How Sixth-Grade Teachers’ Wording Changes Facilitated Genre Instruction
in Their Classrooms: An Ongoing Formative Design Study
Fenice B. Boyd, University at Buffalo
Kathleen Hinchman, Syracuse University
Purpose
The purpose of this round table is to describe three teachers’ wording changes during the
initial phase of an ongoing collaborative formative design study (Reinking & Bradley,
2008). Instruction for the larger study was offered by the researchers who are the authors
of this piece. It initially took the form of a 10-day unit introducing genre to sixth-grade
students in these teachers’ urban middle school classrooms. We noticed that our
collaborating teachers frequently supplied wording changes during our teaching, and we
wanted to understand these changes better. We asked, What wording changes did
teachers offer during researcher-led lessons to introduce genre?, and How did these
wording changes facilitate or delimit students’ understanding and task completion?
Background and Theoretical Perspectives
Much Common Core State Standards (CCSS) in English Language Arts and Literacy in
History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects (CCSSO/NGA, 2010)
implementation advice is so devoid of attention to sociocultural aspects of literacy that it
can be accused of being colorblind (Boyd, 2012-2013; Frankenberg, 1993). Delpit
(1995) reminded us to teach dominant academic discourses explicitly to ensure that all
students can gain access to power codes. The CCSS reading and writing standards
privilege genre and text structure—a power code of sorts. Duke, Caughlan, Juzwik, and
Martin (2012) argue for teaching genre, noting that, “Standards and assessments seem to
be increasingly concerned with genre” and “the common core state standards … are
organized, in part, by types of text, such as literature and informational text” (p. 34).
Purcell-Gates and colleagues (2007) would also support a blending of explicit genre
teaching with opportunity for authentic use but note that research showing how to do this
is inconclusive.
Collins (2012) recently described how Bakhtinian genre theory invites understanding of
how genres “grow out of and, in turn, shape the dialogical interactions of socially located
actors” (p. 78). He argued for addressing this theory’s limitations by combining it with
Gee’s discourse theory, explaining that, “A given social actor… adapts Discursive norms
to create linguistic and material patterns at a particular place and time” (p. 87). According
to Collins, conceiving of genre and discourse theories as mutually constitutive helps to
explain how “some social actors may find some genres difficult to engage” (p. 90). This
argument also provides theoretical grounding for the design of culturally responsive
genre instruction suited for use in urban schools and for the careful study of talk used as
this instruction is implemented in local communities (Boyd & Galda, 2011; LadsonBillings, 1995; Paris 2012).
Exploring Genres--Page 2
Method
Setting and participants. Our inquiry took place in three sixth-grade classrooms in two
mid-sized urban school districts. One school was a charter school with two experienced
teachers working in a full-day self-contained classroom and who organized ELA teaching
around a reading/writing workshop framework. The other school was a more traditional
middle school, with a first-year teacher who taught four sections of English language arts
a day using a mix of whole class and small group instruction and a new district CCSS
ELA curriculum and pacing guide. Three teachers and two researchers (one professor,
one graduate student) are white, and one researcher is African-American.
Instructional intervention. The first phase of our design study built on recent work on
culturally sustaining pedagogy that involves youth in developing writing across genres by
writing first in familar forms, in combination with studying other authors’ purposes for
writing in various genres (Paris, 2012; Haddix, 2010; Kinloch, 2012). As Duke and her
colleagues (2012) suggested, our introductory unit was intended to develop students’
initial understanding of authors’ purposes for using various genres and to show them how
their knowledge of these purposes across genres could aid their reading comprehension
and help them to develop their writing. It was meant to serve as a reference for students’
genre work throughout the school year. Plans were developed by the researchers and
modified in consultation with the three sixth-grade participating teachers who were
invited to co-teach the lessons with the researchers. Teacher collaborators were also
invited to help refine lesson plans and give feedback on upon completion.
Data sources. For the larger design study the researchers wrote field notes and lesson
plans to capture planning sessions and shared these with the collaborating teachers as a
member check. Data were also collected from student participants. These included all
student work and a pre- and post-15-minute written survey to gather information about
students’ understanding of purposes for writing in particular genres. Most important for
this study was that whole-class and small-group instructional discussions were audio and
video recorded to capture instructional practices, as well as student participants' and
teachers' verbal reactions and comments. Audio and video recordings were transcribed.
Analysis. Data were blinded, pooled, and preliminarily analyzed using constant
comparison (Glaser & Strauss, 1968) to identify trends and themes of planning, teaching,
and students’ responses to instruction, as well as to inform subsequent instructional
design. A first analysis found that most students gained a beginning understanding of
genre and were most engaged when activities connected to their experiences or involved
classroom interaction (e.g., shared writing of found poetry). We realized that our
intervention was enhanced when texts and teachers helped us make our points and
complete tasks and inhibited by text talk and teachers’ re-explanation that took us away
from lesson objectives. Mindful of Allington and Johnston’s (2002) observations about
the importance of effective teachers instructional talk, we initiated a second analysis, this
time yielding categories of the ways the teachers reworded our instructional talk.
Findings
Our collaborating teachers offered wording changes during researchers’ teaching in two
sites in several ways that were intended to keep students on task and focused on our
learning objectives. Their interruptions checked students’ task understandings, clarified
Exploring Genres--Page 3
task directions, and helped students consider what they knew so they could answer
researchers’ questions.
For instance, teachers intervened by inviting students to check their understandings of
task directions: “I would like you all to turn to the person next to you and share the
homework assignment that is due tomorrow.” They often referred to classroom routines
known to students but sometimes changed the nature of the task in the rewording, as
when a researcher asked a student from each discussion table to bring a sticky note up to
a classroom comparison chart, which the teacher reworded to, “Pass your stickies to your
table captain, and table captain will bring them up.” The teacher’s re-wording conveys
the importance of being consistent with her classroom routines and culture; one of which
the research was not familiar.
Teachers also helped students to answer researchers’ questions. One teacher helped a
student answer such a question by drawing students’ attention to an answer source
discussed earlier. The researcher had asked, “What type of genre is Superman [and Me]?
One student replied, “Historical fiction?” The researcher queried, “Is it fiction?” The
teacher interrupted, asking, “Is it fiction? Is he a real man?,” went to a definition slide,
directed students to a list of genres, and asked “So what genre?” One student replied with
a question: “A poem?,” and another said, more resolutely, “An essay.”
Another type of rewording involved teachers in changing researchers’ queries to narrow
the universe of possible answers. The researcher had asked, “What kinds of writing have
you seen people do since we talked last week? And what was the purpose? In your
family? Grocery lists?” The teacher waited for a minute of silence and added, “What
about in school? What have you been seeing people write in school?” Students then
began to respond: “Oh… Ms. X was writing a referral, “Ms. Y filled out an application
for my dad,” “Ms. Y was writing passes,” and “I saw my mom write down a phone
number so she could remember it.”
Discussion and Significance
With the task delineation and content narrowing offered by our teacher collaborators, we
were able to engage students in tasks to explore genres in ways that resonated with urban
sixth graders. Although teachers sometimes changed the tasks in their rewordings, their
changes were minimal and did not seem to change student outcomes in important ways.
Even this cursory analysis reminds us of how little we know about what Nystrand (2006)
called sociogenesis, that is, the ways classroom talk frames students’ developing insights
about reading and writing. It was a reminder of how grade and community-specific
classroom discourse needs to be in order to communicate with students, a reminder that
causes us to pause about the purpose of scripted instructional plans. These are areas of
classroom talk that Allington (2002) has pointed out are under-researched. They will be
the focus of the next iteration of this multi-phase design study of genre teaching to
benefit reading and writing.
Exploring Genres--Page 4
References
Allington, R. L. (2002). The six t’s of effective elementary literacy instruction.
(Originally published in the June 2002 issue of Phi Delta Kappan as "What I've
Learned About Effective Reading Instruction From a Decade of Studying
Exemplary Elementary Classroom Teachers.) Downloaded February 1, 2014 from
http://www.readingrockets.org/article/96
Allington, R. L., & Johnston, P. (2002). Reading to learn: Lessons from exemplary 4th
grade classrooms. New York: Guilford.
Boyd, F. (2012-2013). The Common Core State Standards and diversity: Unpacking the
text exemplars presented in Appendix B. Reading Today, 30(3), 10-11.
Boyd, M., & Galda, L. (2011). Real talk in elementary classrooms: Effective oral
language practice. New York, NY: Guilford.
CCSSO/NGA (2010). Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts &
Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects. Washington,
DC: Council of Chief State School Officers & National Governors Association.
Collin, R. (2012). Genre in discourse, discourse in genre: A new approach to the study of
literate practice. Journal of Literacy Research, 44(1), 76-96.
Delpit, L. (1995). Other people’s children: Cultural conflict in the classroom. New York,
NY: New Press.
Duke, N.K., Caughlin, S., Juzwik, M.M., & Martin, N.M. (2012). Reading and writing
genre with purpose in K-8 classrooms. Portsmouth, NY: Heinemann.
Frankenberg, R. (1993). White women race matters: The social construction of whiteness.
Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1968). The discovery of grounded theory. New York, NY:
Aldine.
Haddix, M. (2010). Black boys can write: Challenging dominant framings of African
American Adolescent males in literacy research. Journal of Adolescent and Adult
Literacy, 53, 341-343.
Kinloch, V. (2012). Crossing boundaries: Teaching and learning with urban youth. New
York: NY: Teachers College press.
Nystrand, M. (2006). Research on the role of classroom discourse as it affects reading
comprehension. Research in the Teaching of English, 40, 392-412.
Paris, D. (2012). Culturally sustaining pedagogy: A needed change in stance, terminology,
and practice. Educational Researcher, 41, 93-97.
Purcell-Gates, V., Duke, N. K., & Martineau, J. A. (2007). Learning to read and write
genre-specific text: Roles of authentic experience and explicit teaching. Reading
Research Quarterly, 42(1), 8–45.
Reinking, D., & Bradley. B. (2008). Formative and design experiments: Approaches to
language and literacy research. New York: NY: Teachers College Press.