RUNNING HEAD: “It's because I don't understand”: Dialogically

RUNNING HEAD: “It’s because I don’t understand”: Dialogically constructing an identity of linguistic struggle

“It’s because I don’t understand”:

Dialogically Constructing an Identity of Linguistic Struggle

Michiko Hikida

Leah Durán

Ramón Martínez

University of Texas at Austin


Experts at anything were once beginners. Beginning and learning are full of approximations and gaps in experience and foundational knowledge. Within any context, those mistakes can become inflexible parts of the ways people are viewed, perceived, and treated; they can become immovable parts of the way people’s identities are constructed within that space. In classrooms where students are learning the language(s) of instruction, mistakes are inevitable, but when those mistakes become viewed as “fixed personal characteristics”, students’ identities can be constructed as struggling or unsuccessful learners

(Johnston, 2012, p.11).

Researchers have documented the ways in which students’ identities are constructed such that they are viewed as struggling in school (Anderson, 2009; Dudley-Marling, 2004;

Hall, 2010; McDermott, 1993; Triplett, 2007; Wortham, 2004a). In some cases, researchers have documented the transition of an individual student from being perceived as a good student to occupying the position of bad and disruptive, as the student fails to learn according to the expectations of teachers (Wortham, 2004a). As the identity of bad student is continually reinforced and becomes more fixed, student learning can be affected in negative ways (Wortham, 2004b), and students can become less strategic and agentive in their learning (Johnston, 2012).

This intrinsic case study (Stake, 1995) focuses on the ways that one emergent

Spanish speaker’s identity was co-constructed by him, his teacher, and his classmates in a

Spanish-English dual language classroom. The construction of his identity seemed to shift, depending on context and interlocutor, in ways that at times seemed to limit the view of what Kevin was able to do and learn and that positioned him as struggling. This study seeks to answer the following research questions:


· How was an identity of struggle was constructed for Kevin, a Tagalog and

English speaker, in a Spanish-English dual language classroom?

To help answer this question, this study will examine these sub-questions:

· Who contributed to Kevin’s identity as non-Spanish speaker?

· How did Kevin and others contribute to this identity?

· Who resisted this construction of Kevin?

· How was resistance enacted?

Sociocultural Linguistics Lens

This study draws on Bucholtz and Hall’s (2005) sociocultural linguistic framework to consider how students’ identities are socially constructed in and through talk. Their framework identifies five principles through which identities are produced: Emergence,

Positionality, Indexicality, Relationality, and Partialness. The authors use the Emergence principle to capture the idea that identity is a product that emerges through language use and other semiotic practices, making identity “fundamentally a social and cultural phenomenon”

(p.588). With the Positionality principle, they explain that identities position one within micro-level (i.e. local cliques and social groups) and macro-level (i.e. nationality, race, gender) ideological categories. The Indexicality principle suggests that identity emerges through indexical processes such as overt mention or implication of categories and labels. The

Relationality principle argues that identities are constructed through ideological relationships including similarity and difference, genuineness and artifice, and authority and delegitimacy .

Lastly, the Partialness principle argues that at any given time, identity construction may be in part deliberate, in part habitual, and in part negotiated or contested and always in the process of becoming.


We use this framework to look at the ways Kevin’s identity as non-Latino, non-

Spanish speaker emerged and was indexed through interactions with his classmates and teacher; how he was positioned as one of the few non-Latino, Spanish-emergent students within a Spanish-English dual language classroom; and when there was contestation or resistance to this identity construction.

Social Construction of Struggle

In considering how students are co-constructed as struggling learners, we begin by discussing how previous research has documented how students’ identities shift from competence to struggle, depending on the context (McDermott, 1993; Triplett, 2007;

Wortham, 2004a). McDermott (1993) described the experience of Adam who experienced struggle when assigned more arbitrary tasks and when he had fewer resources on which to draw. Triplett (2007) noted that when teachers felt prepared to meet students’ diverse literacy needs, they were less likely to identify students as struggling readers. Likewise, students were less likely to experience feelings of struggle when with the reading specialist, who had the knowledge to meet their learning needs. Last, Wortham (2004a) demonstrated how expectations of proficiency shift across the school year. Although a student’s participation at the beginning of the year may exceed teachers’ expectations, the student can be seen as problematic if his/her ways of participating do not adjust to expectations as they shift across the school year.

The above examples of dynamic identity constructs have been attributed to how prepared teachers feel to meet the varying needs of their students (Triplett, 2007), the resources students are allowed to access when completing tasks (McDermott, 1993), and teacher perceptions of how closely students are meeting expectations of what it looks like to be a good student (Wortham, 2004a). The salient theme throughout this area of research is

RUNNING HEAD: “It’s because I don’t understand”: Dialogically constructing an identity of linguistic struggle that across time and space, individual students were sometimes positioned as competent, engaged, and successful learners and sometimes not depending on the task, the resources available to the student, and the teacher. The ways in which students’ identities are constructed within their classrooms can impact the knowledge to which they have access and how they engage with learning (McDermott, 1993; Triplett, 2007; Wortham, 2004a; Worthy,

Consalvo, Bogard, & Russell, 2012).

These local, classroom-level identities of struggle can be compounded when entangled with macro-issues such as race. This issue has been considered by numerous researchers in relation to the disproportionately-high representation of African American students in high-incidence special education categories (Blanchett, 2006; Erevelles & Minear,

2010; Ferri & Connor, 2010; Reid & Knight, 2006; Sleeter, 2010). Reid and Knight (2006) argued that when White ways of being are normalized within a learning environment, deviations from that norm can then be located within the individual rather than within the practices of the environment. This serves to systematically exclude some students of color from successful participation.

Method

This paper reports on data from a long-term ethnographic study of language and ideology in a Spanish-English dual language elementary school in a large urban school district in southern California. These data are drawn from the second year of the study, during which time Kevin was second grader in a 2nd/3rd multiage classroom.

Study Design

In this intrinsic case study, coming to understand the case’s (here Kevin) uniqueness within the complexity of the functioning classroom is of primary concern (Stake, 1995). As one of the few trilingual, Spanish learners in the classroom, the particularity of Kevin’s experience is

RUNNING HEAD: “It’s because I don’t understand”: Dialogically constructing an identity of linguistic struggle of interest, especially in relation to the way his identity as a non-speaker of Spanish was constructed. The study aims to answer the research question: How was an identity of struggle was constructed for Kevin, a Tagalog and English speaker in a Spanish-English dual language classroom?

Setting

University Public School is a K-12 public school, located in a large urban area in

California. The school serves approximately 1,000 students. The school website reports that during the 2011-2012 school year 78% of students were Latino and 15% were Asian. The race of the remaining 7% was left unspecified. At the elementary level, the website reports that 75% of students are English learners. At the elementary level students are grouped into multi-aged classrooms. The elementary grades followed a dual language model, either a

Spanish-English strand or a Korean-English strand. At the time of this study, Kevin was enrolled in the Spanish-English strand.

There were 21 students in Kevin’s 2 nd /3 rd grade class. Students’ desks were in groups. In the center of the room was a large group of about 8 desks. There were three groups of 4 desks, and Kevin’s desk was in a group with one other student’s. In an interview the teacher mentioned that she had attempted to pair dominant Spanish speakers with dominant English speakers to facilitate students’ language learning from their peers.

In the back of the room there were three bookshelves forming a little corner around a carpet, which served as a classroom library. Two or three of the shelves had books in

English, but the majority of the collection was Spanish. Also in the back of the room was a kidney-shaped table where small group instruction in reading and math was conducted. The majority of the whole group instruction we observed happened with the teacher at the document camera and the students at their desks.


The Case

Kevin seemed to enjoy playing with both his classmates and the researchers. He seemed to like to make jokes and make up words. Several times during his interviews, he got up out of his chair to hide from the camera. He also made a point of turning the questions around, posing them to the interviewers. Kevin came from a home in which both English and Tagalog were spoken. He claimed to understand Tagalog and to speak a little. He had a little sister to whom he reported speaking mostly English. During the first year of the study,

Kevin was a first grader. The majority of instruction in his first grade class was in Spanish, a language that for Kevin was neither spoken in his home nor a heritage language. During the second year of study, the cohort of first graders moved up into the 2 nd /3 rd grade classroom. By design, Kevin’s cohort remained together, with the exception of a couple of students who left the school. In his class were five students, including him, who we identified as trilingual because they had exposure to an additional language in their homes. For Kevin and two of his classmates, the other language was Tagalog.

Data Sources

Data collected for the second year of study occurred across six weeks of intensive observation. The researchers were in the field everyday for the entire school day, approximately 7-hours per day. Classroom interactions were video recorded, as were all interviews. Fieldnotes and artifacts were also collected.

Fieldnotes. Fieldnotes (Emerson, Fretz, & Shaw, 1995) were collected for this study. Jottings (Emerson et al., 1995) were taken in notebooks while the researchers were in the classrooms to capture details of the events, talk, and interactions within the context.

Jottings were then written into full field notes shortly after the time in the field. Field notes were collected by all three researchers.


Video-recordings. Along with field notes, the researchers collected video data. Students were recorded in large-group, teacher-directed instruction, small-group teacher- and student-directed instruction, and during independent activities, as well as at less structured times such as the library, recess, and lunch.

Semi-structured interviews. Individual semi-structured (Merriam, 2009) interviews with students, including Kevin, were conducted. Individual interviews with students lasted no longer than 45-minutes. Semi-structured group interviews involving between 2 and 4 students were also conducted. Group interviews lasted between 30 and 45 minutes. All interviews were video recorded for analysis. Also, informal conversations and individual semi-structured interviews were conducted with Kevin’s classroom teachers.

Artifacts. Artifacts and photos of artifacts were collected that illustrated students’ various language practices. During interviews, students were asked to make lists of the languages they used to communicate with the various people in their lives. These were also collected for analysis.

Analysis

To begin systematic analysis, field notes, classroom videos, and interview data were repeatedly read or watched. Activity logs were created for the video and interview data. Data relevant to Kevin were identified and collected in a separate folder. Then, through a process of open coding (Emerson et al., 1995), a preliminary coding scheme was developed. That scheme was refined as it was applied to the data across multiple interactions. For example, when in an interview the teacher was asked to rank order her students based on how well she thought they spoke English and she responded, “I’d put

[Kevin] at the end. At home he still speaks Tagalog,” this comment was coded “Teacher perception of Kevin.” Throughout the coding process, analytic memos were used to

RUNNING HEAD: “It’s because I don’t understand”: Dialogically constructing an identity of linguistic struggle elaborate and pursue possible themes and ideas that arose from interaction with the data

(Emerson et al., 1995). Using the coded data set and analytic memos, a set of emerging themes were established (for example, fixed identity construction), and the data were reviewed in search of both confirmation of emergent patterns and discrepant cases. Finally, we triangulated across data sources, which enabled us to confirm or disconfirm our emergent themes.

Findings

One central finding is that Kevin’s identity as a Spanish speaker seemed to vary across time, space, and interlocutor in ways that sometimes seemed contradictory. At times,

Kevin’s identity as a Spanish speaker was indexed as fixed and struggling. At other times,

Kevin’s identity was indexed more dynamically. In what follows, we will share examples from the data to illustrate times in which Kevin’s identity was either explicitly or implicitly indexed during social interactions within the classroom or during interviews.

There were times in which Kevin’s second grade teacher, Ms. Quixote, explicitly constructed Kevin’s identity as a non-Spanish speaker in ways that seemed to position him as struggling to learn Spanish (Bucholtz & Hall, 2005). In this excerpt from our field notes,

Ms. Quixote initiated a conversation with one of the researchers about her feelings regarding the philosophy of writing instruction to which the school subscribed. She began by stating that the writing instruction didn’t meet the needs of students with “mixed language abilities”

(fieldnotes, 6/7/12). The conversation then turned to Kevin.

Dual language works for Abel, Kimberly, Jose, Samantha, ‘the majority of our population,’ but not necessarily for students like Ana, Kevin.

(fieldnotes, 6/7/12)


This was a sentiment the teacher reiterated during an interview when she stated, “the [dual language] model that we’re doing I don’t think fits the students we have. It fits for most.”

(interview, 6/12/12). She went on to identify Kevin as a student she did not hear mixing

English and Spanish when he spoke, saying he stuck to English unless she prompted him to speak in Spanish, and then he would “throw in a Spanish word” (interview, 6/12/12). These statements indexed Kevin’s identity as non-speaker of Spanish. Ms. Quixote added that this observation was based on what she noticed Kevin doing in the classroom and not other contexts like the playground, which recognized that her position as their teacher may have mediated the kinds of language practices in which she observed Kevin engage.

Through Ms. Quixote’s comments, we also see the ways macro-level ideologies about race and nationality may have influenced how she saw and positioned Kevin (Bucholtz

& Hall, 2005). The students for whom she identified dual language as “working” were all of

Latina/o descent. The two other students, Ana and Kevin, were both of Pilipino descent. Abel, a student in the group for whom the teacher believed dual language was effective, was a Spanish learner similar to Kevin. But, as Peter Johnston (2012) argues,

“within a fixed theory, once a student is judged… we start to see evidence of it everywhere in their behavior” (p.19). These data suggest that the teacher’s fixed view of Kevin as a student for whom Dual-language is ineffective may have prompted her to see evidence to support that conclusion. It is possible that this framing of Kevin may have contributed to the decision for Kevin to be pulled out of his class to receive his math instruction in English in the class next door. He is the only student who received instruction outside of the classroom like this.


The teacher was not the only one who seemed to explicitly identify Kevin as struggling to learn Spanish. At times, Kevin made indexical moves that positioned him as a non-Spanish speaker. One example arose on a day when the class had a guest speaker.

[The speaker] came in to give a brief talk to the students. She asked if she should speak English or Spanish. Kevin, Abel and [another student] say that they don’t understand Spanish. (fieldnotes, 6/7/12)

Here Kevin explicitly positioned himself as a student who didn’t understand Spanish

(Bucholtz & Hall, 2005). Returning to Johnston (2012), who draws on the work of Carol

Dweck to suggest that when students adopt this kind of fixed identity framing of themselves, students “become helpless” and “cease being strategic” when they run into academic challenges (p.15). However, like Ms. Quixote, Kevin did not always position himself in this way.

In the fieldnote excerpt accompanying the observer comment below, the researchers noticed Kevin during writing time. The students were engaged in peer editing.

Kevin went over to Jose. They got out red pencils and edited each others’ work. Jose has written in Spanish and Kevin corrects diverti to divertí .

Observer Comments: This is so interesting—Kevin, who is constantly positioned as a non-Spanish speaker, is in fact making helpful edits to Jose’s Spanish writing.

(fieldnotes, 6/4/12)

In the moment, this struck the researchers as in opposition to the way Kevin seemed to be positioned within the classroom, and Kevin implicitly indexed himself as Spanish knowledgeable to his peer by correcting the spelling of divertí.


In another example of Kevin positioning himself as knowledgeable, but in complicated ways, we see him in negotiation regarding his identity as a Spanish speaker with others. Bucholtz and Hall (2005) suggest that identity constructions are in part outcomes of

“interactional negotiation and contestation” (p. 606). The larger study from which these data come was focused on students’ everyday language practices. As a result, there was a lot of talk around language choice between the teacher, students, and researchers. In the following transcript we see Kevin’s identity being negotiated and contested in dialogue with another student and the researcher.

The researcher noticed that Eva, a student who seemed to prefer to speak in

Spanish, was speaking to Kevin in English and asked her about it.

Researcher: ¿Tú le hablas a Kevin en español?

<Do you speak to Kevin in Spanish?>

Eva: Inglés.

<English>

Researcher: ¿Por qué no le hablas en español?

<Why don’t you speak to him in Spanish?>

Eva: A veces.

<Sometimes>

Kevin: It’s because I don’t understand.

Researcher: Sí entiendes.

<You understand.>

Kevin: Sí. (2-second pause) Kinda.

<Yes. (2-second pause) Kinda.>

In this short exchange, we see Kevin’s identity being negotiated and contested by each of the interlocutors (Bucholtz & Hall, 2005). First, Kevin explicitly, and ironically, positioned himself as not understanding Spanish in a response that demonstrates his understanding. In

RUNNING HEAD: “It’s because I don’t understand”: Dialogically constructing an identity of linguistic struggle a single conversational move, he troubled the “struggling” identity he explicitly claimed. The researcher then highlighted the inconsistency of Kevin’s position, contesting that fixed construction of struggling to understand Spanish. Kevin assented (notably, in Spanish), but then distanced himself from the claim with the addition of the ‘kinda.’ Second, Eva positioned Kevin as an English speaker and then revised that assertion when probed more, saying sometimes she spoke to him in Spanish as the researcher asked for more information. Her response could have been in response to the researcher’s follow-up question, which she may have interpreted as implying that her initial answer was wrong, or she could have been adding nuance to her initial positioning of Kevin. In another example, which supports the latter explanation, Kevin and a two of his classmates were at a listening center. One of those classmates, Leticia, came over with some book choices for them to listen to. Kevin chose one and then his classmate asked him to switched seats with her.

Kevin: Así. Esté, esté!

<ok. This one, this one!>

Leticia:

Kevin:

Este.

<This one.>

Wanna see it? (to the researcher)

Leticia: Pásate para acá.

<Move over here.>

(Kevin and Eva switch seats)

Leticia: Se movío. (to classmate 2)

<He moved.>

Kevin’s first utterance in this exchange in notably in Spanish. Leticia selection of language with Kevin when asking him to switch seats builds on the language in which Kevin initiated the interaction and positions him as a Spanish speaker. Her comment to Jose could be

RUNNING HEAD: “It’s because I don’t understand”: Dialogically constructing an identity of linguistic struggle interpreted as a meta-commentary on Kevin’s understanding her directive in Spanish, further indexing him as a Spanish speaker.

In one of the examples above, Eva said she spoke to Kevin in Spanish “a veces,” sometimes. This may signify a view of Kevin as someone in the process of becoming more proficient in Spanish. Samantha, another of Kevin’s classmates, spoke of him in a similar way. In an interview about her language practices, she was asked with whom she spoke

English and with whom she spoke Spanish. She was also asked to explain why she made those choices.

Researcher: ¿Y aquí en esquela, hablas en inglés?

<And here at school, do you speak in English?>

Samantha: Sí.

<Yes.>

Researcher: ¿Con quién hablas inglés aquí en esquela?

<With whom do you speak English here at school?>

Samantha: Con la Ana, con el Kevin, con la Amanda, con el Abel.

< With Ana, with Kevin, with Amanda, with Abel.>

The first three students Samantha identified were of Pilipino descent and spoke Tagalog and

English in their homes. This may evidence Samantha’s sensitivity to macro-level ideologies of nationality. We have argued elsewhere (forthcoming) that it may also be a heightened metalinguistic awareness resulting from her trilingualism. The last student Samantha identified as one with whom she speaks English was Abel, who was a Spanish learner and one of the students for whom the teacher said dual language worked. Her listing of him with the other language learners relationally positions him in the same group as Kevin

(Bucholtz & Hall, 2005). This is unlike the teacher who positioned Abel and Kevin in

RUNNING HEAD: “It’s because I don’t understand”: Dialogically constructing an identity of linguistic struggle different groups. Then the researcher asked Samantha why she chose to speak to those students in English.

Researcher: Y cuando a veces aquí en la escuela hablas en inglés en tu clase, por ejemplo, con Kevin y Amanda y Ana, ¿por qué hablas inglés con ellos?

<And those times when you speak English at school, in your class for example with Kevin and Amanda and Ana, why do you speak English with them?

Samantha: Porque ellos no, como no pueden, como [clears throat] como no

pueden hablar mucho en español, pues, les hablo con en inglés.

<Because they don’t, like they can’t, I mean [clears throat] like they don’t speak a lot of Spanish. So, I speak with them in English.

Researcher: ¿Kevin entiende mucho [en español]?

<Does Kevin understand a lot [of Spanish]?>

Samantha: Um... ya casí va a entender mucho.

< Um… he almost understands a lot.>

When answering the researcher’s question, instead of saying her classmates cannot speak

Spanish, she says that “no pueden hablar mucho en español,” they do not speak much

Spanish. The researcher then asks specifically about Kevin’s understanding. Samantha brings a similar nuance to her view of Kevin individually, saying he is almost going to understand a lot. Samantha’s careful consideration of Kevin’s ability to understand Spanish could be her subtle way of resisting a monolithic view of Kevin as a non-speaker. One reason for this more dynamic view of Kevin might have been her interaction with him across a larger variety of contexts than the teacher, such as recess, lunch, and other less academically focused times, as well as her history of interactions with him across the span of two consecutive academic years (Johnston, 2012). Johnson (2012) states that if we develop classrooms in which teachers and students view themselves and others as dynamic, changing individuals, it opens up possibilities and “good things will happen” (p. 50).

Discussion


Through these examples, the data suggest that Kevin’s identity emerged through negotiated interactions with others and was influenced by macro-level ideologies (Bucholtz

& Hall, 2005). At times, his identity seemed to be seen as fixed and he was explicitly positioned as one who struggled with Spanish, while at other times, it appeared to be more dynamic. Ms. Quixote seemed to explicitly position Kevin as a Spanish learner in a fixed way, influenced perhaps by macro-level ideologies such as race, and informed by her position as a teacher responsible for his academic progress. Kevin’s contribution to the construction of his identity also seemed to consist of explicitly indexing himself as a nonspeaker who struggled to understand, while implicitly demonstrating otherwise. Eva, and especially Samantha, seemed to articulate dynamic and nuanced views of Kevin. This may be the result of being able to see him across an extended period of time (across multiple school years), a variety of contexts, including non-academic ones, and being emergent bi- or trilingual students themselves. We may conclude that Kevin’s identity was constructed intersubjectively, varyingly, and at times in contradictory ways.

Implications

Peter Johnston (2012) argues that through dynamic frames of viewing themselves and others, students can tell productive and agentive narratives. He suggests that teachers can help students to build these views. To help students build these agentive narratives, teachers must first see their students as capable of growing and changing. One way to do this is for teachers to resist the temptation to view “knowing a language” as dichotomously, they know it or they don’t, they’re fluent or their struggling. Instead we invite a ethnographer’s gaze, through which teachers notice variation in the ways students seem to use language based on task, level of support, and topic. This seems similar to the ways the students seemed to talk about themselves and their classmates language learning. They

RUNNING HEAD: “It’s because I don’t understand”: Dialogically constructing an identity of linguistic struggle noted greater gradation with words like “kinda” and “casi” (“almost”). As teacher educators, we are responsible for helping our pre-service teachers to understand the need for and to give them the tools to develop this more nuanced gaze.

As schools become increasingly diverse and multilingual students become the norm, dual language classrooms such as the one in which this research was conducted will become more common. Figuring out how best to serve students with broad linguistic repertoires in ways that builds their agency and identity as multilingual learners becomes imperative. More research is needed in the ways teachers “purposefully disrupt” identity constructs that have the potential to inhibit learning (e.g., Worthy, Consalvo, Bogard, & Russell, 2012). It would be informative to look at the ways teachers help students shed problematic or limiting identity constructions to develop more dynamic and agentive narratives about themselves as learners.

References

Anderson, K. T. (2009). Applying positioning theory to the analysis of classroom interactions: Mediating micro-identities, macro-kinds, and ideologies of knowing.

Linguistics and Education, 20(4), 291–310. doi:10.1016/j.linged.2009.08.001

Blanchett, W. J. (2006). Disproportionate representation of African American students in special education: Acknowledging the role of white privilege and racism. Educational

Researcher, 35(6), 24–28.

Bucholtz, M., & Hall, K. (2005). Identity and interaction: A sociocultural linguistic approach.

Discourse Studies, 7(4-5), 585–614.

Dudley-Marling, C. (2004). The social construction of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning

Disabilities, 37(6), 482–489.

Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. I., & Shaw, L. L. (1995). Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes (1st ed.).

University of Chicago Press.

Erevelles, N., & Minear, A. (2010). Unspeakable offenses: Untangling race and disability in discourses of intersectionality. Journal of Literary & Cultural Disability Studies, 4(2),

127–145.

Ferri, B. A., & Connor, D. J. (2010). “I was the special ed. girl”: urban working-class young women of colour. Gender and Education, 22(1), 105–121.


Hall, L. A. (2010). The negative consequences of becoming a good reader: Identity theory as a lens for understanding struggling readers, teachers, and reading instruction. Teachers

College Record, 112(7), 1792–1829.

Johnston, P. H. (2012). Opening minds: using language to change lives. Portland, Me.: Stenhouse

Publishers.

McDermott, R. (1993). 10 The acquisition of a child by a learning disability. In Understanding

practice: Perspectives on activity and context (pp. 269–305).

Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation (3rd ed.).

Jossey-Bass.

Reid, D. K., & Knight, M. G. (2006). Disability justifies exclusion of minority students: A critical history grounded in disability studies. Educational Researcher, 35(6), 18–23.

Sleeter, C. (2010). Building Counter-Theory about Disability. Disability Studies Quarterly, 30(2).

Retrieved from http://dsq-sds.org/article/view/1244

Stake, R. E. (1995). The Art of Case Study Research. Sage Publications.

Triplett, C. F. (2007). The social construction of “struggle”: Influences of school literacy contexts, curriculum, and relationships. Journal of Literacy Research, 39(1), 95–126.

Wortham, S. (2004a). From Good Student to Outcast: The Emergence of a Classroom

Identity. Ethos, 32(2), 164–187. doi:10.1525/eth.2004.32.2.164

Wortham, S. (2004b). The Interdependence of Social Identification and Learning. American

Educational Research Journal, 41(3), 715–750. doi:10.3102/00028312041003715

Worthy, J., Consalvo, A. L., Bogard, T., & Russell, K. W. (2012). Fostering Academic and

Social Growth in a Primary Literacy Workshop Classroom: “Restorying” Students with Negative Reputations. Elementary School Journal, 112(4), 568–589.

RUNNING HEAD: “It's because I don't understand”: Dialogically

Related documents

Products

Support

RUNNING HEAD: “It's because I don't understand”: Dialogically

Related documents

Add this document to collection(s)

Add this document to saved

Suggest us how to improve StudyLib