yeah, the (Bad Student) doesnt think about the rules. C: Yeah, like in the hallway, say you were like one of the people who says, Walk. E: Yeah, they dont listen. Darby: So a Crazy Kid would, like, stop if I (a s a teacher) said to walk? E: Yeah, but the Crazy Kid, as soon as hes out of sight, would, like, start running again, like once you walk around the c orner they are starting to run. School identities are not necessarily fixed, either. For example, one s tudent described her identity this way: Im a patrol kind of kid, a good kid, and a partially crazy kid. It was important to this student to be seen as a patrol kind of kid and a good kid for her teachers but as a sometimes crazy kid for her peers and she explained how and why she balances these student identities. She knows when and where to be crazy and when and where to be good, and is able to articulate her identity as fluid and contextual. For example, she notes that she lets herself be crazy on the playground but always presents herself as a good student in the hallways. The Patrol Student Identity The Patrol Student identity became a common denominator between student definitions of the Good Student and teacher definitions of the Successful Student.

PAGE 119

119 For fourth graders, being a patrol versus not being a patrol was the most significant issue associated with school identity. Indeed, it is the very mark of being a fourth grader. Fourth graders are the oldest group at Yearl ing Elementary School because the local middle school serves grades five through eight. Being a patrol comes with many privileges, including access to trips, selling chocolate, and permission to direct peers and their behaviors. During observations of cl asses walking to lunch, it is easy to identify that a good three fourths of the students in the four fourth grade classes wear the signature orange patrol belt. In other words, not being a patrol student is very noticeable in the fourth grade. Students e xplain that there is a stringent application process that involves teacher and principal endorsement, forms, and deadlines. The criteria for becoming a patrol are well known and easily shared by all fourth graders I interviewed. These include being able to set a good example for peers, being a mentor for younger students, making good grades, having exemplary behavior, demonstrating helpfulness, and having the ability to articulate how you are a leader. Teachers and students share almost the same list of factors that would prevent membership with the patrols, which include a bossy disposition, or disruptive behavior in class. However, students will add that good grades are critical for membership, while teachers say that they often grant membership to stu dents with low grades in order to improve their morale and motivation. Fourth graders further explain that once one becomes a patrol, there are stratifications of rank within the group. They also explain that while the patrol student and the good stud ent are very similar, it is indeed possible to be a good student but not a patrol, although that is rare. It is also possible to be a bad student and still be

PAGE 120

120 chosen as a patrol by the teachers, which is a cause for confusion for the students. As a self defined good student told me, The thing that I dont get isI didnt make the patrols. But the weird thing is that Scarlett also got a white (denial) letter but she got a safety patrol belt! An Initial Composite of JJKs School Identity at the Be ginning of the Year Now that I had gained some understanding of how educators and students defined school identities, my next goal was to build a composite that captured the institutional identity of JJK as students in their first six weeks of their fourth grade year I used data gathered from their thirdgrade teachers, the fourth grade teaching team, the principal, and the interns and my observations regarding JJK during this period of time. I did not ask students to talk about specific students. I di d, however, gain some insights from JJK, themselves, regarding how they situated their identities as students in school. These insights will be presented later. I evaluated JJKs identity through the constellations of categories adults used to define school identity. First, I collected the markers and stories from the data that specifically addressed the question, What kinds of students are JJK? Appendix K lis ts the data sources I used to gather this information, how I approached analysis, and the resulting markers and stories used to define JJK as students in school. I then returned to the transcripts and observational notes in order to examine markers in con text so I could begin sorting them into cultural models associated with the Successful Student or the Unsuccessful Student. I further sorted the markers into the distinct categories associated with school identity to see if any of them carried more sal iency than others. In other words, I wanted to know if some of the categories weighed more than others in

PAGE 121

121 the minds of adults constructing JJKs identity. Table 4.2 below displays how the markers distributed across categories. Table 4 2 Categorical breakdown of markers of JJK s school identity at the beginning of fourth grade Category of School Identity School Successful 9/61 (15% of the Markers) Not School Successful 48/61 (79% of the Markers) Not Determined 3/61 (7% of the Markers) Behaviors 1 15 Dispositions 2 12 Academic Performance 5 7 Family Roles 1 7 Disability 0 3 Ranking Against Peers 0 2 Relationships 0 2 Physical Attributes 0 0 2 Ethnicity 0 0 1 Intelligence Out of the sixty one markers used to describe JJK at the beginning of their fourth grade career, the majority (78%) leaned toward the Unsuccessful Student end of the spectrum. By far the most markers (15) fell into the category of behavior, and almost every one listed was framed as undesirable in school. The emotional dispositions of these three students came a close second (12), and most of these were also considered liabilities for school success. The majority of constructions regarding JJKs identity fell into the Unsuccessful Student category. I con cluded that adult educators defined JJK, at the onset of their fourth grade year, as the kind of students who were not successful in school. While teachers defined each boy as a unique individual, they used three of the same markers for the three boys. Fi rst, all three of the boys were defined in terms of a low academic performance ranking against other children (if not labeled the lowest in the class).

PAGE 122

122 Second, all three were defined as using well developed avoidance behaviors. They were seen as distr acting to themselves and others by playing with objects during instruction, making too many trips to the bathroom or to get water, and making inappropriate noises in class to purposely disturb other students. Finally, JJK were treated and talked about as dependent learners. For example, during writing instruction these three boys (as well as two other students in the class) were directed to use the teachers example, while the rest of the class was encouraged to use their creative writing skills during instruction. This led to JJK copying teacher writing from the overhead projector for much of writing time. Markers of intelligence were never mentioned by teachers when defining JJKs institutional identities at the beginning of the school year. Howev er, it was not unusual for teachers to immediately describe other students as smart in comparison. JJK were identified as students who struggled academically, although two of them were seen as having at least one academic strength. Two were also noted for their willingness to answer questions by teachers, although they were known to offer frequently inaccurate responses. This demonstrated JJKs attempts to make bids as Successful Students, but the bids were not accepted or recognized by the teacher (Gee, 2000). As far as their dispositions were concerned, only JJKs past teachers offered glimpses into positive aspects of their personalities, and these were few. Most of the attributes associated with JJK were negative, and one of the three students was described as especially immature, withdrawn, and low in confidence. All three were either directly named, or implied to be lacking in motivation.

PAGE 123

123 When counting the frequency of different kinds of markers educators used to describe JJK as students, the role of their families was a salient part of their identity. While one of the three boys was marked as having a supportive family, another of the boys had a school identity so associated with a lack of family support that this was almost always the first marker used to describe him. Allusions to less than optimal family support for the third boy was emphasized in regard to his mother not being present in his life. His wellmeaning grandmother was his only stable family but she had to care for many other siblings, as well. This was implied as a kind of deficit and even associated with his ethnicity. As one educator said, You get that a lot from the African American community siblings every where. As mentioned, behavior was the category of JJKs sc hool identity educators emphasized the most, and most of their behaviors were said to pose challenges for teaching and learning in the classroom. These behaviors ranged from lying and cursing, picking on other children, and shutting down in resistance t o adult directives to read or complete an assignment. However, similar behaviors of each of the boys had different meanings to educators as they co constructed definitions of JJKs school identities. While all three boys presented behavioral challenges f or the teachers, two were spoken about as if these behaviors were unacceptable and problematic for school. For example, one teacher told another, Oh, you are going to have a problem with him! The third boys behavior, although emphasized the most as far as its scope and challenge, was never framed as anti school, but something that had to be understood first as a function of his disability and second as a function of what was perceived as his physical and emotional vulnerability. Whenever teachers in a group spoke of his

PAGE 124

124 behavior, their entire facial expressions would look concerned and their voice tones would shift to express sympathy, if not pity. Even I found my first impression of this student in my researchers notebook: I am worried about (thi s student)so quiet, so smallhe doesnt do his work. This student had a much wider range of unacceptable behaviors than the other two boys. However, in his case they were more tolerated by the teachers. As one teacher put it, Hes our little guy, as if he was, out of the entire class, the most in need of protection, patience, and understanding. I interpreted this little guy description as a perfect example of how teachers extended to this student a wide latitude of sympathy, a latitude influenced very much by his small, if not cute, frame and demeanor. My own notes from my researchers notebook revealed an early concern for two of the three boys as members of the classroom community: I keep worrying about (these boys). As usual, they just dont seem to be part of the group. Most everybody is sitting on the floor but (one) is sitting in his chair and hes covering his ears, not even looking at the book. (The other boy) joined the group later after it started, and sat on the floor in the back, apart from the rest of the group. The rest of the students are in a tight circle together and seem totally enthralled and engaged and (the intern) is reading it very enthusiastically. (One) is doing behaviors such as whistling, hitting his shoe repeatedl y, and parroting words spoken by the teachers from time to time. I just feel like these two guys dont f eel they are part of the group As educators at the beginning of the school year, we were clearly interpreting JJKs institutional identities as not school successful. In the next section I will attempt to infer how fourth graders might have defined JJK as students at the onset of their school year. FourthGrade Perspectives on JJKs School Identity To form a possible picture of how students in Ms. S s classroom might have positioned JJK as students, I went back to the adult generated data and looked at them

PAGE 125

1 25 through the lens of kinds of students in school that were constructed by children. I then applied the fourthgraders definitions to the marke rs generated by teachers about JJK. I found eight examples of markers specifically labeling JJK that fourth graders would likely define with their Bad Student model. These included talks too much in class, lies, picks on other children, and havin g a disability. None of the markers offered by teachers would fall into the fourth grade definition of the Good Student, although two of these three boys were patrols. Two markers might have best fit the student defined identity of the Crazy Student. While I cannot claim that the data show how their peers would define JJKs identities in school, the teacher defined behaviors of JJK mostly match student ideas associated with the Bad Student profile in school. This was important for me to know so that I could have some sense of how JJKs peers might name their school identities in light of the fact that school identity is assumed to be a co construction among all participants, including children. JJK held some of the same ideas about themselves that m ight have been contributing to the reproduction of their institutional identities at the beginning of their fourth grade year. For example, each expressed an aversion to reading or going to school, in general. One mentioned that his teachers last year th ought he had bad behavior, which, incidentally, was used to deny his application for being a patrol. This same student said, I am good in math but I always get bad grades. When I asked one of the boys if he was interested in coaching or teaching, he sa id, Im not smart enough to be a teacher. All three of them answered my questions about particular goals they had as students for the year, which helped me learn more about areas they wanted to improve. However, both teacher and JJK recognized strength s that led to school

PAGE 126

126 success. JJK noted some good dispositions they had as students, including helpfulness, the ability to follow directions, and specific academic areas in which they demonstrated strengths. One was lauded as a strong writer by both hi s third and fourth grade teachers. However, JJK did not present their school identities to me as important. Rather, they preferred to talk about themselves as athletes, hunters, and fishermen. One made many bids (Gee, 2000) during the first weeks of sch ool to be recognized as a drummer. These were the parts of their identities that they took the time to elaborate upon with stories. However, overall I was unable to get data that was clear on how JJK defined their school identities, and I felt strongly that this was due to their lack of trust in my role. For example, shortly after these initial interviews, the grandmother of one of these students called me because she was concerned that my interest in her grandson was tied to a plan to staff him into s pecial education. Later in our work together, JJK also expressed their initial confusion over my role in the classroom, and were not sure how to answer my questions at that time. A Second Composite of JJKs School Identity at MidYear As I had used the fi rst six weeks of teacher markers to form a composite of JJKs institutional identities at the beginning of the school year, I used the markers I collected from teachers during the last six weeks of the study to create a second composite of JJKs school ide ntity at mid year. These data, gathered from focus group interviews, field notes, and artifacts, were analyzed through the lens of this question that I frequently asked teachers during the last weeks of the study: If you had an opportunity to talk to th e fifth grade teachers (in the middle school) next year, what would you want them to know at this point about JJK? I used the same process as I did before by

PAGE 127

127 paying special attention to moments where educators used key words, phrases, or labels to describe each of the student participants, or how they defined the school performances of these students. When pulling together the second composite, fewer categories distilled from the coding process, and a brand new one arose. Only five categories emerged from the total of 136 markers that I had collected. These categories mirrored four of the ten major categories that teachers used to define kinds of students at the beginning of the school year. The rest of those categories did not even emerge in the secon d composite of JJKs school identity. Those that came up included, in rank order: academic skills/performance, behaviors, dispositions, and the role family played in their school identities. However, this time the categories were more interdependent in defining JJK, making them more difficult to tease apart for analysis but lending a much richer, more synthesized picture of how educators defined them. For example, any mention of poor academic performance was tightly tied to JJKs behaviors and dispositi ons, such as things they did in class to avoid work, as well as their lack of motivation. The new category that emerged was the fourth most robust category of identity, holding a total of fourteen markers. This category helped describe how educators re sponded to JJKs needs as students. This was an important shift. I came to interpret this to mean that when teachers defined what kinds of students these three boys were by the middle of the school year, they were no longer able to separate how they perceived these students from their roles and responsibilities as teachers. For example, in talking about one students shy disposition, teachers immediately emphasized their perceived responsibility in showing him patience. As another example, when on e

PAGE 128

128 teacher spoke of one of the boys improved compliance with teacher directives, she said it compelled her to just want to help him. Table 4.3 below displays the five categories of school identity distilled from the data. As before, I had to sort the markers collected during the last six weeks according to how they were used to define JJKs school identity as successful, or not successful. The markers split in half almost exactly, with nearly 50% marking school success and nearly 50% marking scho ol failure. The categories of disposition, behavior, and academic performance all held near equal numbers of markers, while the role of the family or home, as well as the teacher responses to these students held much fewer. Behavior had a total of thirt yeight markers, 66% of which were considered not school successful, and 34% which were seen to contribute to JJKs school success. Dispositions held thirty six markers in which 50% described school failure and 50% were assigned to school success. Only four markers brought family into the picture of school identity, and none of these were considered assets. There were fourteen markers that indicated how teachers responded to JJKs school identity through the interpretation of their roles and responsibil ities. Nine (64%) were responses to aspects of student failure and five (36%) were responses to aspects of JJK that were associated with school success. Finally, academic performance became the most robust category of JJKs school identity. This was sig nificant to me because this category is the most salient in defining the Successful Student cultural model, depicted earlier in Figure 4.1. Further, academic performance was the only category in which JJKs identity was aligned more with school success than with school failure, and this alignment with school success was dramatic. While sixteen of the markers (32%) in the

PAGE 129

129 category of academic performance defined these students as not successful in school, twenty eight (68%) of them were associated with school success. Finally, unlike the first composite of JJKs school identity, there is absolutely no mention in the second composite of JJKs low ranking against their peers. Table 4 3 Categorical breakdown of markers of JJKS school identity by the middle of fourth grade Category of school identity School successful 64/136 47% of the markers Not school successful 72/136 53% of the markers Behaviors (38 total markers) 13 25 Dispositions (36 total markers) 18 18 Academic Performance (41 total markers) 28 16 Family Roles (4 total markers) 0 4 New Category: Roles and Responsibilities of Teachers (14 total markers) 5 9 Ranking Against Peers (no markers) Relationships (no markers) Physical Attributes (no markers) Ethnicity (no markers) Intelligence (no markers) Comparing the First and Second Composites of JJKs School Identity Now that I had two composites of JJKs school identities as defined by the adult educators at Yearling Elementary, it was possible for me to compare how their institutional identities had changed over time. These are depicted in Figures 4.3 and 4.4 below. Please note that Figure 4.3, representing the first composite, does not

PAGE 130

130 express all ten categories of school identity assigned to JJK at the beginning of the year. I included only the most robust categories, which at that time included their behaviors, dispositions, academics, and the role of their families. Several important shifts in JJKs school identities are notable when comparing the two composites represented above. As mentioned earlier, the second composite includes a new category, which is labeled Teacher Role/Responsibilities in Figure 4.4. F igure 43. How educators defined JJKs school identities at the beginning of the school year. This category may indicate that over time formal identities of students in schools become increasingly tied to the ways teachers respond to them as relationships begin to form, lending support to the theory of identity as being socially constructed. What is most salient, however, when comparing the two composites is the portion of each category assigned to school success, and to nonsuccess. When evaluating

PAGE 131

131 markers of behavior, dispositions, and academics, their proportions become increasingly more associated with school success than they were at the beginning of the year. Finally, it is clear that by mid year the academic performances of JJK in Figure 44. How educators defined JJKs school identities by midyear. association with school success fully outweigh performances associated with school failure. Conclusion In this chapter I presented the general cultural models that define the formal identiti es of fourth graders at Yearling Elementary. First, I explored general categories that educators used to define students. From this analysis I determined that markers of school identity tend to fall into two major domains, perhaps more easily thought of as two ends of a continuum. On one end is the collection of markers that define the

PAGE 132

132 Successful Student, while on the other side is the collection of markers defining the Unsuccessful Student. In the cultural model of the Successful Student, the cat egory of academic performance holds the most power. For the Unsuccessful Student, the category of student behavior becomes the most important factor in defining this archetype. Fourth grade students share cultural models for kinds of students in school. In the case of the Patrol Student, they roughly match teacher definitions of the Successful Student. Fourth graders also have an archetype for the Good Student, which has much overlap with the definition of the Patrol Student. Their model of the Bad Student also closely parallels the adult definition of the Unsuccessful Student. However, unlike teachers, preadolescents name a blended identity of the Crazy Student, whose first agenda in school is to have fun, and who is strategic enough to avoid being formally identified as a Bad Student. I then presented a composite of JJKs combined, formal school identity as educators defined it at the beginning of their fourth grade school year. This early composite was mostly one that would fit t he Unsuccessful Student model whereby their behaviors were the most predominant category. When using this model to reflect on perspectives from fourth graders on school identity, including those from JJK, one can infer that the students in Ms. Ss class room may have agreed that JJK were mostly Unsuccessful Students at that time. Following this discussion I then presented a second composite of JJKs formal school identity, as defined by the educators working most closely with them on the fourth grade team at the midpoint of the school year. This second composite revealed

PAGE 133

133 a change, demonstrating a significant shift in the direction of the school successful cultural model. In this shift their positive changes in academic performance became the most pr ominent category explaining their new school identities. In addition, a new category emerged, which may suggest that as teachers develop close relationships with their students, they find it increasingly more difficult to separate the school identities an d performances of children from their own roles and responsibilities as teachers. In the next chapter I will explain how the shift towards school success may have happened.

PAGE 134

134 CHAPTER 5 EXPLAINING THE CHANG ES IN JJKS SCHOOL IDENTITIES AND PERFORMANCES OVER TI ME As discussed in the previous chapter, there is evidence that JJKs situated identities and academic performances shifted over the course of the first half of their fourth grade year. This shift moved them closer on th e continuum to the formal identity of good student reproduced in schools. The purpose of this chapter is to document the process of this change. I will present the findings that capture the work of our community of practice (COP), and how it may explain the shift in JJKs situated identities over time, and specifically how these were expressed through their evolving discourse identities (Gee, 2000). By making the case that JJKs discourse identities expanded to include a sense of being a teacher leader, I hope to explain and validate the findings from the previous chapter. This chapter is organized into three parts, each representing a different layer of analysis of over three hundred recorded discourse moves made by members of our COP during the fa ll of 2008 (see samples in Appendix H). Again, moves were identified by the interns, other teachers, and me during the data collection period. These were defined as our six COP members verbal and nonverbal behaviors, as well as our symbolic use of time, space, and objects that moved the unique path, definition, and outcomes of our work. The moves recorded were interdependent and critical for understanding how JJK redesigned their membership and positionality in the classroom. However, we marked important moves as those that directly expressed JJKs ever changing school performance and situated identities as a result of their membership and participation in our COP. I recorded moves that involved special language being used by COP members, how parti cipants positioned themselves in relation to the

PAGE 135

135 others, as well as any moves that were evidence of JJK enacting discourse identities that challenged their institutional identities as mostly unsuccessful students. Examining these three layers of our mov es is important because it contextualizes JJKs shift in identities over time in relation to the activities and relationships forged within our COP, and in relation to the facilitation of our collaborative work through my PDS role as the interns superviso r. In the first layer of analysis I looked at the entire chronology of recorded moves made by the six members of our COP that occurred during nine critical junctures, or the happenings, that marked our work as a COP as different from the normal activities of the classroom. These critical junctures included the times we carved out together during the school day that defined us as a distinct, although permeable group working together toward common goals, and transcended the boundaries of traditional relati onships between interns and their students, and supervisors and their interns. These junctures mainly included the formal and informal observations of the interns, as well as special meetings and conversations the six of us had together. In the second lay er of analysis, I extracted all of the moves made by JJK in order to describe how their discourse identities expanded over time to include that of being teacher leaders. Finally, I interpreted the motives behind the moves I made as a PDS university part ner to articulate my stance and operationalize the strategies I used in order to directly influence equity and student performance in the classroom. Layer 1: The Story of our COP through Nine Critical Junctures The work of our COP was marked by nine criti cal junctures, or important events that created bridges for JJK to cross from older to newer enactments of school identity. Most of these junctures occurred within highly structured times and defined spaces.

PAGE 136

136 However, their meanings were further shaped an d directed by ongoing conversations among the six of us that traversed the period of the study via impromptu talks in the cafeteria, on the playground, during lunch and planning times with other teachers, in seminars with other interns, and email interacti ons. Together the critical junctures, much like chapters, work together to tell the story of our COP and to help explain the process of identity change that JJK experienced. While more than half of these experiences were planned in advance, what could nev er be entirely planned was how each one would play out in relation to the complex set of aims we had embedded in our work together. Our COP shared many important experiences during the four month period of this study. It can certainly be argued that all of the experiences we shared were critical in the evolution of our COP and in shaping JJKs identity over time. However, only nine fit the criteria for being critical junctures in these ongoing processes. The word juncture is important as it implies a poi nt of connection. In this case, the criteria for determining whether an event was a critical juncture, or not, came down to the data. To qualify as a critical juncture, the event had to have been collected as data that were able to capture evidence of JJ K enacting their identities in slightly newer ways than had been previously documented during this study. The nine critical junctures are listed below. Following this list I will discuss how each juncture shaped our story as a COP. 1. Initial interviews wit h JJK and other student candidates (late Aug. early Sept.) 2. Selection of JJK as members of the COP and setting the stage (midSept.) 3. First formal teaching observation (late Sept.) 4. First informal teaching observation (early Oct.) 5. Second informal teaching obs ervation (late Oct.) 6. Second formal teaching observation (early Nov.) 7. Last formal teaching observation (late Nov.)

PAGE 137

137 8. Last COP conversation (early Dec.) 9. Last focus group interview with JJK (midDec.) Critical Juncture #1: Initial Interviews with JJK and other Student Candidates The first significant event in the forming of our COP was a series of initial conversations I had with each of the three boys while I was interviewing student candidates for the COP. These first conversations were guided by interview questions that helped me form an initial picture of how each defined himself as a student in school and how close he came to his own cultural model of the good student. This model was exemplified by most of the students interviewed by the patrol student archetype, as defin ed in the previous chapter. As one of the three boys said, They (Teachers) said they seen my behavior through the year and they said likeThat they didnt pick me (for patrols) because of my behavior... The interview also helped me gauge each students response to the idea of being positioned as a potential expert collaborator to help the interns and me improve our practices as educators. I did this by introducing my opinion that students should be included in the process of teacher learning, and then b y asking each student to reflect on the lesson the interns had taught that day. In all three cases JJK provided neither the body language nor the words to indicate that they believed they could play an important role in teacher learning. They also did not provide specific feedback or reflection on their interns teaching that day, even though I asked for it. I guessed that they did not yet have the language or schema available to organize and then articulate the kind of thinking necessary to reposition th emselves as advice givers to teachers. Regardless, these interviews offered an opportunity to explicitly present my personal agenda for the work I wanted to accomplish as a university supervisor. They also provided me with

PAGE 138

138 important bits of information about JJKs interests, goals, and beliefs that I would follow up on later as I worked to cultivate with them a conversation about teacher learning. Critical Juncture #2: Selection of JJK as Members of the COP The third and fourth grade teaching teams, w ith the help of the interns, helped me review the eight candidates we were considering for the job of co supervising the interns. We ended up choosing J, J, and K as the three student participants, although several of the teachers collectively expressed t heir worries that they had not selected at least one girl. In general, J, J, and K came up repeatedly when we brainstormed about which students struggled the most in class, and the teachers expressed that they felt that these boys would most benefit from the attention they believed they would receive from my work with them. I then explained to all eight student candidates that JJK had been chosen as teaching coaches and researchers for the interns and me. I shared that the criteria for selecting the th ree students was based on how well the teachers and I felt each student would be able to contribute to the learning and improvement of all of us as teachers, as well as who we felt would be able to handle being students, teaching coaches, and researchers at the same time. I explained further that the remaining five students would still be called upon as consultants during the course of the inquiry. JJK, the interns, and I met together briefly. I explained that the six of us were going to be working closel y together over the next three months in order to research better ways to practice teaching and learning. I also said that we would tie this work directly to the regular work that I had to do in order to help the interns graduate from college with their t eaching degrees. JJK would be asked to directly support my work as the interns supervisor, which meant that they would help me during observations of the interns lessons. Finally, I explained that I was also looking for their direct support and

PAGE 139

139 help in my becoming a better teacher educator for the interns. I invited the interns and JJK to begin thinking about how these goals could be accomplished, and on what we should focus our learning and research as a group. Critical Juncture #3: First Formal Teach ing Observation In the first formal observation I initiated most of the moves that were recorded. However, several key moves were initiated by the interns and by JJK in ways that indicated their willingness to take ownership of our work together. Prior to the lesson, JJK and I talked through what my goals were for this first observation. I reminded them that while my first goal was to observe the interns teaching, I also wanted to use the observation to conduct my own inquiry, or research into how JJ K could help me be a better teacher educator and coach for the interns. While I said that I was not sure how this would unfold, I did say that I knew I was going to try to help JJK begin to develop their eyes and ears as teaching coaches and researchers To do this they did not need to plan anything. They simply needed to play the part of student and I would ask them questions about their experiences along the way. The interns then shared their expectations and needs during the observation so that t hey could remain as comfortable and focused as possible. This included their desire that we not talk while they engaged in whole group instruction. They also decided where they wanted us to sit in the room, which involved reassigning seats for other students. I then shared one of our first tools that would, from that point forward, define our work together as different from the work of other students in the classroom. This was my data collection instrument, the Pathwise observation form, which was used to collect evidence of prospective teachers effectively planning, implementing, and reflecting upon their instruction. I explained that as the interns teaching coach I used

PAGE 140

140 the form to capture examples of the teachers doing good teaching in ten differ ent categories, as well as to write down suggestions for improvement. I explained that we could call the notes I wrote down data for our research into better teaching, words I consciously included in our developing discourse together as a COP. I also poi nted out that the interns would be taking mental notes as data, as well, as they were learning to become classroom teachers and researchers at the same time. I reminded the group that just the week before, we had read a story in class about a scientist. That story had the word data in the text, and one of the students in the class had said at that time that (D)ata is the facts and lets you prove it. From this point on in our COP, JJK never appropriated the word data into their conversations with us but did consistently use the word facts as their own term for this. Finally, I explained to JJK and the interns that during observations I was careful to try to be conscious of, and then note, any felt difficulties (Dana & Yendol Hoppey, 2009), or feel ings of discomfort I had during the lesson. I explained that they would potentially be useful data for our COP to focus on together in our work to improve teaching and learning in the classroom. During the lesson I wanted to locate a moment whereby the supervision process could provide an opportunity for JJK to practice becoming aware of the reasons behind the choices teachers made, as well as their own responses as learners to these choices. This would help introduce the kind of thinking I had to do as a field supervisor for teachers. Soon after the teacher led lesson began, I noticed that two of the three boys maintained eye contact with the interns, who were reviewing a book of littleknown personal facts about U.S. presidents. But one of them conti nued to flip his pencil, tilt his chair back, drum on the desk, and keep his body facing away from the teachers. He

PAGE 141

141 was the only student in the room exhibiting this kind of body language. I sensed the interns discomfort with his behavior, especially as this was a formal observation. They first desperately tried to make eye contact with him, followed by an attempt to use proximity control to change his behavior. Neither strategy influenced a change in his body language. And then I realized something: Whether he was listening or not did not matter What mattered was that the adults in the room those who had power over how this students institutional identity would be defined did not believe he was listening. This was the opportunity I was looking fo r. It was my felt difficulty. I had three intentions in that pivotal moment. First, I was searching for the right time to begin including JJK in the supervision conversation. Second, I wanted the student who appeared off task to become aware of his teachers, what they were doing, and why they were doing it. Finally, I hoped that these first two goals would influence a change in his behavior. The trick was to figure out how to accomplish all of these goals with one act. I had to make a move. I deci ded to pose a question for JJK that anchored all of my goals together. On an index card (see Figure 5.1 below) I wrote the first question of many more to follow over the course of the semester: J Why do you think Ms. B. is re reading the book? He wrote back immediately: So we could rebablishing (reestablish) it back into our mind dont you get it(?) Figure 51. Sample written dialogue between Darby and JJK.

PAGE 142

142 Why was this question the one I chose for us to think about in that moment? In my jour nal I commented that, it is so hard to pull these reasons apart they feel like one big feeling in me. After analyzing my own moves through the course of the study, this moment captured the four major motives behind my work with the COP, which are discussed later again in this chapter. First, I was assuming that J was not listening to his teachers, although later when he completed the assessment, I had been quite wrong about this. I wanted to give him a chance to think for a moment about where he wa s, what was going on, and why. I wanted to break what I assumed was his distraction and get him to refocus on the task at hand so that he could engage with the content and perform well on his assessment later. In other words, I wanted to influence his ac ademic performance during the lesson. Second, I wanted him to be perceived as a good student by everyone else in the room. For this to happen, he needed to at least adjust his body language. Indeed, when he finished responding to me on the card he tur ned his body forward, although he never did give the interns eye contact. Next, I wanted to shift the assumptions behind traditional student teacher discourse from one that focused on student performance to one that put the learning of the teachers at the center. Thus I was initiating the beginnings of a collegial dialogue of supervision that would help JJK build and then focus their lenses as teacher educators. For the rest of the lesson all three boys began writing to me and, to my delight, to one anot her. On our little cards we not only argued over which president could not read, we discussed how we thought the interns were trying to make the lesson interesting, who seemed bored in the class, as well as ideas for the interns so that they could get mor e students to visibly participate in future lessons. This was evidence of the motive for the fourth kind of move

PAGE 143

143 I made as a supervisor: I wanted to position JJK as both a source of data for teacher learning, as well as to help them develop their skills a nd dispositions as data collectors. Next, I wanted to influence our written conversation in a way that positioned them as my partners in the supervision process. Asking questions (as the adult teacher) for them to answer (as the child student) was the normal discourse practice in the cl assroom. I decided to participate in this familiar discourse pattern but begin using words in a way that positioned JJK as experts. I did this by inserting the word engaging in my question: How could this part be more engaging, or interesting, for kids? None of the boys responded, except with shrugs of their shoulders and perplexed looks on their faces. I moved to scaffold their understanding of my question by writing an answer to my own question, which they read: I had an idea: Maybe give facts to each group then each group does the teaching. What do you all think? Once I wrote this they began grabbing index cards and simultaneously writing their ideas and trading them back and forth to read. These pivotal moves struck me in that JJK were not only reading and using a new social language (Gee, 2002), they had to carefully consider their responses and then apply their skills in writing for an authentic audience and purpose. Both of these moves required complex intellectual and academic skills. A fter this point, JJK had entered a special conversation, or discourse with us as educators. For the moment, however, their ideas generated during the lesson were shared with the interns, who decided that they wanted to put parts of them into practice the very next day. JJK saw that not only were their ideas heard but were actually considered good enough to change the way teaching would occur in the classroom from that point on.

PAGE 144

144 Other important moves made during this critical juncture occurred during the a ssessment portion of the lesson. The class was asked to write a letter to a president of his/her choice. One of the boys got straight to the task. One complained to me that he did not want to write but then got to work with the help of a teacher serving as a scribe. The third boy wrote the salutation portion of his letter but then spent seven minutes doing everything but writing. He went to the bathroom, got a drink of water, and sharpened two pencils. Neither the teacher nor the interns intervened. A fter talking his dilemma through with him, I found that he had only needed his ideas to be validated and to verbally rehearse his letter. He began this process by making a personal connection with this presidents middle name. This was an important piece of observational data that I included in my notes for the interns, who by this time in the school year had appropriated the fourth grade teams definition of this student as a motivation problem. In our post conference following the observation, I explained that this student was not only able to persevere in completing the assignment. He was also able to show strong evidence of meeting the learning goals once he had access to a quick verbal rehearsal with a teacher. In this same post observation discuss ion, the interns helped me pinpoint four pieces of evidence that suggested how the work of our COP was not only opening up new possibilities for JJKs school identities but that it was positively impacting the teaching and learning occurring in the classroom, as a whole. First, one of our three boys had raised his hand to contribute to the whole group discussion for the first time this year. Second, this same student created a written artifact for the first time. Third, having one of the boys move back t o the table with me allowed another student to take

PAGE 145

145 his place in the front of the room, helping her not disappear from the interns awareness during instruction. Finally, my willingness to participate as a supporting educator freed the interns up so that they could get around to assessing the writing of other students who normally did not get such one on one attention. In that sense the interns felt the ongoing work of our COP was contributing to making achievement more accessible, and therefore more eq uitable, for the entire class. Critical Juncture #4: First Informal Teaching Observation In this math lesson JJK and I sat together, again, with no plan except for the boys to play the role of students and allow me to ask them questions. I did not have the extra responsibility of formally collecting data using the Pathwise observation instrument, so I had to identify my own anchor for a conversation about the teaching and learning occurring in the classroom. As the lesson progressed I felt tightness in my abdomen, and I knew that my felt difficulty had arrived. I wrote my feelings down: I am concerned about this traditional format how many students who want to respond are not getting to? And how many students can get away with checking out of the lesson altogether and not be held accountable? In these wonderings I actually had two felt difficulties that I wanted to bring to articulation so the six of us could use them as data for learning: First, I wanted the interns to incorporate more ongoi ng assessment within their lessons, rather than depend solely on the end of the week math test, or even an end of the lesson worksheet to gauge learning. Second, I had observed enough thus far in the semester to see that the interns were caught in a rigid, repetitive question and answer pattern that they were observing from their mentor teachers. In this pattern the teacher poses the question, students raise their hands, the teacher selects one student to answer the question, and then the cycle starts again. While most

PAGE 146

146 of the students were following the expected pattern, Mark, another student in the class, continued to disrupt the pattern. Soon J, one of our own COP members, began to disrupt the pattern, as well. Both were calling out and receiving fr equent verbal reminders to (P)lease raise your hand. Mark also had a behavior card on his desk marked by the mentor teacher each time. I wanted to figure out a way to help the interns become aware of this repetitive question answering pattern and how it might be frustrating for some learners. I wanted to challenge the interns to expand their repertoire of classroom discourse in ways that would allow more students to engage in academic conversation. Finally, I wondered if there was a way that these two i ssues could be taken care of with one new practice. I also wondered if JJK could help me with my felt difficulties, especially because one of them was struggling to negotiate his desire to participate in class within the limited social norms available. I decided to first get JJK to focus on the aspect of ongoing teacher assessment, which, as a supervisor, I try to assume is the purpose for teachers asking students questions. I wrote on our first index card of the day: What ways are the teachers finding out what we know? None of the boys seemed to understand the question, so I wrote on: Are they giving us a test? Are they asking us to write a paragraph? One of the boys wrote back: Theyre asking us questions. They are kind of testing us on what we know. I then wrote, What could they do so that all students can answer at least one question? One of the boys wrote back, (They could) say you shout it all I then wrote, What about a quieter way? A way they can know each persons answer in ca se they cant hear everyone? One of the boys spoke, We could write it! I then suggested that in order to do this, we could give everyone a sheet of paper on which to

PAGE 147

147 write and then hold up their responses: (Y)ou all write the answer and hold it up like shouting it out but quieter. One of the boys wrote back, Sure so we could do it starting right this minute. Another wrote, You (know) it would be easier for Mark. Next, I had to figure out how to turn these ideas into action. At the end of the lesson the classroom teacher and the interns said I could have a minute to process our thinking out loud. First, I clarified my role with the class again, as well as how JJK were part of the interns coaching team. I then shared my felt difficulty with the class, I was worrying during math that everyone wasnt getting a chance to answer a question, and JJK and I wanted to figure out a way to help the interns gather information on more peoples thinking during the lesson, rather than just waiting fo r the test on Friday. I then explained that, JJK came up with an idea. The interns could ask a question and have each person write his or her answer and hold it up. What do you all think about this idea? The class showed great enthusiasm, and the interns then asked the class, Can we try this tomorrow? The class showed agreement. Before I left that day I wrote thank you notes to JJK. In the notes I asked each of them to remind the interns of their new strategy tomorrow. This was the first respons ibility for coaching that I gave JJK that was independent of me. Later at lunch that day JJK, the interns, and I talked about this new idea. One of the boys said he hoped it would help Mark experience more success during the lesson. The interns and I ta lked about how we hoped so, too, especially as he really wanted to participate and it would give him a chance to do so without getting into trouble. Critical Juncture #5: Second Informal Teaching Observation For this observation JJK and the interns expres sed excitement about putting their new idea into action. That morning the interns had emailed me to share the good news:

PAGE 148

148 JJK had indeed reminded them to incorporate their idea into todays lesson. However, during the lesson I noticed that there had been a change in how it was implemented. Rather than seeing all students holding up their written responses after the teachers asked a question, I witnessed small groups of four deliberating over a single response and writing it down. Each group was assigned a card holder for one person to display the answer, as well as a speaker role to explain the groups response. I asked JJK on an index card: Why are they asking a whole group to predict the answer, rather than letting everyone at one time? One of them answered in writing, Now they can ask every group a question. Another wrote, It would be harder for the teachers to see a bunch of cards up in the air. The third wrote, Just in case (someone) doesnt know the answer. JJK were thinking of the teac hing value of supporting and assessing group problem solving, how to make assessment more manageable for the interns by looking at fewer responses at once, as well as how to support individuals who might struggle to respond without peer support. K told me orally that JJK and the interns had come up with this new plan before I had come in. JJK then told me to watch how the new strategy worked during the lesson when they played their roles as students. At the end of the lesson I wrote to JJK: (P)lease be ready to tell the teachers why their math lesson is better for everyones learning now! What have they improved? I reminded them orally that during the last lesson the interns were calling on only one person at a time. I then wrote, Why is this bett er for kids and teachers? One of the boys wrote back, There are more people answering now. Another wrote, Its funner because everyone gets to think of their own answer and write it on a piece of paper and they get to hold it up better because befo re they were just calling on

PAGE 149

149 (individual) people. At the middle point of the lesson the interns invited JJK to publicly share their feedback on how the new strategy worked to increase participation and assessment, and to explain these reasons to the clas s, which they did. The interns built on this moment and shared their new felt difficulty with the class, which was that they still could not see the responses on the cards very well. While they said that participation was visibly improved through stude nt conversation, their ability to assess more students thinking was still impaired. I told the interns that JJK and I would work on this problem as the lesson continued. JJK brainstormed on the index cards some ideas, which included: We co uld use a highlighter or a pen. Use a big pencil. You know th e kind you can change the size. Cra yon. Or a white board with erasers and markers. The interns were passing by at this time and said that the whiteboards were the perfect idea, one that they learned in college but had not yet thought of how or when to put into practice. They gave the four of us a high five. We continued with finishing the assignment. Critical Juncture #6: Second Formal Teaching Observation Several days before the next formal observation, I wrote a note to the interns and to JJK: On Friday Ill be here to watch Ms. E and Ms. B teach a lesson. Could the five of you come up with one thing you want JJK and me to watch for? Thanks, guys. I cant wait to work with you all again we make an awesome team for teacher learning! The interns emailed me later that day and said they shared with JJK their latest felt difficulty. The interns had explained to JJK that when they teach they get so caugh t up in the content of their lesson that they forget to pay attention to who is participating and

PAGE 150

150 who is not. They often called only on students with their hands raised, forgetting the more invisible students, as well as the ones who were checking out and not listening. They were now ready to assess more individual thinking during discussions but were having trouble getting all students to engage in discussion. The interns invited JJK to attend the preobservation conference so that they could share w ith them a data collection tool they had created. They wanted JJK to consider using it during the observation. One of the boys got a list of half of the class, while the other two boys got a list with the other half of the class. They would be using the lists to observe two parallel groups during a science lesson about conserving natural resources. One of the boys would handle one group, and the other two boys would team up to collect data on the second group. After explaining the learning goals of the lesson and the sequence of activities, the interns then explained that during the parallel group portion of the lesson that they wanted JJK to record every instance where students were participating. I shared that in collecting these data that JJK w ould be acting like researchers, but as researchers we needed to define exactly what was meant by participation. What would count and what would not? The interns then explained that their definition of participation was a conversational exchange between a student and the teacher, or a student and another student, which related to specific topic of the lesson. This meant that JJK not only had to record conversation exchanges, they had to be able to discern the relevance of each students contribution to the conversation. JJK and the interns practiced coming up with examples and non examples of relevant conversation topics. In this way the interns were also giving JJK, as students, an advance organizer for the content being taught that day.

PAGE 151

151 While o bserving their groups, JJK would keep this guiding question in their minds: Who is participating in this moment? They would then mark a tally next to the name of each person who was participating. At this point one of the boys asked if he could record times when he noticed nonparticipation. JJK then talked through using different symbols for participation and nonparticipation. The interns and I agreed that writing down instances of nonparticipation would be another valuable focus for colle cting data. We talked about the difficulty in collecting both at the same time, especially as the boys would also be responsible for their full participation in the lesson as students. We realized that we would need to make a decision as to whether to co llect data that demonstrated participation or non participation. Once we talked through all the various ways non participation might look and sound, we realized that it was a lot easier to record instances of oral participation, and that these data would still give us a lot of valuable information. Finally, the interns and JJK considered my question: What if your data collection instruments cause too much distraction for the other students? JJK independently came up with the idea of presenting t he instrument to the class and explaining its purpose. The interns supported this decision and asked JJK to rehearse their presentation for us, which they did. When the class actually entered the room and got seated, JJK opened the lesson by presenting t he lessons main learning goals, which surprised us in that it had not been part of their rehearsal. Then they explained their role in collecting data on participation. One of them held up the chart for the class and explained that every person who par ticipated would get a tally. The other two traveled from table to table to show their classmates the chart. Another boy explained the

PAGE 152

152 definition of participation to the class this way: Giving ideas, saying things out loud to help the group, and askin g questions. During the background reading portion of the lesson, one of the boys left the room and stayed gone for quite a while. This was unfortunate to me as he was assigned to be the peer support reader for the student the interns had identified as the most struggling reader in our group, comprised of JJK and me. However, the other two continued with the reading of the passage. When the third boy came back the other two caught him up with the content. Then the most struggling reader suggested t o his assigned peer support reader that he circle key words in the passage to enhance his comprehension as he read. He explained that this would help him find important ideas in the passage quickly when he needed to refer back to them. This strategy was not shared by any teachers that day but was independently suggested by this student to support his friends success in the lesson. One of the interns whispered in my ear, You see? He is becoming a teacher leader. This was the first time the term tea cher leader had entered our COP conversation. After this observation one of the interns emailed me and continued sharing her joy about this student, (Y)ou do realize that ____ is not only speaking in class to his peers now but he is standing up at the front of the whole room doing public speaking! During the parallel group portion of the lesson, JJK carried their observational sheets with them to document peer participation, as well as their learning sheet to record their ideas as students during the group activities. They handled their double duties as students and researchers with no problem, only needing me to scribe for them on occasion in order to quickly record their thoughts (regarding the lesson) without

PAGE 153

153 falling behind. One of the boys said he wanted to be sure to be able to check him self off at least once for participating that day. When the lesson was over, I asked JJK to examine their data together. I asked them to choose and write down one important thing they wanted the interns and me to gain from these data, especially as they were not going to be able to attend the post conference. Two other students in the classroom asked if they could participate in analyzing the data, as well. JJK led their peers in examining the patterns of tallies and they discussed what they noticed. As the class left for their next class, each boy wrote their final conclusions on their data sheet without any assistance from me. Below are excerpts from the data collection sheets each boy used during this portion of the lesson. It also includes the final written conclusions JJK drew from the data after leading their small group in an analysis of their findings (Figure 5.2, 5.3, and 5.4): Figure 52. (Boy 1) Data collection and analysis of student partici pation during parallel groups: I think that they should have each answered more questions. I think G______ was just sleepy.

PAGE 154

154 Figure 53. (Boy 2). Data collection and analysis of student partici pation during parallel groups: I noticed everybody was participatingBecause we told them about the sheet. Figure 54. (Boy 3). Data collection and analysis of student participation during parallel groups: M__ participated more than anyone. In the group he answered every question that Ms. E said. But A___ really needs to answer more questions.

PAGE 155

155 One of the boys wrote under his data set: I noticed everybody (in my group) was participating. I read this and asked him why he thought this might have happened. He answered, Because we told them about th e sheet. I asked him to write down this idea for the interns to consider. He was theorizing that the act of publicly sharing the data collection plan with the class had led students to increase the desired behaviors. The next boy who shared responsibil ity for observing student participation in this same group went further in his final written analysis by pointing out individual cases: Mark participated more than anyone in the group. He answered every question Ms. E said. But Allie really needs to an swer more questions. In the post observation conference I shared JJKs data and conclusions with the interns. The interns especially valued JJKs observations of Mark and Allie. They congratulated themselves for setting up the discussion in a way that m et Marks need for participation in a more engaging and appropriate way. They then agreed that we needed to figure out a way to gain more access to Allies thinking during lessons. The interns then continued sharing their excitement about their observati ons of the so called most struggling reader that they had planned to accommodate with a peer support reader, who had left the room. This most struggling reader, in that moment, had become a teacher leader, an identity assigned to JJK from this point forward. They also shared their excitement that this same student was motivated by the data collection instrument, itself. It had allowed him to set a goal to verbally contribute to the discussion topic at least once, which was atypical of his normal cl assroom behavior. After collecting all of the post conference data that included the interns reflections and

PAGE 156

156 analysis of assessment data, I completed the official Observation Summary. In this summary document I also included a discussion on the data pro vided by JJK. Critical Juncture #7: Third Formal Teaching Observation In this final formal observation JJK and I observed the interns facilitating a math lesson in which they incorporated the boys idea of using whiteboards and markers to display individual responses during the lesson. This time JJK had asked to be able to collect data on the Pathwise observation instrument with me, so we first needed to determine what kind of observational data they could help me gather. First, during the pre observation interview, the interns explained their lesson sequence and their reas oning behind each step. Then I reviewed the Pathwise instrument, pointing out the boxes I had to fill in with different kinds of evidence. I stressed that I needed to capture strong evidence on the interns ability to promote equity and fairness, to faci litate positive classroom behavior, and to provide students with clear instructions and procedures, as these were goal areas the interns wanted to show improvement in at this point in their professional development. The boys agreed to help me with these t hree domains. I explained that the interns had to pass this observation in order to graduate with their degree, so that all six of us needed to sign the final summary, if all were willing. We then reviewed the language on the Pathwise instrument assoc iated with each of the three domains we were focusing on. I stressed that our goal was to try to find as many examples of good teaching for each domain as we possibly could. We talked about key concepts, such as fairness I helped explain how I might s ee fairness: Fairness here might mean how many kids are getting to participate how many kids are getting more of a chance to really practice during the lesson. You are trying to

PAGE 157

157 capture data on the teachers being good. You will do that by listing al l the ways you can catch them making their teaching, the materials, and the learning fair for all of the different learners in the classroom. One of the boys then made a key connection between our past work together and the concept of fairness: Like whe n we did theeach person has to hold up a card and everybody would know what theyre thinking? Like that? We then highlighted key words on the form to remind JJK what their focus would be, as each had a different domain. In two cases we translated some of the words into more user friendly guiding questions. The interns stressed again how important it was to them that JJK and I collect these data for them. They said they needed our extra sets of eyes, ears, and feelings. I asked the interns to predi ct for us what kinds of evidence of each domain they expected us to see. They listed many teaching tools and behaviors for us to look for, including JJKs idea of using whiteboards for individual responses. I asked JJK how the white boards might be evidence that the interns were succeeding in all three domains. Related to the domain of fairness and equity, I asked, Why might (the white boards) make the lesson, for example, more fair ? One of the boys explained to me, Causeon the white board it is eas ier (for the interns to assess right away) and it takes longer on the what you call it (worksheet). And if you if we do it on Tuesday and you grade it on Friday, uh, the kids wont learn more (because) its three days One of the boys then made the connection between this point and the interns co teaching strategy for this lesson. One of the interns was going to take a support role during the lesson and work with small groups and individuals during the whole group lesson. Therefore, he said, (W)h en students might not know the answer and you

PAGE 158

158 could like go outside with them and help them I responded, You bet. And just like you just said, how are they supposed to know that now if they wait until the end of the lesson to give a worksheet, or a t the end of the week when they give a test? After performing a verbal rehearsal of the lesson sequence, the interns came upon a dilemma. They could not make a decision about their expectations of students at a particular point in the lesson. JJK and I watched them do a think aloud of two scenarios while one of the boys explained to them why he thought one idea was better than the other one. One of the boys then asked the interns to consider what might happen if students began fighting over markers, som ething the interns and I had not considered. JJK and the interns came up with a solution, and I asked JJK to be sure to try to note this strategy when they saw it happen as a way to prevent behavior problems. I said, So you see, you are not focusing you r attention on the kids that are misbehaving. (Rather,) (y)ou are focusing on the things teachers are doing so kids have a better chance to behave well and so that more learning can happen. Figure 55. (Boy 1): How are our teachers helping kids beh ave? His observation was Off task list, the rules, reminding not paying attention, to be quiet 2 times, verbal reminder, 2 minutes, 4 minutes, 2 finger silence reminder. As a side note, this same student verbally asked me, Ms. D, whats the difference between verbal reminders and verbal warnings?

PAGE 159

159 Figure 56. (Boy 2): How are our teachers creating a climate that promotes fairness? His observation was Smartboard (graph) paper ; little passport thingies; letting everyone have a chance so they can move aroundYou can write the words bigger (on the overhead) so everyone can see the words. Figure 57. (Boy 3): How are teachers making sure ki ds understand? His observation was By asking the students to do the questions and if they cant, she wi ll help them do it until they understand it. When the lesson began JJK and I took our places at our table. Each one of us collected our data on separate Pathwise observation instruments. JJK also participated in the lesson as students, completing both t heir guided practice and independent practice tasks with near 100% accuracy, a feat not accomplished by all students in the class. Below are the data that JJK collected from this observation.

PAGE 160

160 JJK could not attend the post observation conference. After I shared JJKs data with the interns, we talked about how one of the boys had been reluctant, until this time, to enact all three roles as data collector, teacher leader, and good student by maintaining focus and accuracy on his math assignment, which was his weakest academic area. However, he was playing all three roles very well. They said that this reinforced their beliefs that all students need higher expectations in order to succeed in school. They believed that this student would have done little to no work under normal circumstances, focusing, instead, on his belief that he was not capable of being a good math student. They also believed that under the more optimal learning conditions our COP was providing for JJK, he only needed proximity to the teacher and frequent pep talks in order to persevere as a successful math student. Under these conditions he was producing accurate calculations and was also able to explain his math reasoning. After this last observation I typed up the final observation summary document for all of our COP members to read, approve (or ask for changes), and then sign off so that the interns could graduate. I included a special note to each member of our group on the signature page, based on my listening to each person s contributions to our COP over time. It was as follows: Ms. B, Ms. E, and JJK, It has been so amazing to work with you all to improve teacher and student learning in your classroom! I have learned so much from each of you! Go Teacher Leaders! Ms. B. and Ms. E., Our advice to you is to keep finding ways to make learning fun for your students. You are off to a great start and we hope you will keep your high expectations for students plus the fun and joy you bring to the classroom everyday. We know it wasnt easy and we appreciate all you did for us.

PAGE 161

161 JJK, Our advice as teachers to you is to keep growing as the talented leaders you are. We need good leaders in Ms. Ss classroom! And next year in middle school, too! And in the future no matter what job or sport or anything you decide to do, you will def initely be strong leaders there (its so exciting to us to imagine!) You have totally impressed us with your high intelligence, your hard work (such as writing down your ideas during lessons and doing class work at the same time!), your thoughtfulness, yo ur maturity, all of your great ideas, and your willingness to teach us how we can become even better teachers. We hope you had fun learning more about how teachers think and why they do the things they do. We sure had fun sharing our teacher world with you. Take care of Ms. E this spring and keep helping her learn just as she will be helping you learn, too! But dont forget to have fun over the holiday, too Critical Juncture #8: Final C onversation in our COP At the end of the fall semester our CO P convened for one last conversation in order to better understand how JJK and the interns had made sense of our work together. I have included an excerpt from this conversation below in order to reveal how we had come to define our COP as a shared learni ng experience, as well as how this related to changes in our identities as teachers and learners. The length of the excerpt was chosen in order to demonstrate the richness of dialogue that occurred between us, including how meaning was co constructed, and how willing the interns were to share their feelings with us in order to support their growth. Darby: What has it bee n like to be teacher leaders? Boy 1: We can know more about what they (the interns) (are) thinking. And, theyll know more about what were thinking and what were doing in class. Darby: Has that been different than what you have experienced before in a classroom? Boy 2: Yes it has been a lot of thingswe can give facts (data), what we know and theyll (the interns) start learning more

PAGE 162

162 Boy 1: I think were giving facts (data) and they read it an d try to come up with things... Darby asks interns: (How has) having these guys be teacher leadershelped you two in teaching? Intern 1: Just to be more cognizant of whats going on in my cl assroom. I know that I really love this example that with you, ___, in reading(an author) had said something to the class that maybe some students might not have understoodand you rephrased what (he) said and you helped explain it to the other classmates and I really think after you reemphasized it in a different way that it helped students. So I like to think now that maybe now Ill give more chances for students.to say things in their own words. Intern 2: And for meits helped me be able to look at things from a different perspective. Like we see things differently as a teacher than they seethen you guys see things as studentsactually taking part in the lesson, because we may think things are being effective, or I may think things are being effec tive and theyre really notso having your input really helps and especially in the sense that it has helped us realize that like, we can put you guys more in charge of your learning. Like you guys are very responsible. Darby, Did it surprise you to find out how much (JJK) can be i n charge of their own learning? Intern 1: Honestly, on one level, yes, but on another level, no, because I know everybody is so capable of it. I think the surprising part was justwhen they were given responsibility they just took it to a completely different level Do you guys agree? Darby: So, guys, how do you, even if your classmates dont realize ithow have you helped them? Boy 1: By giving them the facts. Boy 2: They can learn more about like math Interns 2: Also like wh en you took the participation data. Sometimes we just focus on those students who are raising their hands because its easy for us Intern 1: Yes, and its like the concept of wait time. They tell us to give students wait timeand that means just giving you t ime to think about the problem Darby: I always forget to do that.

PAGE 163

163 Intern 2: Exactly. A lot of times its really scary for us to be up there when we ask you guys a question and no one respondslike that silence is kind of scary for usand we need t o learn to give that wait time. And like that participation check, like that really helped us to see like, we were calling on, for example, (Gwen) all the time because she r aises her hand all of the time. Boy 1: Yeah, because people they might not know wh at you are saying. And (need it explained) in a different way. Darby: Exactly. Like remember in your group there was one girl you and __ realized had not raised her hand not one time? Intern 1: Yeah, because everybody elsewas paying attention and participating. I had not noticed that one studentjust sitting in the back and just writing down the answers without sharing any answers or ideas. And that really helped me. Darby: Yeah, me tooHow has being a teacher leader hel ped you guys? Boy 3: It helped us learn more, like, when we want to grow up we want to become a teacher and we have to start out as interns like Ms. E. and Ms. B Darby: And, ___, you are thinking about thearmy and there are definitely leadership ro les in the army Intern 2: J____, do you think that after we put you in this teacher leader role as a student that you come to our lessons a little bit differently than you would if you were j ust, Oh, Im just a student.? Boy 2: I got nothing. Intern 1: (An ) (e)xample of scary wait time! Intern 2: Well, I see like when you guys first startedafter you guys got in this role, the level of your work has improved. Like you guys are more focusedon task. And I really think you guys are more reflective while were learning. Intern 1 : Alsoweve let you in our world and what we are doing. Do you think its easier to approach us about your learning than it would be if you didnt ha ve this role as teacher leader? All 3 Boys: Yes! Boy 1: I just thought (teachers) were aliens (before) Aliens that came f rom like Marsmade out of rock.

PAGE 164

164 Intern 1: Do you guys like to know the reasons we do things? Boy 1: Yeah, it gives like, it gives a head start about what youre doing and we can build on that. This excerpt of our conversation illuminat es four important ways our COP created the vehicle for transforming all of us as participants. First, JJK were witnessing the act of teacher learning. Second, and on a related note, the role of teacher was being demystified as JJK began to see that teachers were no longer aliens made out of rock. Third, we were making direct connections between the work of the COP and our growth as teachers and students. Finally, the discourse we engaged in continued to solidify JJKs situated identity as teacher leaders, and our view of them as experts. Critical Juncture #9: Final Semi Structured Interview with JJK The analysis of this semi structured interview as evidence of a shift in JJKs identities was already discussed in Chapter 4. However, it is necessary t o look at this interview as a critical juncture that, in and of itself, helps explain this shift. The focus interview protocol I used was designed based on the data I had gathered in our last conversation (Critical Juncture #7). I gave JJK the questions a day in advance so that they could think and talk together about how they wanted to respond (see artifact in Appendix M). Analysis of the interview produced eight themes illustrating how JJK and I positioned both one another and ourselves by this point i n our relationship. Appendix N offers an excerpt of the first stage of discourse analysis used to generate these themes. Themes also revealed the kinds of bids (Gee, 2000) we made for ourselves and for one another to be seen as certain types of people (Gee, 2008, p. 3) within this relationship. These themes are presented in Table 5.1 below.

PAGE 165

165 Table 5 1 Making bids for identity and asserting positionalities (Critical Juncture #9) Theme Number of Occasions Theme 1: Darby Making Bids for JJKs Identities as Expert/Teacher Leaders 15 Theme 2: JJK Accepting Expert/Teacher Leader Bids by Darby 22 Theme 3: J 2 Resisting Expert/Teacher Leader Bids by Darby 7 Theme 4: J 2 Accepting Expert/Teacher Leader Bids by Darby 10 Theme 5: Darby Positioning Self as JJKs Authority Figure/Teacher 13 Theme 6: Darby Positioning Self (Making Bids) as JJKs Learner 5 Theme 7: JJK Making Bids for One Anothers Academic Identities 8 Theme 8: JJK Connecting Teacher Leader Identities with Improved Academic Performance of their Peers 13 Comparing this last conversation with the initial conversations I had with JJK uncovered how we had renegotiated our positionalities with one another over time. For example, in each of our first conversations at the start of the study, I was the only person contributing new information. This made my position in these conversations very powerful because I was the only one setting an agenda. These first conversations were interviews, so it makes sense that I was the only one inserting new information into these early encounters. This new information was usually in the form of questions, such as, What kind of student are you? or was an introduction to my philosophy by saying, for example, Its my opinion that we (supervisors) should work together with children to make teachers better. In those earliest conversations JJK struggled to make sense of my role and how they were supposed to position themselves, accordingly. By this last conversation, our positionalities with one another had c hanged dramatically. Even though it was still in a semi structured interview, I was contributing new information to our conversation only onethird of the time, while the boys collectively took charge of the focus and direction of our topics for the remain ing two -

PAGE 166

166 thirds of the time (see Table 5.2 below). This proportion indicated that they were much more at ease in taking positions of power in their working relationship with me. Table 5 2 Power and positionality : T urning the conversation with new information Participant Number of Times Participant Inserted New Information into the Conversation Darby 41 J1 34 J2 32 K 17 Returning to Table 5.1, other interesting points are worthy of note that reveal how we negotiated and defined our discourse identities and positionalities in relation to one another. During this conversation one of the students (J2) initially resisted my bids to position him as an expert or teacher leader on seven different occasions. He used several strategies to deflect or sabotage my attempts to position him as a teacher leader. For example, he might change the subject, or distract us by making a joke. At one point he insisted he had nothing to do with the professional development I experienced in the COP by saying, But you (were) already doing well. Each time J2 resisted my recruitment (Gee, 2000) of him as a teacher leader, the other two boys (J1 and K) repaired the situation by either ignoring him, directly disagreeing with him, or by bringing forth evidence of ho w he had, indeed, made a significant impact on teacher learning, including mine. Once his peers had made this repair, J2 ended up accepting ten of my additional bids to position him as an expert for the remainder of the conversation. By the time this last conversation was over, JJK had been able to collectively produce thirteen examples of how their acts of teacher leadership had directly influenced the academic performance of one another, as well as specific classmates

PAGE 167

167 who were part of the COP. What was m ost interesting, however, was that while JJK were enthusiastic about pointing out how their work as teacher leaders had impacted one anothers academic identity, they struggled with (or resisted) identifying academic improvement within themselves as indivi duals in connection to their work as teacher leaders. Each did take personal credit for doing more work now, and named math and writing as specific areas of significant improvement. As one of them explained, I improved in math a lot. We took a test t oday and I think Im going to get a hundred cause I studied that pretest thing from yesterday. Indeed, after this interview I checked his math test score and it was a 100%. But, overall, JJK seemed to work hard to deflect the focus of improvement from themselves to that of others, including one another in our COP. This deflection demonstrated to me that the most significant outcome for JJK as teacher leaders was not how it related to their personal school identities. Rather, the significance for JJK w as how their participation in the COP helped others. While two of the three boys were safety patrols and had expressed early in the school year that this role signified their helpfulness, their participation in the COP deepened the complexity and sophis tication of this dimension of their school identity. Helping others went beyond vague references to school safety issues to specific examples of how they were impacting the sense of community in the classroom, how they were making the learning environme nt more accessible to and equitable for their peers, and how their personal relationships were being reshaped in a powerful way, including the fact that they now defined one another as best friends. Below is a sample of dialogue that illuminates how dif ficult it was to get the boys to articulate how their work had impacted their personal academic performances, although they were

PAGE 168

168 happy to give credit to one another, and to point out the improvement of their interns and classmates: Darby: How have you cha nged since you became a teacher leader? Boy 3: Like the whole class dideverybody started doing more work. Darby: Yes, but how have each of you changed? Boy 1: I think everybody in the class has changed.sinceweve been giving ideas to Ms. B. and Ms. E Theyve (the interns) came up withtheyve added onto our ideas and they said it to the whole class and the class has learned more. Boy 2: Yeah, and they liked it. Boy 1: Especially Daniel...hes no t getting in trouble much more. Boy 2: And (hes doing) more writing. Darby: So, so youre telling me that you guys have hada positive impact on your classmates and their learning? Boy 2: Because theyre (interns) takingour examples so they could get better. Boy 1: (But) Ive seen, uh, seen __ moreI thin k __ is getting more ideas (for writing)(and) better and be tter at being a teacher leader. Darby: What about __? How has he changed? Boy 2 : He actually helped people when they need help in math. And he explained it to them. An den like when you get done with a problem hell explain it to you den, you do it on your own Boy 3: Well, he sort of acts like a leader Darby: What I hear you all saying is that you have become better students since youve become teacher leaders. Can you please try to expl ain why being a teacher leader is making you better students? Boy 2: Because the people are looking up to us! Darby: How does that change (how you are) a student? Boy 2: Uh, it makes us like be interns What are you thinking, __? Boy 1: Uh, its been helping us like

PAGE 169

169 Boy 2: A lot Boy 1: Yeah, we havent been thinking this hard before! Regardless of how JJK drew connections between their teacher leadership roles and positive outcomes for themselves, their teachers, and their classmates, the point is that they did express a strong sense of agency. They believed their work changed peoples lives for the better. This final critical juncture illustrates how JJK made the connection between their work in our COP, and their being better students, an idea that, for these boys, was associated with a position among their peers, and one that depended on status and respect. Layer 2: JJKs Enactments of Situated Identities over Time In the previous section I laid out the synthesis of our collective moves as si x members of a COP, organized by nine critical junctures. These junctures, and the moves that made up their content, ultimately shaped the story of our COP. In this section I examine only the moves made by JJK over the course of the four month period we worked together. In doing so I believe I can offer evidence of how their situated identities, or subjectivities, came to change over time (Gee, 2002). Situated identities are characteristic ways of actinginteracting feelingemoting valuing gesturing pos turing thinking believingknowing speaking listening (and, in some Discourses, readingand writing, as well) (Gee, 2002, p. 38), or the different identities we take on in different contexts. While there were many instances of JJKs moves that I interpret ed as their enactment of Affinity identities through our kinship in the COP, using the lens of how they enacted their discourse identities provided a substantially more powerful mechanism for analysis.

PAGE 170

170 After taking a chronological inventory of all of JJKs moves, categorizing them, and then interpreting the meaning of each of these moves (see Appendix L), I synthesized my findings into narrative form (Connelly & Clandinin, 1990). As a tool the narrative helped me to more easily capture an impression, or co mposite, of how the interns and I saw JJKs shift in identity over time. The narrative created, written from the point of view of JJK as a collective character, was also a helpful way to present findings to the interns for member checking purposes. Chas e (2005) both cautions and celebrates the fact that this narrative is highly situated in my own subjectivities as a researcher, and was consciously produced in (a) particular setting, for (a) particular audience, and for these particular reasons (p. 657) In telling this story I am shaping, constructing, and performing my own reality and experience as a participant in the meaning making process (Chase, 2005). Embedded within this narrative is still a collective voice that comes from the data. This coll ective voice includes those of us endorsing and doing the crucial recognition work JJK needed as they reconstructed their identities in our COP (Gee, 2002). Each composite is listed below, organized chronologically by each critical juncture. Each junctur e is titled with a fictitious quote that captures the most salient theme that relates to the question, How are JJKs discourse identities changing over time? A Narrative of JJKs Expanding Identity over Time #1 (August early September) We dont like sch ool that much. Wed rather be outside We see ourselves as active people. We love sports, hunting, music, and fishing. We dont like reading, although one of us seems to be a pretty good writer. We call ourselves good students, especially because two of us are patrol students. But we dont always do very well in school with our grades. One of us has been told by all the teachers he has bad behavior but we arent sure why. But we aspire to be strong, generous people who uphold justice and defend the weak

PAGE 171

171 #2 (early September): We are chosen as the best students to help our teachers learn The teachers picked the 3 of us to be teaching coaches and help them with observing the interns. Five other students were not chosen. We are not really sure what all of this means, yet, or what jobs we will have but it was exciting to be picked #3 (late September): We are really trying to figure out how to be good students, and what leadership means. Sometimes we know things teachers, and even leaders dont We still struggle with how exactly to be a good student during all parts of the school day but two of us know that when the teacher is doing a lot of talking, a good strategy may be to stay quiet and not really ask too many questions. One of us doesnt seem to get that he calls out in class without raising his hand, just like Mark does, who has to have a behavior card on his desk. But during the assignment today he was the best writer in our group. The other two of us didnt want to do the wr iting at all. One of us even left the room for a while, probably because he just did not want to do the work. But then he came back and Ms. D. helped him by talking through his ideas first. Then all three of us had no problem writing our letters. The id ea of leadership is getting confusing these days. One of us wants to know why great leaders, like presidents, have been known to get into fights. One was unable to read until he was 14. That does not make sense when it comes to what a leader should be able to do. Ms. D. talks a lot about leadership, too, for some reason, but we think she has a different idea of what this means than we do. Nonetheless, we are getting to do things with Ms. D. that other kids dont get to do. We get to talk to her by writing notes on the cards. She is treating us like experts. She asks us for our opinions about what is going on with the teaching and learning in the classroom. Sometimes we give her ideas without her even asking first. Sometimes we even have to corre ct her knowledge of history, and she is a history teacher!.. #4 (Early October): We are starting to be like coaches for the teachers and the whole class is starting to know it now. We are a special team We have access to and are part of a special team. We are practicing being both students and coaches for Ms. D. and the interns. We are even allowed to tell them what to do and when to do it, and they listen to us. We are starting to see things the way teachers see them. We are aware of the perf ormances of our peers. Like Mark, he gets in trouble a lot but we are in a position to help him now and we are going to. We know how to make connections between what the teachers do and the quality of learning that goes on with our classmates. We also give our advice on how to improve these connections. Many times Ms. D. and the interns have not seen what we see and it is our job to explain it to them. We are becoming really good at helping the teachers make different choices in order to improve learni ng and behavior in the classroom. Our ideas are really helping them do a better job. Now the whole class is getti ng to see how smart we are #5 (Late October) We know how to act like researchers and students at the same time, and our whole class knows it. Our expertise is now indispensible to the teachers learning process. Now our team meets at special times. We get to eat lunch together in the classroom with our teachers, for example. We get to observe the interns with the same tools Ms. D. uses, and sometimes even different ones because it

PAGE 172

172 is too hard for her to use different kinds all at once. We are becoming like science researchers because we collect data (facts) on the teaching and learning going on in the classroom. We have our own ideas on the kinds of data we think would be good to collect to help the teachers improve and learn to do their jobs better. We also know how to help our teachers make good instructional decisions when they get stuck we know which decisions are better for helpi ng more students learn. We are even starting to use the right kind of words and language to communicate our competence. We are so good at this now that we can stand up in front of the whole class and explain what we are doing as researchers, and what the goals for a lesson are. Not only that, we are able to perform as both excellent students and researchers at the s ame time #6 (Early November) We are researchers now. Our teachers call us teacher leaders. We are even stronger members of this speci al team, and even better at being researchers, students, and coaches for the teachers all at the same time. Our teachers would say that we are teacher leaders! But one of us still doesnt like being the student if that means we have to read the les sons text. Luckily, the other two of us are really competent and strategic readers when we work as a team, and we can help him get back on track as a good student. Ms. D. also helps when being a student and being a researcher is too much to do at one ti me. As researchers we can collect, analyze, and then draw conclusions from the data and share them with both adults and students through both written and spoken explanations. We are also getting better at using the words of researchers and teachers. Our ideas and words are included in the observation summary that the interns need for us to sign in order to graduate w ith their teaching degrees #7 (Late November) We are expert teacher leaders. Our expertise is integral to teacher learning and change, and is even needed for our interns to graduate and become full time teachers. As expert teacher leaders we are both teacher coaches and researchers. We are able to help our teachers plan their instructional decisions, as we have access to their thinking a nd planning. We are learning more about teaching and supervision, and we are able to articulate the kinds of practices that make a good teacher without even being asked. For example, we can help our teachers value their planning for how it benefits stu dents in ways they havent even thought of before. We are also able to make connections between what teachers are doing now to improve their skills with examples from the past. As expert researchers we now have more autonomy over the kinds of data we want to collect to help improve our teachers practice, and we can each specialize in different research questions. For example, we can decide the kinds of data to collect to address classroom management so that the teachers can see all the ways they are doing a good job in that area. As another example, we understand the kind of data to collect to address the clarity of instruction. Finally, we can identify and record data that shows the ways teachers are making their instruction fair for all students. Then w e can analyze this data and explain it to our teachers. We are gaining further insights into why teachers do what they do. We contribute these thoughts and connections to help them learn these are celebrated by our teachers and tried out right away. W e are practicing the concepts important in our team

PAGE 173

173 for teacher learning. We can blend our language as students with our special language as teacher leaders, because the new words are starting to be part of the way we think now. Our data analysis and teach ing recommendations are so important that they are typed up, printed out, signed by all of us, and put in the folders that the interns must have in order to graduate from the university and become teachers #8 (early December) Because we can influence changes in teacher behaviors, we can help our classmates who are struggling. Because we have access to teacher thinking, we can improve equity in the classroom. We can do these things because we are teacher leaders. We can articulate that being a teacher leader sometimes means doing the job of action researcher. This means collecting data, sharing the data with teachers, seeing the teachers change their practice as a result, and thus helping our classmates. In other words, we can help our classmates th rough influencing changes in teacher behavior. The teachers can also explain to us exactly why they think we are teacher leaders. We have access to the teachers special language, conversation, thinking, and their personal feelings. Sometimes teachers are afraid when they are teaching, for example. Being a teacher leader gives us insight into the adult world of work, including the learning and stages adults have to go through to become professionals. We really feel better about the relationships we have with teachers now and this has enhanced our learning conditions dramatically. Before we were teacher leaders we had no idea what teachers did and why. We like having access to the thinking of teachers because it gives us a rationale for learning, which improves equity in the chances to learn #9 (mid December) It wasnt a meness that has changed. It was an usness. It was all of us. Everyone in the class became more productive every single person in our class changed as a result of our being teacher leaders. We can identify specific students who we believe have been directly impacted by our work as teacher leaders. For example, Daniel used to get in trouble a lot. Now he is not getting into as much trouble and his writing skills have improved We can also see changes in one another here on our team, specifically as writers and math students. For example, one of us aced a test today because he actually studied, and being a teacher leader motivated him to study. One of us has been a weak writer But now he is generating ideas as a writer, especially because he is also working with Ms. E. He has also become a stronger teacher leader over time. Another one of us has become a leader for the entire class. For example, he helps people with their m ath. He explains the math and stays to see you do it on your own. He has also been producing more work as a result of being a leader. Everyone changed as a result of our being teacher leaders, and this includes the interns. First, we generated ideas to improve the teaching and learning we did together, and the interns were able to take these ideas, expand upon them, and then put them into action to see what would happen. The entire class has learned more as a result. The interns also made our ideas pu blic, so we got credit for our role in their teaching and learning. And the class liked the work we were doing. We can tell you the secret as to why being teacher leaders made us into better students in class. It is this: Other people are respecting us because we have a special

PAGE 174

174 status among our peers and we are seen as interns. In addition, there have been very high expectations on us. We have never had to thin k this deeply before in school In looking at the narrative created from the compilation of i ndividual moves JJK made over time with oral and written language, their physical expressions, the special use of tools, space, and time, and through the artifacts they created, conclusions can be drawn regarding how JJKs discourse identities changed over time, which may have contributed to the changes in their institutional identities. JJK went from identifying who they were in their lives outside of school to being a powerful force in making school a more equitable learning community for their classmate s and teachers. They attributed this change in their sense of identity to learning about the world of a teachers work, and to their taking an active role in that world as teacher leaders, which included a blend of their roles as coaches and researchers This shift in their discourse identities went through three stages. The first stage was in midSeptember when they were chosen by their teachers to collaborate with the interns and me, although they were not yet clear on the work we would be doing. Aft er this point they were repeatedly positioned as, and directly called coaches and researchers by the interns and me. They were asked to carry out tasks that we assigned to those roles. The second stage came in midOctober when their roles, ideas, and work were formalized in the classroom by being made public and visible to the rest of their peers. At this point JJK began enacting their identities through their verbal and nonverbal language, expressing a kind of ownership of themselves as teacher leaders and researchers situated within our COP. This shift became evident as they increased the expression of independent ideas and decisions for application in the classroom. In the final stage of their change in discourse identities, their behaviors and

PAGE 175

175 ideas began to express an increasingly sophisticated stance as collaborators in the supervision and action research process. Instead of being simply positioned as experts, they were being experts, as was evident in their increased ability to be reflective and metacognitive about their work. This was especially clear in how they were able to connect their expertise to changes in teacher behaviors, which, in turn, they were able to connect with the idea of equity in the classroom. While they were less willin g or able to make strong links between their work as teacher leaders and that of their individual improvements in school performance, they were adept in articulating how and why their work had positively impacted the performance of others in the classroom, and how this changed the classroom as a learning community. It is important now to turn attention to the role that I played in facilitating the COP with JJK and the interns. In the next section I will reveal how I stretched the boundaries of my superviso ry role in order to directly cultivate equity and student performance in our PDS. Looking at how this was done helped me draw more conclusions about how the COP contributed to the change in JJKs school performance and to the shift in their formal, instit utional identities. Layer 3: Motives behind the PDS Supervisory Role So far I have presented the overarching story of our COP. This story was tied together by nine critical junctures, each made up by a collection of moves by all members of the group. Th en I pulled out the moves made solely by JJK in order to examine how their situated identities ultimately shifted. Now I will give shape to the individual moves that I, as the interns supervisor, made over time. Examining these moves helps explain how t he relationship between JJK, the interns and me went from a loose affiliation of 3 kids in a classroom, two interns, and a supervisor to a conscious,

PAGE 176

176 fully functioning COP. This layer of findings helps explain how I pushed the boundaries of my role as a PDS university partner so that I could facilitate faculty, teacher candidate, and student learning in a way that challenged unexamined cultural models of kinds of students perpetuated in public schools. I analyzed recordings of and artifacts from my own moves made over time within the COP. Preliminary analysis of this portion of the study was done during the period of data collection, allowing me to see that my work was driven by a definable framework, although I was initially unaware of it. I excavated this framework by coding the collection of moves I made as a supervisor, focusing my attention specifically on those moves that repositioned JJK in novel ways. Data were drawn from field notes, artifacts, and transcriptions of conversations that occurred during eight of the nine critical junctures that occurred over time and defined our COP. Table 5 3 Jot notes to expanded notes Jot Notes (recorded during event) Expanded Notes (recorded immediately following event) 1. __ and __ : eyes 2. __ pencil, chair, drum body away only one 3. D(arby) card #1 __ and __ maintain eye contact with the interns, along with the rest of the class. __ just looks ahead in my direction. __ flips his pencil, tilts back in chair, drums on desk, is the only student in the room whose body is not facing the front of the roomI began sending them a cardI write this question to __: __, why do you think Ms. B is re reading the book? Reasons for writing this card: Im hoping that the boys would be aware of this being a strategy for comprehension or review that it wasnt to bore them to tears with a second reading. Also, I want to prompt __to be more aware of how his body expressed disinterest. And if he wouldnt listen to the book, would he at least engage in writing with me? And will this question help get these guys to start thinking in terms of observing with me?..

PAGE 177

177 During the process of data collection, I identified and recorded the motives and feelings behind many of the choices I made that facilitated the creation and focus of our COP. While I was in the classr oom, I recorded short jot notes, and then expanded these field notes immediately after leaving the school. An excerpt of my field notes is below, and demonstrates how I tried to stay focused on the reasons behind my actions. The portions in boldface t ype were the kinds of data I coded in order to understand the guiding principles behind my work. Appendix G provides an example of how this level of data was organized. Each of my moves is listed, along with the motives behind each move. In the final col umn is the code, in the form of a number, so that I could more easily see patterns in the data. Four overarching motives guided my behavior as a supervisor, and these are listed below. 1. To consciously impact the immediate and long range academic and social performances of JJK as good students 2. To consciously attempt to disrupt JJKs institutional identities as defined and reinforced in school Discourses 3. To help scaffold and apprentice JJK in developing an inquiry oriented teacher educators lens for obse rving and making sense of the classroom 4. To identify and focus on the professional development needs of the teacher candidates. As their supervisor with her own political agenda, as well as that of the PDS community I was a part of, this included their development as inquiry oriented teachers who take charge of their own professional development, as well as teachers with a mission of social justice. The series of moves listed in Appendix G demonstrates how all four of these motives were often inseparable. The inseparability of my motives was often because I was always maximizing the time I had in the classroom by killing four birds with one stone quite literally by making moves that would allow me to meet as many of these four goals as possible. The act of recording this kind of data during moments of our

PAGE 178

178 work together had an additional benefit. In sharing the motives behind my actions with JJK and the interns, often by reading them aloud from my researchers notebook, I was able to model my own inquiry process within the COP. I was also able to incorporate my motives into think alouds in order to support the professional development of the in terns and to scaffold JJKs development as supervisors. This reflexive process made my moves increasingly deliberate and conscious over time. Conclusion In this chapter I present three different layers of analysis in order to both explain and contextualiz e JJKs shift in identities over time. First, I laid out the nine critical junctures that our COP experienced, and that contributed to the storyline of our work. Next, I analyzed how JJKs informal, discourse identities had shifted over time, marked by three phases. Third, I created a framework of motives that guided my work as the PDS university supervisor facilitating the complexity of our COP. In presenting these three layers of analysis, I demonstrated that JJK had expressed a shift in their disco urse identities. In doing so, I have supported the evidence from Chapter 4 which indicated that JJK had also experienced a parallel change in their formal, institutional identities. In the next and final chapter I will synthesize these layers of findings, present new questions that emerged as a result, and discuss the implications that this work has for the PDS movement, and for the critical role school identity will have in educating children in the 21st century.

PAGE 179

179 CHAPTER 6 DISCUSSION In this chapter I w ill present an overview of this dissertation research and consider the implications of the findings discussed in Chapters 4 and 5 in which I addressed the question: How and why do the identities and performances of three struggling students change during and after participating in a community of practice designed to support the supervision of prospective teachers? The findings from this study can offer school university partnerships an example of creatively redesigning shared roles and responsibilities i n a way that can directly disrupt unexamined inequity in classrooms. These findings also begin to answer the call from literacy and identity scholars who have yet to thoroughly explain the phenomena of the co construction of childrens identities and the c lassroom contexts that contribute to shaping this process (Flores Gonzalez, 2002; Gee, 2000; McCarthey, 2001). Overview of the Study In recent times the democratic purpose of schooling has been dangerously muted in favor of social efficiency models for edu cation which are designed to fuel economic growth and capitalism (Sleeter, 2005; Wolk, 1998). And yet, even in the name of leaving no child behind, this trend has, in fact, disenfranchised more students than ever before from economic opportunity and soc ial equity (Apple, 1993; Brandt, 2001; Hinchey, 2004; McLaren, 2003). This inequity is reinforced by testing and sorting practices that track children into different educational classes that reproduce barriers between socioeconomic classes (Gee, 2004). Ul timately, it will take fundamental changes in all social and economic institutions to correct such institutionalized inequity (Goodman, 2002) but schools that organize grass roots shared governance between

PAGE 180

180 institutions, such as PDS partnerships, can lead t he way. The goal of this participatory action research (PAR) was to illustrate a small step toward this aim. Through a small community of practice (COP) involving a PDS university partner in a supervisory role, two interns, and three fourth grade student s, I wondered if the school identities and performances of three pre adolescents (JJK) would change, and if the quality and manifestations of these changes could be documented and explained from a theoretical point of view. Evidence of change in JJKs sc hool identities and school performances was indeed gathered during this PAR. These changes convinced participants in this study that including children directly in a COP inquiring into effective teaching could have the power to disrupt takenfor granted c ultural models of the Successful Student. Data were analyzed through two lenses, each helping to get at different aspects of the social identities of JJK in school, and offering another way to triangulate the findings. By first establishing the cultura l models available for students in the fourth grade at Yearling Elementary, it was then possible to build a single composite encompassing the three boys school identity at the beginning of the school year, and then once again at the mid point of that acad emic year. These two composites were interpreted through the lens of James Gees (2000) institutional identities. As students in the formal institution of public schooling, the three boys school identities fell on a continuum between successful and u nsuccessful at the very beginning of the school year. JJKs initial school identities were comprised of a significant number of markers that made the case that they were, essentially, most commonly defined as unsuccessful. By the end of

PAGE 181

181 the four month study, their composite of school identities shifted toward a mostly successful definition. The question that these findings raised at this point was this: Would these three boys have experienced the same degree of a shift from unsuccessful to succe ssful students had they not participated in our COP? While the shift in their school identities was worthy of celebration, we could not know if their experience in the COP was the impetus for that change. For this reason we also analyzed the path that t he COP took over time to see if any evidence for changes in JJKs identities could be found in that process. To do this, JJKs behaviors were closely documented. We collected evidence of changes in their discourse practices, which included their words, body language, and use of texts and other props that defined their ongoing membership in the COP. By doing so we were, essentially, asking this question: How did JJKs discourse identities change over time? By creating a composite in the form of a singl e storyline of these changes, we were able to assert that JJK (and their teachers) had gone from viewing their school identities in light of low reading abilities and inappropriate social behaviors to viewing them as teacher leaders, competent writers and mathematicians, and agents of change for their peers. JJK insisted that the change in their school identities, marked by their new academic performances, was not due to individual effort. Rather, they attributed this change to a new sense of belonging gain ed from their participation in our COP. This insight led me to the conclusion that in order to impact equity in the PDS classroom where teachers, prospective teachers, university educators and children come together, it may be necessary to consciously for ge purposeful learning communities. These and other implications that come from the findings of this study will

PAGE 182

182 be discussed. But first I will outline ten guiding principles that participants in this study and I believe are important components to inclu de when building collaborative COPs between children and educators to support the supervision of prospective teachers in the PDS in ways that can help children with marginalized school identities to take ownership of those identities and reconstruct them i n new ways. Guiding Principles for Building Student Teacher COPs for Supervision in the PDS Because of the nature of participatory action research (PAR) that formed the basis for which our COP was established, it is not possible to recommend a model that w ill replicate our experience, as the outcomes of PAR depend on the agenda setting and actions of its unique participants within their unique contexts. In addition, every PDS takes a highly individualized approach to interpreting, assembling, and enacting the blended goals of university and school based faculty learning, teacher preparation, and P 12 student learning through inquiry based practices. However, the data analysis process still led to ten assertions that organize the most important elements needed in order to build student teacher COPs that support the supervision and learning of prospective and practicing teachers for the purpose of facilitating change in the school identities and performances of children in the PDS and beyond. 1. We expected student participants in the COP to simultaneously perform their multiple roles as students and as teacher leaders with a high degree of competency. While this is a highly sophisticated cognitive load for anyone to bear, not to mention for nine year old people, teachers were convinced that it was critical to expect JJK to manage all of their responsibilities as both students and as teacher leaders. In fact, we concluded that these were the very conditions needed for JJK to perform so well and experience a shift in their school identities. At no time were these

PAGE 183

183 students off the hook from the academic tasks they were expected to perform, or for the quality of work that the entire class was expected to produce. In each of the five intern observations that JJK helped facilitate, they not only kept up with their peers in the tasks presented to them as students but they excelled in them unlike ever before. JJKs high academic performance then began to occur during instructional time when we were not working together as a COP. Late night emails from the interns illuminate this assertion: This asks more of them than what the typical teacher would ask but its having a positive effect on their school work and classroom demeanor, and they have risen to meet ev ery expectation that weve had of them! I also just wanted to tell you, Darby, thatsince last Friday, __ has been asking to do his workand the amount and quality of work he has put out has been astounding! Hes also more inclined to ask questionshe cl arifies what hes thinking, and he loves to bounce teaching ideas off of us! Today he made a comment about (a teaching strategy) we tried today. He said, Wow, this has really helped me edit this. __ is so enthusiastic! He is still hesitant sometimes but (his) social levels have risen so much! He comes over to read in groups, he talks more to his peers (and he starts the interaction!), and is more open to us (interns). It was amazing to see how much he has changed since the first few weekshe did his homework for the first time last weekI think (the COP) has really meant a lot to him. I think its really helped him see that we really do value what hes saying, and want to hear it! __ just became a little teacher now! We just finished a reading lesson in which he said after someone gave an answer, I like how (the author) used the word extreme. It really grabs the readers attention. He is really thinking like a teacher and even more so, he is orating his thoughts in a professional and thought provoking wayhes becoming a teacher leader by pointing out how everyone can make their answers better by being a little bit more like (the author) in using detailed vocabulary. I love it and hope you do, too! There were times when data collection tas ks did impede JJKs ability to complete assignments or participate in activities. For example, one of the boys struggled with fine motor control and often used a scribe during instructional time. During these occasions

PAGE 184

184 he would dictate responses for me t o record for him. While it was never possible to both take notes as a student and collect data as a researcher, all three of the boys figured out ways to economize their time, stay focused, use their available resources (including me), and meet the demands of both roles by sliding back and forth between them. This contributed to our conclusion as a team that increasing the demand on JJK actually increased their school performances. Again, the interns emailed thoughts about this to me over the course of t he semester: I think if you treat the students like adults, then they act like adults as shown by evidence of the 3 boys evolution throughout the past semester. They can handle the challenges we set before them and they can handle them in an appropriate manner. (This) has made them more responsible for their own learning ad you can see how their participation in both activities and as group members has changed. They are more engaged and more willing to put effort into their work 2. We demystified the teachers world of work and privileged ways of knowing by inviting students to think and act like teachers. Whenever the interns and I shared our rationales for our actions as teachers and inquirers, JJK responded quickly to our high demands of them as both students and as teacher leaders. JJK expressed that they had never believed before that they were allowed to have access to teacher thinking. Learning the reasons behind our decisions and actions during classroom instruction and planning was fascinating and motivating to them, and opened up more of their questions about teaching along the way. But our ultimate reason for sharing our worlds as teachers was to help them begin to think like teachers. We wanted them to get inside our heads and hearts so that they could bring their unique points of view as students to our conversations and enhance our own professional development. Interestingly, the interns began observing that this had the added benefit of shaping JJKs own processing and behaviors as strategic learners by helping them

PAGE 185

185 own their personal learning experiences. This shift in JJKs ownership of their own learning was highly intertwined with their changing status and positionalities in the classroom. In more late night emails, the inter ns illustrated these conclusions: The boys are applying what they have learned about thinking like a teacher to their own thinking about learning. They seem to be approaching learning in a new way. I think that this will help them be in charge of their o wn learning, and give them a sense of ownership, and have them create a deeper meaning and connection with the materials. Instead of something being given straight to them, it becomes understanding that theyve created, theyve connected, and theyve been responsible for __ has come into the role of teacher leader. I have seen him on two occasions share and teach a strategy that works for him with his peers. He has really stepped up and has the confidence to help his peers learn. The best way to know s omeone understands something is to watch them effectively teach it to someone else. I think his thinking like a teacher has transformed his role of student to peer teacher, which is a very powerful position to be in I think that (JJK) have really taken on the challenge of thinking like teachers. I think since they have worked on understanding why we do the things we do as teachers they have become more metacognitive about why and what they do as studentsThis has changed the way in which they go about t heir everyday learning and how they interact (with the class) on a daily basis 3. We kept our focus on teachersaslearners, rather than on students asperformers. It was almost never necessary for the interns or me to point out JJKs performance in the classroom as students. Rather, we put our full conversational focus on the three of us as adult learners, and positioned JJK as the coaches and data collectors we needed to improve our practices, including mine as a supervisor. This positioning was not a strategy to mask our intentions. Indeed, the learning of the prospective teachers was the first priority of the function of supervision. Making this the forefront of our work in the COP was appropriate. My joining in as another educator trying to improv e her practice as a supervisor only amplified this focus for all of us. This

PAGE 186

186 focus created a safe space for JJK to explore their student ness by studying and sharing their own responses to our teaching. By modeling our own metacognitive processes as te achers, JJK took risks in exploring their own thinking, behaviors, and motives as students in this classroom. All of this happened because we cultivated an inquiry stance in our COP, modeled first within my role as a supervisor engaged in her own inquiry. I positioned myself right alongside my interns who were also engaging in inquiry into their own teaching practice. Our blended inquiry focus became a powerful experience for the interns, and they often shared with their colleagues in their intern seminar s how intertwined their inquiries were with mine, and how all of it was impacting JJKs growth as successful students in school. The interns easily switched positions with me and became my inquiry coach, as exemplified here in an email: I talked to J yest erdayI also asked him if he like using the cards, and if there was anything we could do to improve using them. We talked about giving each group a question to answer and he said that he liked (this idea), and it would help us as teachers because we would be able to see everyones answers. Ask him for the (data), Darby its there!... and would be great for your inquiry, too The interns also made explicit connections between the work of our COP and their own development as teacher researchers: JJK reall y are rising above and beyond what I thought they could do and have shown me that collaboration with students can be rewarding not only for them to embrace a new active role in the classroom but also to help give me the insights that students have toward everyday teaching and learning As inquiry oriented COP members, we used our most salient felt difficulties (Dana & Yendol Hoppey, 2009) found in the teaching and supervision process as our focal points for learning. While there were always many felt difficulties and tensions in

PAGE 187

187 our work, we tried to prioritize the ones that were the most emotionally or professionally pressing to each of us. While as the supervisor I relinquished a great deal of control of the agendasetting for the interns learning, the pay off was that the learning, and even the professional development experience we all shared, went much deeper than it would have if I had constructed the entire supervision experience from my single authority and point of view. The interns were the n able to practice taking control of their own professional development with the skilled scaffolding I provided. Finally, as each COP member was given increasingly more freedom to determine what he or she wanted to learn or explore, the underlying social justice agenda embedded in the PAR came closer to realization. In the end, my entire agenda as a teacher educator and supervisor was addressed well beyond my expectations. 4. We recognized and honored the boundaries of the classroom, the school culture, and our roleswhile actively reinventing them at the same time. Deciding to actively disrupt narratives designed to keep unexamined school practices firmly in place is not a popular choice for teachers to make, let alone for interns or children. This kin d of work can potentially upset the critical psychological balance teachers need in order to cope with unprecedented external pressures bearing down on how they define teaching and learning, how they define children, and the instructional decisionmaking p ower that they once owned in years past. For this reason it was clearly important that the work we did as a COP respect the comfort zones of our colleagues and students. We did this by seeking out and then honoring the personal boundaries of children and teachers in the PDS regarding how much the interns and I would be allowed to do. On the other hand, we believed that in order to change some of the longheld assumptions

PAGE 188

188 about children and teachers being perpetuated as a result of external pressures on schools, we had to take a chance and redraw some of the boundary lines. Negotiating this tension was not easy. Our work in shaping the sometimes rigid boundaries for our work relied heavily on my historical and political role in the school. Because I had some degree of insider ness established, and because the partnership was highly valued by school leadership, I had creative latitude in re inventing my roles and responsibilities over time. I did not take this privilege for granted, however. Constant c onversations with my colleagues were necessary as our COP work developed and moved to be sure that it did not impede on the teaching and learning routines and expectations of others. In addition, I had to be sure I was providing a great deal of reciprocit y to my colleagues. One way I accomplished these goals is by expanding my own role in a way that allowed me to have a more direct impact on the achievement for all learners in the classroom. For example, I provided access to assessment data on all of the students that might not have been captured otherwise. I also often served as a co teacher for the interns during instruction. In this way I not only gained more insights into JJKs development as students, I was also able to reduce the student teacher r atio in the classroom and take responsibility for the instructional load. 5. We scaffolded JJKs moves toward teacher leadership. While it was not difficult getting JJK to explore their potential for being teacher leaders, it did require strategic planning and mindful facilitation. It also required a sensitivity to these fourth graders ideas of what teachers are supposed to do, and what students are supposed to do, which did not typically include students teaching teachers how to teach. For examp le, at the beginning of our work together, I had to brainstorm with the interns

PAGE 189

189 ways to create the conditions and opportunities needed that would allow JJK to have the space to generate their own ideas, take ownership of these ideas, and begin leading us i nto translating their ideas into practice in the classroom. These early brainstorming sessions were also critical for the interns as they, too, were searching for their creative ways to enact their own fledgling identities as teacher inquirers. The first ideas JJK came up with to impact the interns classroom teaching were heavily scaffolded by the interns and me. However, JJK were able to quickly take increasing ownership of the generation of ideas and planning from that point on. Over time JJK took mor e responsibility for the way their learning journey unfolded together with ours as educators. Meanwhile, I began the enjoyable transition into facilitating, rather than leading the process. Toward the end of the study I was most actively helping JJK and the interns identify their felt difficulties as valuable data and getting them to define what they wanted to learn during a particular observation. This help included supporting JJKs decisions on the lenses they would use as researchers, as well as roles and responsibilities each member would have, including how they wanted to use my role. 6. We found refuge by lingering in the sweet spot of anticipation between what was and what could be. Engaging in work that disrupts the status quo can bring des pair as participants become increasingly more critically conscious. There were times that the interns became disheartened by the oppressive conditions of schooling that felt in stark contrast to the liberation they felt as teachers in the COP. While I do not have data to substantiate this, I often wondered if JJK felt the same way, at times. In order to bring relief, we found it most effective to act with confidence and operate as if the vision for equitable schools was already a reality. We chose to believe that learning

PAGE 190

190 was the most important business of school, and that world was already a better place as a result of our work together. In doing so our dialogue produced new narratives about students and teachers, and about teaching and learning. These new narratives focused on the successes we saw, no matter how small. We looked greedily for the successes we could find in one another, and in the children and teachers who surrounded us. We looked for success with the passion of treasure hunters, people who enjoy lingering for long periods of time in the periods between being empty handed, searching, and anticipating the next find. We then acted upon the new narratives we cultivated from this sweet spot of anticipation, thereby disrupting narratives we were hearing marked by deficit thinking, ranking, and other myopic views of human beings. 7. We made our work public. JJK, the interns, and I worked diligently to publicize our efforts. First, through conversations with the fourth grade teaching tea m at lunch, the interns and I made explicit connections between JJKs work as teacher leaders and their academic development as students. We showed our colleagues artifacts, such as the cards JJK and I wrote back and forth during observations of the inter ns. However, we presented them not as supervision notes but as impressive writing samples. Fourth grade was the big writing year for teachers and students at Yearling Elementary, as this was the first year they experienced high stakes testing in this area. Teachers saw these kinds of artifacts as especially powerful examples for two of the three students, as getting them to write in normal academic activities was nearly impossible. We also shared JJKs verbal language development with our colleagues, and how they were appropriating teacher language they were hearing from our COP. This generated excitement for several other teachers, especially the special

PAGE 191

191 education teachers. These same colleagues later began reporting other times they heard JJK generalizing new vocabulary and their newly developed metacognitive skills about teaching and learning in new academic contexts. Such sharing cast a new narrative and perspective about JJK in educator discussions. Second, we made our work visible to the e ntire classroom. This visibility not only enhanced JJKs status among their peers. It also shaped the classroom community in a way that nurtured the curiosity of other students who wanted to be included in the problem posing we did together through inqui ry. The interns were able to capitalize on the increased curiosity and interest demonstrated by the class by building in conversations about teaching and learning into their lessons in a way I could have never done alone. These two strategies for publici zing and sharing our work were critical in stretching the boundaries of the classroom and school culture in a way that would allow us to interrogate our assumptions and interrupt the ways children are defined by narrow curricula and school practices.8. 8. We designed and used special texts that marked our membership and meaning making in the COP. The six of us generated and shared multiple text forms that defined our relationship with one another as collaborative designers in our COP. These texts include d oral and written conversations, observation instruments, work samples, lesson plans, meeting notes, data collected during observations, and our specialized vocabulary. By generating and using these texts together, power was more equalized among us, even though we had to maintain enough of a hierarchy of power to continue moving forward in a focused and productive way under the constraints of time and institutional goals we had to adhere to. All of the texts were powerful and symbolic

PAGE 192

192 reminders of our di stinct membership in the COP, even though they were embedded within the regular classroom community. Children outside of the COP found them fascinating, and frequently asked JJK to explain their meaning. In several instances JJK invited other children to engage with these texts and even help generate new ones. I consciously nurtured our specialized vocabulary that marked our COP membership. For example, I purposely inserted key words into our oral and written conversations. These words came predominantly from the readings the interns were doing that semester, and from my own specialized language as a supervisor. Some of the most common words we used that distinguished our COP from the rest of the class included: data (called facts by JJK), research, inquiry, felt difficulty, teacher leader, teacher learning, engagement, assessment, verbal reminders, participation, and observation. In addition, we had several catchphrases that marked our relationship with one another, as well as the focus of our work. One of the most common phrases we used was, We have to catch teachers and kids being good. This was used as a cue to look for the successes of both adults and children in the teaching and learning process during an observation. 9. We found the bread crumbs of JJKs available designs and followed them. JJK did not know how to be teacher leaders, or that such a way of being was even possible. We had to scaffold JJK in this process over time by exploring and building upon available designs they brought with them to the group (Rogers & Fuller, 2007). These included their discourses, dialects, histories as students, their beliefs and models about schooling and appropriate relationships between students and teachers. It became important to find the bread crumbs, or the clues that helped give us insight

PAGE 193

193 into JJKs available designs so that we could start to draw them out, and then build on them through shared dialogue. For example, while JJK did not initially have the ability to articulate specific feedback to help improve the interns lessons, one of them did have a strong opinion that teachers needed to learn to incorporate fun into teaching if they wanted their lessons to be more effective. I quickly identified this notion of fun as a bread crumb to follow and I appropriated the word into my conversations with the COP. I used this word to nudge JJK into thinking more deeply about why teachers need to make learning more engaging (a word they later appropriated and used in replacement of fun ), how we could make that happen, and how to test their assertion w ith data that more engaging lessons did, indeed, result in quality learning. Over time one bread crumb collected from JJKs belief system led to the next, and each time these ideas and thoughts became increasingly connected to their ability to gather evidence that tested their assumptions about good teaching. 10. We embraced my differentiated status as a teacher educator in the classroom. The interns and I came to believe that in order for our work to shape the school identities of JJK, the status of th e university supervisor clearly matters. For the other students and teachers to endorse our bids for JJKs new institutional identities, I had to carry enough clout with the fourth grade teaching team. I did this by first demonstrating my genuine interes t in all students and teachers in the fourth grade wing, and then by spending special time with each child in Ms. Ss classroom over the course of the semester. I also shared my instructional support with all of the children in the classroom. Soon it bec ame a big deal when I entered the classroom and we had to manage the appropriateness of the student reactions when I came. We believe that this

PAGE 194

194 celebrity status associated with my role was critical in order to elevate JJKs status in the classroom. If my role had not been valuable to the students in the class, then the privileges JJK had as members of the COP would have likely had less impact on shaping their new school identities. The ten principles outlined in this section are by no means prescri ptive for educators and researcher who wish to collaborate with children in teacher supervision. However, we believe that the findings support that these assertions paint a picture of how participants in our study needed to reframe their thinking, practic es, and relationships with one another and with the curriculum in order for students to be able to re author their school identities. It is clear that one of the most important ways this goal was achieved was by consciously creating a community of practic e (COP), and this will be discussed next. Following this I will turn attention to the questions that the findings of this study posed for us, as well as the broader implications that this research has for the field of educational research and practice. The Critical Role of the Community of Practice Its almost like we are going to have to figure a way to carve out a little niche to learn in spite of the barriers imposed here. Researchers Notebook, October 14, 2008. Our community of practice (COP), co nsisting of JJK, the two interns, and me, indeed became the most critical factor in facilitating change in the classroom through my role in the PDS, and further as a participant observer in the PAR. The power that this COP had in mediating change within, a nd even outside of, its boundaries fully surprised me, especially because it was never formalized or named. There were two main functions that the COP facilitated for JJK, which empowered them to take command of their own school curriculum and ultimately reposition their status and social

PAGE 195

195 identities in the larger classroom community. First, the COP created the belonging that JJK named as being the most important factor facilitating their change in school identities. Second, it allowed us to carve out a sp ace of resistance where unspoken curricular and social rules could become more pliable and we could let the process of our shared inquiry into making better teachers unfold. These two functions of the COP will be discussed next in more detail. Creating Belonging and a Space of Resistance Our work together as a COP was very much against the grain (Cochran Smith, 2004), and was not rewarded by the traditional structure that came from the stateand district imposed curriculum, nor by the value system th at permeated the classroom culture. The space of resistance we created was absolutely critical in order to learn in a situation where there seemed to be more barriers to than facilitators for doing so. This space of resistance was created by several stra tegies that were in my control as a PDS partner and supervisor. First, my status and my role gave me some license to speak out of turn during classroom instruction and bring attention to my own learning through think alouds. Over time I expanded the focus of learning to include that of the interns and students. Second, I acted as a surrogate source of power and status for the interns, teachers, JJK, and the rest of the children in the class. As their surrogate I could let children and interns borrow my relative power and status by extending these to them when needed. Third, I designed and modeled my identity in the classroom as an enthusiastic and public learner, and then recruited the interns, other adults, and the students to reposition themselves in the same way. Finally, I wove into my language a specialized vocabulary that began marking a clear distinction between the six of us as members of the inner circle of our COP, and those outside of it. Many of the words that

PAGE 196

196 I used created a special discourse of educational theory and an agenda of supervision and teacher inquiry that came from the readings I was facilitating with the interns in a separate seminar. This discourse was appropriated fairly quickly by JJK, the interns, and even a few other students who were highly interested in the work of our COP. As a COP we engaged in inquiry and redistributed formal allotments of power on a regular basis. This repositioning could happen in an instant, and the interns and JJK became quite adaptable to t hese shifts in our roles and identities during the course of the school day. The cue was usually when our shared inquiry question became implicitly or explicitly activated: How do we make better teachers? Once this question was asked or assumed, we ent ered into a special place of collegiality where roles of power became fluid and shared. This collegiality between the interns, JJK and me was important to the outcome of the study, pointing to how adults must be willing to relocate and redistribute expert ise in order to facilitate situated learning. Shifting into collegial relationships allowed us to name reality from the contexts of a differentiated but entirely shared fabric of expertise, one carried by all participants and manifested in different degrees at different times. Because of the clarity of our goals and purposes, the adults were able to more safely experiment with sharing power with JJK as we treated the task of internship supervision as a collaborative inquiry. While I acknowledged and maint ained my status as an authority figure with children and as an evaluator of the prospective teachers, I consciously blurred the boundaries of that authority by becoming a surrogate power source for JJK and the interns. In a short time the interns became c omfortable extending their relative power to JJK, as well. They found that the more they invited JJK to develop their own voices in

PAGE 197

197 the conversation about making better teachers, the more powerful the boys evolved as a viable data source for the interns personal professional development. At this point the interns also began documenting significant changes in JJKs academic performance in the classroom as they boys began showing more fascination in the relationship between their interns actions and the ir own performances in class. This was particularly evident in JJKs ever developing metacognitive think alouds about their learning experiences in the classroom. As JJK became more publicly metacognitive, this increased the sense of efficacy on the part of the interns, motivating them to deepen their collaboration with JJK over time and increase their expectations of the boys both as teacher leaders and as academic performers. The interns also began to accept my invitation to begin designing their own learning agendas. They demonstrated this by taking charge of the decisions on how to utilize JJK and me as data sources and as their coaches. By the end of our COP experience together, JJK were also actively experimenting with and enacting their emerging identities as learning experts and teacher leaders by making decisions about the direction of our work, strategies for teachers to try, and our pedagogical foci, including their special interest in making the learning conditions in the classroom more equit able for all. It was frankly surprising how quickly JJK took on their role of teacher leaders and how they began enacting this role across contexts, including instructional time when I was not there. JJKs manifestation of teacher leadership is especially significant considering how long they had been positioned in school as less than successful students. In this sense perhaps James Gee (2009, personal communication) has a valid point when he says that we tend to take more risks as learners when we can

PAGE 198

198 assume a new identity, such as when adolescents play and become proficient in sophisticated video gaming. In gaming a mistake is no longer the learners fault. Rather, one can say the mistake was just my elf, or whatever character s/he is embodying at the time. Perhaps this is what happened in JJKs case regarding the risks they began taking in their academic performances. It was no longer JJK risking failure, but their new characters as teacher leaders, a role that existed solely to provide data and insights f or teacher learning, rather than to judge JJK as students, or perhaps more accurately, as human beings. In coming to this new identity as teacher leaders there was suddenly room to enact competent performances because failure had lost its relevance and meaning within the context of our COP. Providing their teachers with data for learning was the sole objective of JJKs academic efforts. The honest and natural form of this effort, mistakes and all, was celebrated as the raw material we needed to evalu ate the effectiveness of the interns teaching and my supervision. All learning data that JJK generated for the COP became the next exciting clue in our game of how to make better teachers. As mentioned, I modeled and began positioning myself as a publi c learner in the classroom. Presenting myself as a learner became necessary because when I initially joined the class as a participant observer, both adults and children immediately projected onto my role an expectation of authority and expertise that was problematic for the aims of this PAR. Therefore, I made deliberate bids to the entire class to define me as a learner. These bids initially created some disequilibrium in the classroom culture but ultimately paved the way for me to position the interns a nd other teachers as public learners, to different degrees, both within and outside of the inner circle of the

PAGE 199

199 COP. This was especially true once they saw that I was able to successfully pull off a Discourse (Gee, 2002, p. 16) in which the words and act ions I used to get people to identify me as a learner clearly posed no threat to my assigned identity as an expert educator. The interns, and a few other colleagues, soon began to experiment with reshaping their professional identities to include that of public learner, at least within conversations with me. JJK began doing the same by appropriating think alouds into their regular dialogue with us. Once this happened, JJK and several other children gained access to new discourse patterns with the ad ults and with one another. For example, they were able to liberate themselves from the safe, predictable, but constraining discourse patterns of classroom conversations where teachers are the ones who ask the questions and a privileged few children are ch arged to answer them. Data on this change in discourse were not collected on a whole class level. However, such data would have been interesting to gather in order to document how changes in the positionalities of adults and children contributed to co con structions of school identities and academic performances within the classroom community, as a whole. Questions Remaining for Further Study The question of how engaging in COPs like this one might shape school identities and academic performances among an entire classroom community, or even an entire PDS, is one that I wonder about at the close of this study. I also wonder how active and visible the more successful and teacher leader dimensions of JJKs school identities will be over time. As the stu dy ended after month five, we did not document what Holland and Lave (2001) call the thickening of identity, or the lamination of JJKs hybrid psycho social positioning (Hollad & Leander, 2004) which occurs over an extended period, becoming stronger an d more resilient. Did JJKs

PAGE 200

200 school identities ultimately sustain within the co constructed social reality in the classroom (Wortham, 2004)? What did JJKs academic performances in school look like once the COP experience ended? Finally, how did this e xperience shape the next school year when they became middle school students? Another question that emerged in this study is how the intensification of teacher time through increased external demands and political agendas (Hargreaves, 1994) impacts the co construction of school identity. Namely, how do such pressures compel teachers to employ telegraphing discourse practices (Pace, personal communication, August 18, 2008) so that they can pack information about students into one and two word labels a nd convey them quickly? What power do such discourse practices among teachers have in limiting and reifying school identities for children? If teachers had fewer students, more time, and more voice, how much richer would their conversations be about chil dren, not to mention their assessment practices? How would this impact how children are institutionally identified? How would the life chances of children change if their school identities were formed in social learning environments where the complexities of their talents, perspectives, identities, and competencies were recognized and celebrated, and then used as the impetus for learning new knowledge(s), skills, and dispositions? Final questions that continued to come up during this study focused on the interns. How did our COP change their discourse practices, and thus their emerging professional identities? How did this experience lead to their development as change agents for social justice in schools? Did their participation in the COP impact the way they positioned themselves, including their ongoing learning, relative to their students?

PAGE 201

201 If so, in what ways? How did this field experience impact the way they perceived the role of data in their classroom? Finally, how did their taking such a cent ral lead in their professional agenda shape their internship and their early years as novice teachers? These questions, and many others, are at the heart of PDS work and will be examined in subsequent studies. For now, I will outline the implications tha t this studys findings have on the PDS community, and for educators, in general. Implications for PDS Work and Beyond While this PAR brings to light many new questions for investigation in the PDS, there are six implications for university school partnership work that must be seriously considered if we intend to go beyond programmatic and descriptive research and begin actualizing equity in schools. These include collaborating directly with students in supervision and inquiry into teaching and lea rning, including children in discourses of power, capitalizing on opportunities to engage children in multiliteracies and situated practice, doing democracy with children, preparing children for political and economic participation in the 21st century, and making explicit connections between the PDS social justice agenda and literacy and identity scholarship. All of these implications involve actions that are highly accessible because they can be embedded within the regular goings on of PDS classrooms. The y require no extra time, money, or additional curriculum because they utilize the natural resources already present, allowing participants to use immediately available tools to redesign their lives in the PDS setting. Collaborating with Students in Teacher Inquiry The PDS community would be wise to seriously consider learning strategies from urban science teacher educators who engage in communities of practice with marginalized learners in the teacher inquiry process through cogenerative dialogue

PAGE 202

202 (Tobin, 2006; Tobin, Elmeskey & Seiler, 2005). Research as real work involves teaching students to do work that historians, anthropologists, or physical scientists perform (Steinberg & Kincheloe, 1998, p. 15). I would argue that in the school, that research as real work would include teaching students to do the work of teacher researchers, and in the case of the PDS, perhaps even that of teacher educators. After all, as Steinberg and Kincheloe (1998) also point out, isolating children from the adult world is a very recent historical phenomenon. Children were once fully positioned within the daily work and community lives of their families. My work with students as collaborators in the supervision of teacher candidates reclaims this tradition of apprenticeship, giving students privy to the lives and experiences of the adult world through work that really matters and for which they are truly central in importance. In this way children shift from being objects to subjects of education and in life. In becoming collaborative inquirers, including students as scientists, students as historians, or even students as teaching coaches, students can expand their identities in school beyond the dehumanizing constraints of leveled reading groups or standardized test scor es. Collaborating alongside children as teacher researchers and educators, therefore, can become acts of emancipation and revolution. Including Children in Discourses of Power In recognizing that school practices are based on middle class value systems an d assumptions, James Gee says that, (Children in schools) not born in the middle class need to know how (this) will be used against them (personal communication, January 14, 2009). One way to help children to both critically read and strategically utili ze school literacy practices is to teach and include students in discourses of power. The data from this study reveals that by providing public school students access to

PAGE 203

203 discourses, such as theoretical languages of educational supervision and pedagogy, edu cators can, indeed, directly help to reclaim the institutional identities of children. In doing so educators can disrupt the hegemony of schooling that continues to perpetuate a system of winners and losers and that, in turn, leads to real life psycho logical and social consequences and economic outcomes that do not embrace the potentials of all individuals for the benefit of the greater society. No matter how privileged a child is, or not, s/he can learn how to use special languages and discourses, as children regularly demonstrate with proficiency in the world of their own media texts (Gee, 2004). This study demonstrates that children can participate in specialized academic discourses, such as those that mark the special languages of action research and supervision. Why should such available discourses remain locked up in the worlds of teachers and academicians? Granting access to children to expand their cultural capital through discourses would likely lead to access and fluency with other speciali zed discourses necessary, for example, in the math and sciences. These are the very areas from which students like JJK are marginalized. This marginalization is exasperated by the specialized discourses such academic areas require, which often depend on the ongoing support of language acquisition that happens outside of school. As Gee (2004) points out, traditional schooling continues to fail to teach these discourses in everyday practice. Activating Muliliteracies Indeed, school literacy practices are t he contexts in which identity is constructed, including how students feel, form relationships and beliefs about themselves as the types of people (Gee, 2008, p. 3) that they are (and are not), or are being recruited to believe that they are (EganRoberts on, 1998; Gee, 2000). School practices dictated by

PAGE 204

204 bureaucratic definitions of literacy appropriated by conservative politicians, researchers, educators, and the media (Brandt, 2001) often constrain and disable literacy learning due to their limited scope (Street, 2001) and in authentic purposes for literacy learning (Kubey, 2004). In this study JJK were actively engaged in complex social tasks involving reading, designing, problem solving, evaluating, and writing by using and generating multiple forms of formal and informal texts for authentic purposes and audiences. These texts, and social activities surrounding them, transcended traditional academic boundaries for literacy in the classroom. Examples included written notes of adult student conversatio ns, formal observation instruments requiring recording and analysis of numerical and linguistic data, teacher generated instructional materials, lesson plans, as well as the regular curricular texts that JJK were simultaneously expected to transact with an d respond to with competence. If we expect children to learn to be independent and critical thinkers and problem solvers, and have more than a utilitarian relationship with reading and writing, we must provide authentic opportunities in which to explore real social questions. Such opportunities need to include experiences that demand an authentic purpose for designing and transacting with texts, and access to real audiences with which to communicate. As it stands now the imposed curricula and the implicat ions of standardized tests end up suppressing such opportunities (Torres, 1998). Doing Democracy and Reforming Schools We talk often about the need to offer direct and practical routes for doing democracy in public schools (Goodman, 1992; Parker, 2003). C reating communities of practice that include children in the supervision of teachers or teacher candidates offers a readily accessible way to do democracy in the PDS context. Such work can also

PAGE 205

205 impact school reform through the creation of learning communi ties of teachers and children that focus on student strengths, rather than on perceived deficits of learners (Nieto, 2005). It brings voice to children who, alongside their teachers, get to experience generating their own knowledge and truth seeking throug h situated certainty (Hargreaves, 1994) alongside their teachers, and provides a way for children to access broadly humanistic educational experiences that consider context, judgment, critical reflection, multiple perspectives, and opportunities to evaluate (Barton & Levstik, 2004; Noddings, 2006). Finally, collaborating with children in teacher supervision work provides an example of an answer to the New London Groups (1996) call to schools to teach students to embrace the development of multi layered i dentities, and to cultivate cultural repertoires by learning to use these identities strategically in different life worlds, work contexts, and civic spaces. Working in the PDS with children as teacher leaders allow teachers and students to practice the ki nd of sophisticated work that is critical for developing democratic schools and societies. Preparing Children for the New Work Order of the 21st Century Collaborating with children in schools in research, democratic reform, the development of multiliteraci es, and discourses of power prepares them for a globalized economy that public schools currently fail to prepare most students for (New London Group, 1996). Gee (2004) emphasizes how the nature of work in the twenty first century has changed. To be succe ssful in the virtual and corporatized work world it will be necessary to creatively enact many identities and literacy practices within many different social networks. Workers who can do this will have the most access to opportunity, and the privileged members of the Millennial generation are already socialized to be fluent with such skills (Gee, 2004). Privileged classes of people are

PAGE 206

206 engaging in more project oriented team work (New London Group, 1996), a way of working that is replacing hierarchal or as sembly line organizations which follow clear chains of command (Street, 2001), and one that relies on social working styles that happen through informal networking (Gee, 2000; New London Group, 1996). However, this shift, in fact, makes the rules of the n ew working world harder to identify, define, and then learn, making learning the literacy practices needed to gain access to opportunity even more difficult than it was during the era of hierarchal organization (New London Group, 1996). Yet, school curricu la and organization are still gridlocked by these old hierarchal cultural models (Hargreaves, 1994; Street, 2001), making it nearly impossible for children lacking privileged opportunities outside of school to practice and become fluent with the languages and social relationships of the new work world (New London Group, 1996). As these students are denied access to the kind of learning through situated practice that is needed for the 21st century work world, we effectively guarantee that they will be relegated to service sector jobs (Gee, 2000). This PAR offered three fourth graders an opportunity to engage meaningfully in situated practice to enhance adult learning in a manageable way by creatively working through the roles and responsibilities that already defined their PDS. Literacyand Identity Studies: A Call for Putting Theory into Action The final contribution that this study makes is to call literacy and identity researchers to move beyond the initial stage of naming problems and on to applying the powerful insights gained from research in this field. This study confirms the critical importance of cultivating communities of practice in order to get at issues of identity in schools. It offers yet another example of the power of enacting theory into practice, and allowing practice to inform theory, through critical action research at the grass roots

PAGE 207

207 level. It also provides another example of how identity is at the heart of school performance and literacy learning. It does this by presenting evidence for the very real power children and educators have in schools in redefining school literacies, what counts as knowledge and competence, and how embracing the multiliteracies and perspectives of children marginalized by schooling, in the words of JJK, m akes (all of) us a lot smarter, including that of teachers and of university school partners. I would like to invite literacy and identity researchers to begin seeking sustained, reciprocal, collegial relationships in the PDS and in other deliberate, comm itted university school partnerships. The PDS is a rich source for literacy and identity studies to begin blending theory and practice because inquiry is the mechanism that holds such partnerships together. University and school based faculties committed to learning through inquiry create the optimal conditions needed to facilitate agendas of social justice. The PDS can reposition researchers in ways that allow them to directly change the here and now by amplifying the voices of children and teachers; changing perspectives and unexamined assumptions about childrens school identities that perpetuate inequity; and impacting literacy practices and policies at the local, state, national, and global level. Finally, literacy and identity researchers commit ted to the PDS would not only facilitate real change in the lives of teachers and learners. Researchers would also be impacting the development of the next generation of teachers. Through inquiry oriented apprenticeships with such researchers, prospective teachers would more likely develop the knowledge, skills, and dispositions to embrace, rather than attempt to homogenize, the multiliteracies of diverse students; develop a critical orientation to literacy teaching and learning; and begin to reclaim educa tors

PAGE 208

208 ownership of defining the competencies of children and what and whose knowledge(s) to value. Conclusion Democracy does not exist without educating a critical mass of intelligent users and creators (Goodman, 1992). The vision for public school as a democratizing institution for the masses is seriously in danger, particularly for its most vulnerable populations of women and children. The case has been made in this dissertation that the wrath of high stakes testing, and the social and academic sorting and tracking practices that organize schools as a result, reproduce inequity and lead to school and social identities of failure. The PDS must seriously embrace its unique position and power in resisting the debilitating political assault on teachers and their students who are working under increasingly colonized conditions. In such conditions teacher time, energy, professional judgment, choices and voices are so compromised that it becomes nearly impossible to act, let alone reflect upon how teachers ar e systematically positioned to define children in oppressive ways. In the name of education, teachers are coerced into institutional practices that end up disabling them. These practices, in turn, disable the very children who will be expected to devel op the innovation and skills needed to participate in a globalized and competitive economy. The PDS must be an educational and political forum that courageously addresses and acts upon social injustice that vulnerable populations face daily in public schoo l. While PDS partnerships are also limited in the collective power they can garner, they have the potential to disrupt status quo school practices by creatively exploiting the unique context created when multiple positionalities and perspectives from different institutions come together. Indeed, PDS partnerships between universities and schools

PAGE 209

209 carry a great responsibility for putting agendas for equity at the forefront of their daily work (Holmes Group, 1990; NAPDS, 2008; NCATE, 2001). Courageous acts of social justice can be achieved through many constellations of partnership relationships, roles, and goals that are cultivated in the PDS. As demonstrated in this PAR, the activities of the university or school based supervisor for prospective teachers cr eates a highly accessible point of entry into the social and political fabric that reproduces school identities that perpetuate inequity in schools and society. The PDS university supervisor carries tremendous potential power for disrupting narratives about students in school, and for restorying, or casting, new narratives defining children. The function of supervision is often an underdeveloped venue for the doing of social justice. But this is not the job of the lone supervisor. This work must be embe dded in larger communities of practice and value systems that support and reward such a vision for teacher preparation (Jacobs, 2007). If the global PDS community claims to stand for promoting social justice, then we need to treat school identities as the institutional and social constructions that they are, and coach children and adolescents explicitly in the power they possess to co construct their own social identities in school. Explicitly researching how identities are defined in classrooms can help u s begin restructuring classroom education so that goals of educational equity can be addressed (Egan Robertson, 1998). Beyond this we need to help students (and their teachers) fashion the tools needed to contest and resist oppressive positions and identi ties being imposed on them, and garner an appreciation for and fluency with hybrid identities (Gee, 2004; McCarthey & Moje, 2002). Perhaps a commitment to recognizing the social nature of identity and offering students and

PAGE 210

210 teachers the chance to increase t heir repertoires of possible selves through inquiry into school practices (Markus & Nurius, 1986) may present a more viable way of promoting school success and for changing perceptions of students in ways that increase equity and access to meaningful learning in school. Merely leveling the playing field in schools is not enough. Rather, we need to seek to change the entire playing field of power in classrooms and schools (Lewis, Enciso & Moje, 2007). The PDS could be a place where this happens if partic ipants fully explore creative ways to use resources already in place. JJKs identities changed because their literacy practices and discourses were given room to gain breadth and depth. Learning became possible for them because they had the social support to play with new words, find new windows into the world, and position themselves as students in new ways. It must also be noted that learning is highly tied to position (Moje & Luke, 2009), and JJK were able to develop the status needed to learn that c ame from their membership and participation in our COP. Gee (2000) stresses that in this new century of globalization, or new capitalism, that power and wealth will come to people who have the social and physical access (including both virtual and spatial mobility) to specific networks of people and information, and that their learning will occur not within school, per se, but within communities of practice. For this reason it becomes even more pressing for public schools to be places where less privileged children, constrained by their localities, can participate and create new forms of dialogue and discourses in order to reauthor their identities in limitless ways. Kids dont want to spectate and consume (curriculum), they want to participate and desi gn (it) (Gee, 2009, personal communication), which is what the 21st century demands, and testingand -

PAGE 211

211 sorting practices in public school are putting poor students at a further disadvantage. While this study offers only a glimpse into how to position child ren to enact identities and competencies as designers of curriculum and pedagogy, it provides a significant piece of evidence that opens up endless possibilities for the PDS. The PDS is a context whereby new theories about the social nature of learning, ti ed to identity, should be able to play out through the committed work of scholars and educators. The implications of students living twelve or more years in the margins of public schooling under the banners of struggling learners, resistant readers, Level Ones, and the like, are morally unacceptable. How many trajectories of possibility are available for such children who are told repeatedly that school represents the blueprint for life and their place in it? The PDS movement must actualize the potential for schools to be places of liberation for students like JJK. Indeed, the movement has made a commendable start in traversing the gulf between the historical and traditional boundaries that have separated intelligent, caring, and like minded peopl e working in universities and public schools. But twenty years since its beginning, the PDS movement must move forward. By taking imaginative leaps that deepen the PDS communitys signature location in the dialectic between theory and practice, and by reexamining its courageous commitment to healing the unacceptable gulf between the haves and the have nots, the PDS can become a social and political force to be reckoned with. Indeed, the PDS must claim its fundamental mission as a key force in balancing equity and opportunity for all children. This call is urgent. If schools become so impaired by intrusive reform efforts that they cannot uphold their central role in

PAGE 212

212 maintaining and redesigning democracy to meet the needs of its people, we will be hard p ressed to locate another social institution in which this work will be done.

PAGE 213

213 APPENDIX A EXCERPT FROM FIELD N OTES WITH NUMBERED C RITICAL INCIDENTS

PAGE 214

214 APPENDIX B EXCERPT OF ANALYSIS OF CRITICAL INCIDENTS

PAGE 215

215 APPENDIX C EXCERPT OF TEACHER CONVERSATIONS ABOUT MS. SS FOURTH GRADERS

PAGE 216

216 APPENDIX D MARKERS THAT MAKE UP TEACHERS CULTURAL MODELS OF SCHOOL IDENTITIES

PAGE 217

217

PAGE 218

218

PAGE 219

219 APPENDIX E FREQUENCY OF MARKERS MENTIONED BY EDUCATORS School Successful Cultural Model 94 Total Markers Not School Successful Cultural Model 121 Total Markers Academic Performance/Skills 24 = 26% Behaviors 51 = 42% Intelligence* 19 = 20% Academic Skills/Performance 24 = 20% Dispositions 18 = 19% Ranking 14 = 11% Behaviors 11 = 11% Role of Family 12 = 10% Unspecific Positive Markers* 10 = 11% Dispositions 11 = 9% Role of Family 5 = 5% Disability* 5 = 4% Other Various 7 = 7% Other Various 5 = 4% *These categories are only associated with the School Successful cultural model.

PAGE 220

220 APPENDIX F MARKERS THAT MAKE UP FOURTH GRADERS CULTURAL MODELS (GEE, 2002) OF SCHOOL IDENTITIES AT YEARLING ELEMENTARY SCHOOL School Identity Markers The Patrol Student Likes to follow the rules Good role model Sets a good example A normal kid Does good things A leader Doesnt jump around Walks properly Helpful to teachers (especially when there is a substitute) The Good Student Listens when the teachers talking Pays attention in class Follows directions Gets good grades Does nice things Likes helping people Gets rewards/recognition (such as extra stamps and privileges) Smart Likes learning The Bad Student Likes to play around a lot Doesnt pay attention in class Doesnt do what s/he is supposed to do Gets sent to the principals/BRTs office Flunks many grades Not focused Doesnt think about the rules Does anything s/he wants Doesnt listen Breaks things Pushes people down Makes fun of people In the self contained special education class The Crazy Student Jumps around/Bounces off the walls/Goes loco during class Does whatever s/he wants Almost like a Bad Student, but different Doodles/draws instead of doing assi gnments Always asking to have a class party Pays attention sometimes but usually not as s/he wants to have fun Funny

PAGE 221

221 APPENDIX G DARBYS MOVES AND MOTIVES DURING CRITICAL JUNCTURE #2: FORMAL OBSERVATION OF INTERN LESSON Move Motive(s) Motive Code A. Darby asks JJK to leave their assigned desks and join her at a shared table off to the sideand explains the her purpose for asking them to move there. I want the four of us to be able to communicate more easily together during the lesson. I want it to be clear to JJK and to the rest of the class that we are doing something different than the other students are. I want the rest of the class to become curious about our work together and begin to ask questions about it. I want to define JJK as special, sophis ticated colleagues who are in the business of inquiring into the complexities of teaching and learning and will be positioned as consultants. I want to put JJK together so I can better support them academically during instruction, especially because I will be adding an additional layer of cognitive work on top of their normal expectations as students. 3 2, 3 2 2, 3, 4 1, 2 B. Darby presents to JJK her observation instrument and explains how she uses it during the lesson. I want to introduce the tools to JJK that we will use that define our work as a COP. I want JJK to begin exploring the observation instrument to decrease its mystique. In the future I will invite JJK to actually write on the instrument, themselves so that they see themselves as data col lectors and writers with authentic purposes. I want others in the classroom to see JJK looking at, using, and eventually writing on the observation instrument. 3 3 1, 3, 4 2, 4 C. Darby writes a question on a card and gives it to one of the 3 boys: J2 Why do you think Ms. B. is re reading the book? I believe J2 is not participating as a successful student during the lesson and wants to redirect his attention back to the teachers behaviors. I want to engage JJK in an authentic writing experience. I want to communicate with J2 but I do not want to create a distraction for the interns or to the rest of the class. I want to begin helping J2 develop his lens as an observer in the classroom. I want the other two boys to become curious about what we are writing about. I want to begin the collegial dialogue of supervision with JJK. 1, 2 4 1 2, 3 2, 3, 4 D. Darby asks K if she can write his suggestion on the observation form. I want to communicate to JJK that their input is a privilege for me to collect as data and that they, ultimately, have the choice whether or not to include it. I want JJK to understand that their thoughts and ideas are valuable to me and worthy of being noted and remembered. I want JJK to see that their ideas and participation can be data for teacher learning. I want JJK to know that we will be doing something will follow as a result of their ideas. 3, 4 1, 2, 4 2, 3, 4 2, 3, 4

PAGE 222

222 E. Darby writes Ks suggestio n on the observation form. I want to formalize JJKs feedback as data to be used for the interns professional development. I want JJK to see that their input is being recorded on the actual observation instrument as coobservers. I want JJK to understand that their thoughts and ideas are valuable to me and worthy of being noted and remembered. I want to model for the interns how interviewing children in the classroom and taking anecdotal notes is yet another powerful way to collect ongoing assessment data on both teaching and learning. I want to communicate to the interns that I am moving toward positioning JJK as serious participants in the supervision process. 2, 3, 4 2, 3, 4 1, 4 4 2, 4 F. Darby ignores J1 who wants to talk to her at during a point in the lesson where it would be inappropriate. I want to help JJK understand the boundaries of our work together, and they are this: We are a special COP with special work but whenever our interns are teaching, their rules for our interaction supersede all. In this case my power as the supervisor does not transcend their power as the teachers facilitating instruction. Talking with one another at this moment was not acceptable. I want to build trust with the interns so that they knew the COP would not underm ine their teaching. I want to establish with JJK that while I am not directly responsible for them as their teacher, I did have a teacher in me. In other words, I was not exactly their friend. I had the power to be a teacher, if needed, and have author ity over their behavior. 1, 4 4 (other)

PAGE 223

223 APPENDIX H MOVES FROM CRITICAL JUNCTURE #6 Data Sources: Field Notes, Artifacts (student work, observation instruments) and Focus Group Conversation Transcript 1. Interns invite JJK to pre conference. 2. During pre -conference interns explain the lesson sequence and their reasoning behind each step. 3. J1 says the lesson is exercising and doing math (at the same time. 4. Darby re -introduces the Pathwise observation form and explains how she has to fill in 10 boxes at the same time but would JJK fill out one each to help me. Darby explains she needs help on these 3 boxes: fairness, classroom management, and making instructions clear. 5. JJK talk about their preferences. With the interns each boy assigned himself to a box. 6. Darby translates the meaning of each box into user friendly language and underlines (or adds) key words in the descriptor for JJK to focus on as their observation lens. Key concept explained about how to use the instrument: What you are trying to do is capture the teachers being goodwhat are all the ways they are trying to remind and help and support kids to motivatedto be on task. 7. Interns explain how important this data is for them as they cant be everywhere at once to observe these things and to be sure to write suggestions for teaching for things they dont notice (examples given). 8. Darby asks interns to predict for JJK the kinds of things they might see that theyll be able to record in their boxes. 9. Interns list: off-task list system, tens tabl e race with room markers, rules on the board, etc. For each one they explained how these might be examples of each of the 3 boxes. 10. Interns converse with one another more pre-planning and explanation of rationales behind what they plan to do (such as that they will be very strict about certain rules so that everyone stays safe). 11. Interns come to a point of not knowing their plan for how students will record their responses but wondering out loud with an idea. 12. J1 says that this idea would be better. 13. Intern 1s ays, Well how do you want to do that? Because I was trying to keep them hidden. 14. Intern 2 says, I mean you could just get them and then write the answers up and show it. 15. J1 says, Then we figure out the answer and figure out the problem, too. 16. Interns play out that idea as a scenario (JJK witness their think -aloud) and agree that it will work. 17. Darby asks us to focus on fairness now. Fairness means how many kids are getting to participate how many kids are getting more a of a chance to practice during the lesson. 18. J1 asks, Like when we did the, each table, each person has to hold up a card and everybody would know what theyre thinking? Like that? 19. Darby: Exactly. 20. Interns come up with an idea to make the lesson more equitable involving ongoing assessement how they needed to know student thinking during the lesson in order to know how to direct their teaching. 21. J1 says, Yeah, like some people might not know the answer and you can like go outside with them and help them with their multiplication. 22. Darby says, You bet, and how are they supposed to know that if they just wait until you guys do a sheet at the end of the lesson and then they grade it that nightI mean, they need to know this right away, dont they? 23. Darby asks,can you all tell us anything that J2 might see I your lesson that is promoting more fairness? Things we could be looking for? 24. Interns talk about their incorporation of white boards for each student to hold up responses (Ks idea in action). 25. Darby asks, Why does this make t he lesson more fair? 26. J2 says, Cause..on the white board it is easier and it takes longer on the what you call it? (worksheet at the end) 27. J2 continues, And if youif we do it on Tuesday and you grade it on Friday, uh, the kids wont learn moreits th ree days. 28. Interns discuss more ways they will be promoting fairness 29. JJ bring up a question: What should we do if kids fight over markers? 30. Interns problem solve this and make a decision. 31. Darby points out to J1 that this is a good strategy to catch the teachers being good in preventing behavior problems. Darby says, youre not focusing your attention on the kids that are misbehaving, you are focusing on how these teachers are getting kids to have more of a chance for behaving well.

PAGE 224

224 32. Darby asks JJK what it has been like to be teacher leaders? 33. J1: We can know more about what theyre thinking. And, theyll know more about what were thinking and what were doing in class. 34. Darby asks, Has that been different than what you have experienced before in a classroom? 35. J2 says, Yes it has been a lot of thingswe can give facts, what we know and theyll start learning more 36. J1, I think were giving facts (data) and they read it and try to come up with things... 37. Darby asks interns how having these guys be teacher leaders has helped you two in teaching? 38. Intern: Just to be more cognizant of whats going on in my classroom. I know that I really love this example that with you, J1, in readingRemy had said something to the class that maybe some students m ight not have understoodand you rephrased what Remy said and you helped explain it to the other classmates and I really think after you reemphasized it in a different way that it helped students. So I like to think now that maybe now Ill give more chanc es for students.to say things in their own words. 39. Intern: And for meits helped me be able to look at things from a different perspective. Like we see things differently as a teacher than they seethen you guys see things as studentsactually taking part in the lesson, because we may think things are being effective, or I may think things are being effective and theyre really notso having your input really helps and especially in the sense that it has helped us realize that like, we can put you guys more in charge of your learning. Like you guys are very responsible.. 40. Darby, Did it surprise you to find out how much they can be in charge of their own learning? 41. Intern: Honestly, on one level, yes, but on another level, no, because I know everybody i s so capable of it. I think the surprising part was justwhen they were given responsibility they just took it to a completely different level Do you guys agree? 42. Darby, So, guys, how do you, even if your classmates dont realize it, how have you helped them? 43. J1: By giving them the facts. 44. J2: They can learn more about like math 45. Interns, Also like when you took the participation data. Sometimes we just focus on those student who are raising their hands because its easy for us 46. Intern 2: Yes, and its like the concept of wait time. They tell us to give students wait timeand that means just giving you time to think about the problem. 47. Darby, I always forget to do that. 48. Intern 1: Exactly. A lot of times its really scary for us to be up there when we ask you guys a question and no one respondslike that silence is kind of scary for usand we need to learn to give that wait time. And like that participation check like that really helped us to see like, we were calling on, for example, G ___ all the time because she raises her hand all of the time 49. J1: Yeah, because people they might now know what you are saying. And in a different way. 50. Darby: Exactly. Like remember in your group there was one girl you and K realized had not raised her hand not one time 51. Intern: Yeah, because everybody elsewas paying attention and participating. I had not noticed that one studentjust sitting in the back and just writing down the answers without sharing any answers or ideas. And that really helped me. 52. Darby: Yeah, me too 53. Darby: How has being a teacher leader helped you guys? 54. J2: It helped us learn more, like, when we want to grow up we want to become a teacher and we have to start out as interns like Ms. E. and Ms. B 55. Darby, And J1 you are thinking about thearmy and there are definitely leadership roles in the army 56. Intern, J2, do you think that after we put you in this teacher leader role as a student that you come to our lessons a little bit differently than you would if you were ju st, Oh, Im just a student.? 57. J2, I got nothing. 58. Intern 1: Example of scary wait time. 59. Intern 2, Well, I see like when you guys first startedafter you guys got put in this role the level of your work has improved. Like you guys are more on focus on task. And I really think you guys are more reflective while were learning. 60. Darby defines reflective. 61. Intern 1: Alsoweve let you in our world and what we are doing. Do you think its easier to approach us and to us about your learning than it would be if you didnt have this role as teacher leader? 62. JJK: Big MMMMMhMMMMs, all at once. Wide eyes. 63. J1: I just thought (teachers) were aliens (before)Aliens that came from like Marsmade out of rock. 64. Intern: Do you gu