Running Head: THIRD SPACE IN THE WRITING CLASSROOM
Creating a Congruent Third Space in the Middle School Writing Classroom
Vanderbilt University
Jenna Harris
THIRD SPACE IN THE WRITING CLASSROOM
2
Abstract
All students have linguistic and cultural capital that contributes to their developing
identities within the literacy space (Risko & Walker-Dalhouse, 2012). The experiences, skills,
and resources students bring into the classroom from their families and communities are known
as ‘funds of knowledge,’ which can be leveraged within instruction, strategies, and assessments
as assets to support student learning (Allen, 2007). This capstone will explore the application of
third space theory, the integration of a student’s home discourse into the school discourse,
through the creation of a ten-lesson writing unit to demonstrate how students’ funds of
knowledge can be authentically integrated into a writing curriculum (Moje, Tehani, Carrillo, &
Marx, 2001). In this unit, students will write a memoir using “Indian Education” by Sherman
Alexie as a mentor text, supported by strategies and cultural texts that reflect authentic writing
practice. As the writing experts in the classroom, the teacher’s role in the unit is to guide student
writing by exploring personal mindsets regarding linguistic diversity, cultivating linguistic
awareness through modeling and discussion, and leveraging the linguistic and cultural
differences of students as assets rather than deficits within the curriculum (Risko & WalkerDalhouse, 2007). Teachers are able to legitimize the experiences of students by representing
them within the official curriculum of school (Ladson-Billings, 1994). By seeking to understand
student communities and valuing the identities afforded to students through their linguistic and
cultural histories, teachers are able to responsively select texts, implement instruction, and assess
writing.
THIRD SPACE IN THE WRITING CLASSROOM
3
Introduction
Prior to developing literacy skills, children learn to use and comprehend oral language.
This is a necessary part of development that allows children to mediate their sense-of-self as well
as communicate with other members of their culture (Goodman, 1986). Gee defines students’
language operating in their spheres of influence as discourses with Discourse (with a capital D)
representing the community practices of social language, and discourse (with a lowercase d)
reflecting language in use (1996; Gee, 2003). Academically, the Discourses students bring into
the classroom are foundational to working with oral and written text, which require critical use of
both language and literacy to construct meaning (Moje et al., 2004). With language at the
foundation of reading and writing development, conflict can occur when students use discourses
in their homes and communities that are not reflective of the mainstream discourse of school
(Cobb & Whitney, 2011). This collision of discourses can leave little room for the growth of
students’ home discourses, as curricular expectations require students to assimilate to the
mainstream discourse of the classroom space. As educators, it is important to consider how
teachers can meaningfully enable students to leverage their home discourses as assets in the
classroom in order to authentically represent students within the curriculum.
This capstone argues for the creation of Moje, Tehani, Carrillo, & Marx’s congruent
Third space through writing (2001), which integrates a student’s home discourse into the school
discourse in order to construct purposeful, authentic text in the middle school writing classroom.
Using the studies of Moll, Amanti, Neff, & Gonzalez (1992), Risko & Walker-Dalhouse (2012),
Cook (2005), and Lovejoy, Fox, & Willis’ (2009), this capstone and writing unit will explore
funds of knowledge (Moje et al., 2004; Risko & Walker-Dalhouse, 2007) and outline specific
writing practices teachers can use to build on the strengths of students’ linguistic and cultural
THIRD SPACE IN THE WRITING CLASSROOM
4
background experiences within the congruent Third space (Moje, Tehani, Carrillo, & Marx,
2001; Cook, 2005). Using third space theory, this capstone will demonstrate how the integration
of space and shared discourse can be created between home and school, allowing for a more
reflective picture of the student’s potential via assessment and increased transparency regarding
values relevant to learning (Cook, 2005). In the writing unit, the author will outline ten 50minute lessons reflective of a research-based Common Core writing curriculum for middle
school teachers that supports the congruent Third space of home, school, and writing discourses.
These lessons will encourage student-writing practice that is grounded in funds of knowledge
derived from student cultural experiences (Cook, 2005) and connects to students’ real-life
literacy actions (Risko & Walker-Dalhouse, 2012).
Rationale
The author is currently a middle school teacher within Metro Nashville Public School
District. As one of two seventh grade ELA teachers, the author is required by her school literacy
specialist to map her curriculum with engageNY, a New York State Common Core English
Language Arts (ELA) Curriculum (New York State Education Department [NYSED], 2013).
The author’s school, a turnaround school, is in the lowest 5% of schools in Tennessee for
performance, and it is the belief of the literacy specialist that implementing this curriculum with
responsive modifications for students will ensure alignment with the district quarterly assessment
benchmarks as well as the Achievement Network interim assessments used to monitor growth in
student proficiency (Achievement Network, 2015). Furthermore, the engageNY curriculum
modules are designed to address CCSS ELA standards (National Governors Association Center
for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010) and are broken up into six
THIRD SPACE IN THE WRITING CLASSROOM
5
modules, which are then broken into three shorter units. Each module includes seven
assessments grounded in students’ independent work on a reading, writing, speaking, and/or
listening task with one final performance task (New York State Education Department
[NYSED], 2013). The curriculum provides all materials necessary, including scripts and
protocols, to implement the lessons in the classroom space, yet the main writing foci are textual
analysis in the form of short- and long-response essays and a research performance task.
Based on the author’s observations, there is little room for authentic writing practice in
the lesson frameworks, and with the understanding that this is a possibility for other ELA
teachers given a basal curriculum to follow, this capstone seeks to outline an authentic writing
unit, which can be implemented alongside basal curriculum and maintain alignment to rigorous
national standards. The purpose of the unit is to delineate mindsets, practices, and structures that
make explicit connections between literacy and student cultural capital (Risko & WalkerDalhouse, 2007). Beginning with smaller writing tasks such as a Six-Word Memoirs (Six-Word
Memoir, 2005) and Pass the Portrait (Gallagher, 2013), the unit builds towards students reading
and imitating Sherman Alexie’s short story, “Indian Education” in their own memoir based on
significant life experiences. Students are able to leverage their personal and cultural histories and
out-of-school experiences (Gay, 2010) through oral communication and written text that is
reflective of their home discourse. All of the students’ writing products are combined in a final
compilation called a Classtory (combination of class and history) to be presented at an Author’s
Tea (Bangert & Brooke, 2003) during which community members and stakeholders are invited
to celebrate student work. While the general focus for this capstone unit is based on student
identity and experiences, the framework of mentor text coupled with smaller writing activities
can be modified to fit the purposes of a variety of disciplines, strategies, and skills. Additionally,
THIRD SPACE IN THE WRITING CLASSROOM
6
the writing can be adjusted for informational and argumentative writing depending on the needs
and requirements of the teacher, students, and curriculum. Assessment for this writing unit can
be flexible as well from formalized rubrics to informal student reflections.
Funds of Knowledge in the Third Space
Congruent Third space capitalizes on student funds of knowledge (Moll, Veléz-Ibañéz, &
Greenberg, 1989), and defines community as the cultural capital students gain from “their culture,
communities, familial, and linguistic backgrounds” (Gonzalez, Moll, & Amanti 2005).
Regarding the continuum of text construction between school and home, Cook (2005)
summarizes three ways in which Moje et al. (2004) identify Third space within education:
As bridge building between marginalized and conventional knowledges and discourses;
as ‘navigational’ spaces enabling students to brings ‘funds of knowledge’ (Moll et al.,
1992) from home to bear on school learning; and as a place where the integration of
knowledge and discourses from home and school will produce new forms of learning.
(p. 45-46)
Whether viewed conceptually, linguistically, or physically, these features of third space
delineate a teacher’s responsibility in understanding the role of funds of knowledge within the
school discourse (Cook 2005). These responsibilities as they relate to this capstone include
acquiring an in-depth understanding of students’ cultural backgrounds through language and
identity and modifying curriculum and instruction to leverage students’ experiences through
authentic writing practice. By upholding these responsibilities, teachers can develop congruent
third spaces for language and literacy in the classroom. These spaces negotiate student
THIRD SPACE IN THE WRITING CLASSROOM
7
understanding of both school and home Discourses and knowledges, necessary to constructing
new understanding both in and outside the classroom (Moje, Collazo, Carrillo, & Marx, 2001).
Understanding of Students’ Linguistic and Cultural Backgrounds
Understanding the communities that cultivate students as individual beings connects to
the purposes of writing in the classroom and the values and opportunities found in their home
cultures and communities. From their ethnographic studies and household interviews in Arizona,
Moll, Amanti, Neff, and Gonzalez define funds of knowledge as “historically accumulated and
culturally developed bodies of knowledge and skills essential for household or individual
functioning and well-being” (1992, p. 133). The researchers looked for the strengths and
resources within households to inform curriculum as well as teaching and learning roles.
Additionally, in her research with home and community resources, Allen’s cultural modeling
also recognizes the knowledges gleaned from family, community, and social resources as they
support instruction (Risko & Walker-Dalhouse, 2012).
Linguists describe all languages as valid forms of communication, even nonstandard
dialects, for the rules and systems enable children to function within their families and
communities (Lovejoy, 2003). Language plays an important role in the construction of one’s
identity and the socialization of individuals as members of their communities (de Jong, 2011).
Consequentially, in education there is limited attention to the significance of language in
teaching and learning (Neito, 2002), and research has shown that despite efforts to educate
teachers on the values of linguistic diversity, including non-standard dialects of English, negative
language attitudes still exist (Richardson, 2003). Mistaken ideas about language varieties can add
THIRD SPACE IN THE WRITING CLASSROOM
8
difficulties in learning the mainstream dialect and potentially deny non-mainstream speakers the
benefits of their educational programs (Pearson, Conner, & Jackson, 2013).
Even with teachers who acknowledge the change linguistic and cultural differences
represent in their praxis, there is still a disconnect present regarding how to understand the
linguistic diversity of multiple varieties of English (Lovejoy, Fox, & Willis, 2009).
Developmental teaching that supports students’ discourses is grounded in focusing on who the
child is outside of the classroom before building in literacy and learning (Bangert & 3, 2003).
Strong pedagogical implications exist when considering the potential valuing or devaluing of
student funds of knowledge with school norms (Risko & Walker-Dalhouse, 2012), and
pedagogies surrounding “schooled” and “unschooled” texts and the associating discourses play a
role in recognizing texts as having real purposes (Cook, 2005). Lovejoy advocates for the
inclusion of student discourse within text construction as a means of understanding the
multifaceted nature language “capable of communicating meaning in various forms and styles”
(2003, p. 101). For example, to establish connections between students’ community and
classroom, Bangert and Brooke focused on leveraging the resources of students’ family and
community members within classroom units and inviting students to bring their discourses of
their homes into the classroom space (2003). This integration of home discourses within the
lesson provides a scaffold to move students towards more honed academic or school knowledges
without risking compartmentalization (Moje et al., 2004).
In addition to language, students’ identities are also co-constructed with their literacy
teaching (Compton-Lily, 2006, as cited in Risko & Walker-Dalhouse, 2012), and the cultural
contexts and language histories that students bring into the classroom inform how students
engage and interact with literacy as a reflection of their lives. As student home discourses
THIRD SPACE IN THE WRITING CLASSROOM
9
represent the language of students’ homes, families, and community, the discourse of nurture
with which the student has been raised positions students broadly within the Discourse of their
family and community, serving student needs outside of the classroom (Lovejoy, Fox, & Willis,
2009). When students enter the classroom, if teachers are reluctant to consider the relationship
between the discourse of home with the discourse valued by school, there is risk of conveying
the message that students’ home discourses are not compatible with the discourses of school.
This juxtaposition can be detrimental when the socio-cultural dimensions of students’ identities
fail to be represented in their literacy instruction, potentially limiting student achievement and
motivation to succeed in the literacy classroom (Risko, Walker-Dalhouse, & Arragones, 2011).
Modifying Curriculum and Instruction within Authentic Writing Practice
The more connections the students can see between their identities at home in the writing
classroom, the stronger self-efficacy students will feel as writers (Lovejoy, Fox, Wills, 2009).
However, the explicit and implicit values privileged by a literacy curriculum do not always
accommodate the diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds of students, and third space theory
mediates the space between home and school by transferring students’ funds of knowledge from
home into the classroom, creating an experience shared by teacher and student (Cook, 2005). For
teachers in the writing classroom, this means guiding authentic writing practice, cultivating
language awareness, and viewing linguistic differences as assets to leverage in the classroom.
For students, this means constructing text for purposes that are highly relevant to their
knowledges inside and outside of school.
Cultivating Linguistic Awareness. Multiple language arts goals can be met within texts
reflective of student discourses (Risko & Walter-Dalhouse, 2007). For example, if a teacher
THIRD SPACE IN THE WRITING CLASSROOM
10
selects a text written in the discourse of the African-American English (AAE), a native-language
variety spoken by some African Americans, the same academic skills of analysis and evaluation
can be applied (Pearson, Conner, & Jackson, 2013). As with any text, a teacher might ask
students to discuss how the figurative language in a text contributes to the text’s overall message.
Students can also analyze the text written in AAE for its use of the same figurative language and,
additionally, be able to make connections between their lived experiences as either speakers of
the African-American vernacular or observers (Smitherman, 2003). Discussing with peers how
the use of a traditionally non-academic discourse in an academic text also meaningfully
contributes to the effectiveness of the author’s message can not only promote student
engagement but also redefine text as it is traditionally viewed in the discourse of school.
Therefore, caring about the cultures of students and how they are reflected linguistically or
culturally in class materials and discussions legitimizes students' real-life experiences by
officially representing them within the curriculum (Ladson-Billings, 1994). The primary
consideration is to demonstrate the same academic cognition for cultural data sets that are
required by basal, or “schooled” texts. Teachers can select texts that are reflective of student
funds of knowledge as well as interest and apply different strategies and skills
Teacher Mindsets. Traditional writing instruction typically focuses on learning to write and
writing to learn (Tatum & Gue, 2010); however, to affirm the experiences students bring into the
classroom, teachers must view students’ linguistic context as a strength to the writing process
(Neito, 2002). Teachers cannot control what our students hear and attend to in our instruction;
therefore, teachers should be meta-cognizant of how they are being heard in their classroom as
teacher-talk is a major contributing factor in student attitudes and the learning environment
(Kohl, 2002). Teachers need to begin to reflect on the implications of linguistic difference in
THIRD SPACE IN THE WRITING CLASSROOM
11
their classrooms and how the existences of multiple varieties of English are accepted in their
writing curriculums (Lovejoy, Fox, Wills, 2009). Additionally, teachers must be reflective of
their own mindsets regarding personal writing experiences and how those experiences influence
their instruction (Zumbrunn & Krause, 2012). Assumptions cannot be made for the Standard
English language practice or westernized cultural experiences for all students (de Jong & Harper,
2005); therefore, teachers should also not assume that students bring the same written discourses
or experiences into the classroom.
Modeling. Writing can present challenges to all learners, given the strategic processes of
planning, drafting, and revising (Regan & Berkeley, 2012). Scaffolding the approach to
generative thinking through modeling allows students to observe the language in practice.
Research shows that when teachers write alongside their students and transparently experience
the writing process with them, they create more opportunities in their classrooms for authentic
writing practice (Zumbrunn & Krause, 2012). Students who continually read and write actively
inquire and construct understandings in the context of their reading and writing (Smith &
Wilhelm, 2007), as language in use affords the transformation of student beliefs about
themselves as readers, writers, speakers, listeners, and thinkers (Gee, 2003). This practice is
critical for students who may require more time to process and produce writing (DelliCarpini,
2010). Finding the balance between the composing process and written features is challenging;
however, the benefits of explicit, intentional writing instruction are necessary to building a
community of writers (DelliCarpini, 2010).
THIRD SPACE IN THE WRITING CLASSROOM
12
Lesson Plan Analysis
The goal of this capstone project is to create a research-based Common Core writing
curriculum for middle school teachers that supports the congruent Third Space of home, school,
and writing discourses operating in unison to inform student writing practices that are grounded
in the funds of knowledge derived from student cultural experiences (Cook, 2005).
The curriculum will include a brief unit overview as well as outline of ten lesson plans
for ten 50-minute class periods. The third and sixth lessons in the unit are fully developed in a
lesson plan format. In the outline and two lesson plans, the outlined writing practices will reflect
authentic guided writing practice (Regan & Berkeley, 2012), cultivating language awareness
through discussion and student observation (Richardson, 2003), and viewing linguistic
differences and funds of knowledge as assets to leverage (Lovejoy, Fox, & Willis, 2009; Moje et
al., 2004; Risko & Walker-Dalhouse, 2007). Writing practices will focus on writing for authentic
purposes relevant to students’ linguistic and cultural experiences (Zumbrunn &Krause, 2012;
Nauman, Stirling, & Borthwick, 2011; Lynch, Zenkov, Ewaida, & Bell, 2012; Dalton, 2012;
Bangert & Brooke, 2003).
These lessons are not tied to a specific curriculum and can be adjusted to any basal or
supplementary English Language Arts curriculum used in the middle school classroom space.
The lessons will align to 6-8th grade Common Core State Standards (National Governors
Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010).
Assessment frameworks, such as rubrics, will be used to assess the curriculum formally in
conjunction with informal assessment, such as writing conferences, workshop-style peer
collaboration, and presentations.
THIRD SPACE IN THE WRITING CLASSROOM
13
Unit Overview. This unit allows students to explore how writing is reflected in their homes and
communities through the creation of a vignette-style memoir using the short story, “Indian
Education” by Sherman Alexie as a mentor text (Alexie, 2013). This unit is appropriate for the
beginning of the year or as a writing refresher. The teacher’s role in this unit will be to guide
student writing through think-alouds and modeling (Regan & Berkeley, 2012), and students are
encouraged to try their hand at crafting their own topics and exploring their writing territories
(Gallagher, 2011). This unit helps redefine texts to include “unschooled” texts that are a
reflection of students’ home discourses and culture (Risko & Walker-Dalhouse, 2007), including
artifacts and texts written by students. Ideally, student will complete this unit with the belief that
writing is able to “serve many functions of roles, including those of context, purpose, and social
identity” (Lovejoy, Fox, & Willis, 2009, p. 270). Additionally, this unit serves to prepare
students for writing discourse-specific pieces using mentor texts grounded in student funds of
knowledge. The goal is for students to see their lived experiences as spaces for them grow
academically in the classroom and apply who they are as students in real-life (Allen, 2007).
The Learner. This unit is aligned to the seventh grade Common Core English Language Arts
standards for reading, writing, listening, and speaking to guide instruction (National Governors
Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010). Students
participating in this unit encompass a wide range of beliefs, cultural backgrounds, and mindsets
about writing. However, the unit is guided by the belief that all students attend school with the
intent of succeeding (Risko & Walker-Dalhouse, 2007), and all students should find themselves
represented in the instruction of their classrooms. Prior to implementing this unit, teachers
should use student interest surveys and classroom observations as resources to inform instruction
that are motivating and relevant to students (Diaz-Rico & Weed, 2010).
THIRD SPACE IN THE WRITING CLASSROOM
14
Within the writing process of this unit, student-learning styles are accommodated within
the spectrum of communitarianism and individualism through collaboration with peers as well as
individual conferences with the teacher (Herrera, Cabral, & Murry, 2013). Each student’s
discourse and background experiences contribute to construction of unit texts, and students are
encouraged to write and reflect according to their home discourse. The purpose of the writing in
this unit is to convey memories and experiences that are personal to students. The driving
mindset behind instruction is for learners to reach the understanding that their unique linguistic
identities are necessary to authentically convey their experiences.
Learner Context. The unit aims to provide opportunities to integrate the discourse of home
generatively into writing by using cultural data sets – artifacts and texts representing the students’
home discourses – as mentor texts that require the same skills and cognition as academic
materials (Risko & Walker-Dalhouse, 2007). As there is no specified learner for this unit, there is
no assurance that “Indian Education” will represent the home discourse of a student in this unit
(Alexie, 2013). However, the text itself provides access for students to imitate the structure of the
text inputting the language and content of their own lived experiences. Additionally, “Indian
Education” and the smaller texts written by students prior to the memoir provide material for
class discussion that provides insight into the lives and experiences of their classmates (Glazier
& Seo, 2005). In this learning context, it is envisioned that writing transcends any differences
that might exist between the school and the community by creating a third space which
incorporates community members, cultural artifacts, and authentic writing together to support
academic learning.
Curriculum and Instructional Strategies. In this unit, the teacher is afforded the autonomy to
modify the content of the lesson according to the areas needing to be taught and the specific
THIRD SPACE IN THE WRITING CLASSROOM
15
strategies and skills students need to learn (Risko & Walker-Dalhouse, 2007). Also, the teacher
is able to investigate students’ linguistic and cultural background knowledges to leverage
alongside instruction. These knowledges can be procured through class observations, student
interviews, student interest surveys, and even home visits (Diaz-Rico & Weed, 2010). Lastly, the
teacher is able to select multiple texts and activities to supplement the basal curriculum
according to the interests and needs of students (See Appendix A). Without knowing the specific
contextual features, it is difficult to account for access to technology; therefore, the unit is
limited in its use of technology for the purposes of multimodal composition (Dalton, 2013).
In the lesson framework (see Appendix B), the plan follows the gradual release of
responsibility model with the teacher modeling the target writing process using think-alouds and
questioning, monitoring students during collaborative guided practice with their peers, and
prompting students to apply the writing process independently (Pearson & Gallagher, 1983).
This model is used in conjunction with a workshop-style instructional framework during which
multiple writing-as-a-process strategies are used, including: writing for authentic audiences, prewriting, free-writing, drafting, revision, peer response, mentor texts, inquiry strategies, and a
writing portfolio (Anderson 2005; National Writing Project & Nagin, 2006). At the end of the
10-lesson unit, teachers, students, and community members are invited to celebrate student work,
connecting the instruction and writing processes inside the classroom with the stakeholders and
student Discourses outside the classroom.
Assessment. The role of assessment in the unit is to support student experiences as authentic
context with the Discourse of the writing classroom (Cook, 2005). To do this, the unit will
incorporate traditional assessment frameworks such as rubrics to formally assess student work.
However, since there are no specific students or classroom context, these rubrics, which are co-
THIRD SPACE IN THE WRITING CLASSROOM
16
constructed by student and teacher, cannot be outlined. Within the Common Core ELA standards,
there is not dictation as to a specific assessment practice; therefore, the teacher is able to exercise
agency in assessment that is closely aligned with instruction.
In this unit, the primary form of assessment is informal assessments such as reflections,
anecdotal observations, student self-assessment, and writing conferences, which will assist the
teacher in closely aligning instruction with the goals of the curriculum. When assessing the
“Classtory,” the class writing portfolio at the end of the unit, descriptive assessment, as outlined
by Bangert & Brooke, will be used to guide students in assessing their own learning (2003). This
assessment helps the teacher understand aspects of writing children have learned, aspects that are
developing, and aspects that hold their attention as learners (Bangert & Brooke, 2003). Coupled
with teacher observations and student writing portfolios, this assessment reflects a student’s
individual development and provides insight into areas of growth.
Writing and the assessment of writing are subjective practices (Nauman, Stirling, &
Borthwick, 2011). Goodness and value are not inherent in text; the goodness in writing is
contained with the author and his or her experiences. (Mo, Kopke, Hawkins, Troia, Olinghouse,
2014). Even with rubrics and standards that outline good writing, it is the responsibility of the
teacher to question the definition of good writing and always consider the relationships between
the text and the reader. Exploring academic and personal genres of writing allow for “familiar,
colloquial, and creative uses of language,” (Lovejoy, Fox, & Willis, 2009, p. 277). These
relationships provide with opportunities to address – and encourage - the cultural and linguistic
backgrounds of students within writing by highlighting experiences as necessary contributions to
the writing process. Throughout the unit, the framework elicits peer, community, and everyday
Discourses (See Appendix A) in order to support effective collaboration; however, it is important
THIRD SPACE IN THE WRITING CLASSROOM
17
to remember the necessity of scaffolding student and teacher integration of experiences and
Discourses within the literary Discourses demanded by the writing activities and mentor texts
(Moje, Collazo, Carrillo, & Marx, 2001). Additionally, considerations need to be made for
students whose native discourse patterns are not reflective of the linear discourse patterns of
native-English speakers (Herrera, Cabral, & Murry, 2013). This modification should be reflected
in the formalized rubrics as well as the anecdotal observations with attention to the literacy
development of the student in the student’s native language as well as in English (Escamilla &
Coady, 2001).
Considerations Going Forward
Incorporating third space theory into the discourse of the writing classroom serves to
authenticate the linguistic and cultural histories of students. Through the construction of text
within this capstone unit, students’ funds of knowledge serve as a vehicle within the classroom
space to develop new understandings of academic content and self. While this capstone was
limited in lack of specific contextual features, it was able to delineate the essential practices in
supporting the creation of third space, including: cultivating and valuing linguistic awareness and
leveraging linguistic and cultural differences as assets. A significant portion of the research
regarding third space is bound by the ethnographic studies using home visits and interviews to
explore student fund of knowledges. A further look into how to leverage parents and community
members physically within the classroom space would reinforce the integration of the linguistic
Discourses of home and school as well as the physical.
THIRD SPACE IN THE WRITING CLASSROOM
18
References
Achievement Network. (2015). Interim Assessments. Retrieved from
http://achievementnetwork.org/assessments/
Alexie, S. (2012). Blasphemy. New York, NY: Grove Press.
Allen, J. (2007). Engaging Families Creating welcoming schools: A practical guide to homeschool partnerships with diverse families. New York: Teachers College Press and
International Reading Association.
Anderson, J. (2005). Mechanically Inclined: Building Grammar, Usage, and Style into Writer’s
Workshop. Portland, ME: Stenhouse Publishers.
Bangert, S. & Brooke, R. E. (2003). Inviting Children into Community: Growing Readers and
Writers in Elementary School. In R. Brooke (Ed.), Rural Voices: Place-Conscious
Education and the Teaching of Writing (23-43). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Cobb, J.B. & Whitney, P. (2011). Who is the reader?: Cognitive, linguistic, and affective factors
impacting readers. In Cobb, J.B. & Kallus, M.K. (Eds). Historical, Theoretical, and
Sociological Foundations of Reading in the U.S. New York: Pearson.
Cook, C. (2005). ‘A place of their own’: creating a classroom ‘third space’ to support a
continuum of text construction between home and school. Literacy, July, 85-90.
Dalton, B. (2012). Multimodal Composition and the Common Core State Standards. The
Reading Teacher, 66(4), 333-339, doi: 10.1002/TRTR.01129.
de Jong, E. J. & Harper, C. A. (2005). Preparing Mainstream Teachers for English-Language
Learners: Is Being a Good Teacher Good Enough? Teacher Education Quarterly, Spring,
101-124.
THIRD SPACE IN THE WRITING CLASSROOM
19
DelliCarpini, M. (2012). Success ELLs: We are All Writers! Building Second Language Writing
Skills in the ELA Classroom. English Journal, 101(5), 97-101.
Diaz-Rico, L., & Weed, K. (2010). The Crosscultural, Language, and Academic Development
Handbook: A Complete K-12 Reference Guide (4th Ed.) Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Duke, N., & Pearson, P., (2002). Effective practices for developing reading comprehension. In
A. E. Farstrup & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say about reading
instruction (3rd ed., pp. 205-242). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Escamilla, K. & Coady, M. (2001). Assessing the writing of Spanish speaking students: Issues
and suggestions. In J. Tinajero and S. Hurley (eds.), Handbook for Literacy Assessment
for Bilingual Learners. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Gallagher, K. (2011). Write Like This: Teaching Real-World Writing through Modeling and
Mentor Texts. Portland, ME: Stenhouse Publishers.
Gay, G. (2010). The power of culturally responsive caring. In Culturally responsive teaching:
Theory, research, and practice, 2nd ed. New York: Teachers College Press.
Gee, J.P. (1996). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses (2nd ed.). London:
Falmer.
Gee, J. (2003). A sociocultural perspective on early literacy development. In S. B. Neuman &
D. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (pp. 30-42). New York:
Guilford Press.
Glazier, J. and Seo, J. (2005). Multicultural literature and discussion as mirror and window?
Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 48(8), 686-700.
González, N., Moll, L. C., & Amanti, C. (2005). Funds of Knowledge : Theorizing Practices in
Households, Communities, and Classrooms. Mahwah, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates.
THIRD SPACE IN THE WRITING CLASSROOM
20
Goodman, Y. (1986). Children coming to know literacy. In W.H. Teale and E. Sulzby (eds.),
Emergent Literacy: Writing and Reading. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Company.
Herrera, S., Morales Cabral, R., & Murry, K. (2012). Assessment Accommodations for
Classroom Teachers of Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Students (2nd Ed). Boston,
MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Kohl, H. (2002). Topsy-turvies: Teacher talk and student talk. In L. Delpit & K. Dowdy (Eds).
The skin that we speak: Thoughts on language and culture in the classroom (pp. 145161). New York, NY: The New Press.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). The Dreamkeepers: Successful Teachers of African American
Children. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Lovejoy, K., B. (2003). Practical Pedagogy for Composition. In G. Smitherman & Victor
Villanueva (Eds.), Language Diversity in the Classroom: From Intention to Practice (89108). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Lovejoy, K. B., Fox, S., & Wills, K. V. (2009) From Language Experience to Classroom
Practice: Affirming Linguistic Diversity in Writing Pedagogy. Pedagogy: Critical
Approaches to Teaching Literature, Language, Composition, and Culture, 9, 261-287.
Lynch, M., Zenkov, K., Ewaida, M., & Bell, A. (2012). Seeing English Language Learners’
Perspective on School: Using Photography to Improve Diverse Students’ Writing SelfEfficacy and Achievement. In A. Honingsfeld, A. & A. Cohan (Eds.), Breaking the Mold
of Education for CLD Students (207-218). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield
Education.
THIRD SPACE IN THE WRITING CLASSROOM
21
Mo, Y., Kopke, R. A., Hawkins, L., K., Troia, G. A., & Olinghouse, N. G. (2014). The
Neglected “R” in a Time of Common Core. The Reading Teacher, 67(6), 445-453. doi:
10.1002/TRTR.1227.
Moje, E., Ciechanowski, K., Kramer, K., Ellis, L., Carrillo, R., & Collazo, T. (2004). Working
Toward Third Space in Content Area Literacy: An Examination of Everyday Funds of
Knowledge and Discourse. Reading Research Quarterly, 39(1), 38-70
Moje, E., Collazo, T., Carrillo, R., & Marx, R. (2001). ‘Maestro, what is ‘quality’?”: Language,
literacy, and discourse in project‐ based science. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching,
38(4), 469-498
Moll, L., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using
a qualitative approach to connect homes & classrooms. Theory Into Practice,
31(2), 132-142.
Moll, L, Veléz-Ibañéz C., & Greenberg, J. (1989). Year one progress report: Community
knowledge and classroom practice: Combining resources for literacy instruction (IARP
Subcontract L-10, Development Associates). Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School
Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards for English language arts and literacy in
history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Washington, DC: Authors.
National Writing Project & Nagin, C. (2006). Because Writing Matters: Improving Student
Writing in Our Schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Nauman, A., Stirling, T., & Borthwick, A. (2011). What makes writing good?: An essential
question for teachers. The Reading Teachers, 64(5), 318-328.
THIRD SPACE IN THE WRITING CLASSROOM
22
Neito, S. (2002). Language, Culture, and Teaching: Critical Perspectives for a New Century
(181-205). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
New York State Education Department [NYSED]. (2014). Grade 7 English Language Arts
Curriculum Map. Retrieved from https://www.engageny.org/resource/grade-7-englishlanguage-arts.
Pearson, B., Conner, T., & Jackson, J. (2013). Removing Obstacles for African American
English-Speaking Children Through Greater Understanding of Language Difference.
Development Psychology, 49(1), 31-44.
Regan, K. & Berkeley, S. (2012). Effective Reading and Writing Instruction: A Focus on
Modeling. Intervention in School and Clinic, 47(5), 276-282.
Richardson, E. (2003). Race, Class(es), Gender, and Age: The Making of Knowledge about
Language Diversity. In G. Smitherman & Victor Villanueva (Eds.), Language Diversity
in the Classroom: From Intention to Practice (40-66). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois
University Press.
Risko, V. & Walker-Dalhouse, D. (2007). Tapping Students’ Cultural Funds of Knowledge to
Address the Achievement Gap. The Reading Teacher, 61(1), 98-100, doi:
10.1598/RT.61.1.12
Risko, V. & Walker-Dalhouse, Arragones, A. (2011) The Promise of an Alternate Perspective:
Viewing Struggling Readers through a Socio-Cultural Research Lens. The Thirty-Third
Yearbook of the Association of Literacy Educators and Researchers, 33, 187-203.
Risko, V. & Walker-Dalhouse. (2012). Capitalizing on students’ cultural and linguistic histories
and experiences. In Be That Teacher!: Breaking the Cycle for Struggling Readers (19-38).
New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
THIRD SPACE IN THE WRITING CLASSROOM
23
Six-Word Memoir. (2005). Six-Word Memoir. Retrieved from
http://www.sixwordmemoirs.com/schools/.
Smith, M. W. & Wilhelm, J. D. (2007). Getting It Right: Fresh Approaches to Teaching
Grammar, Usage, and Correctness (47-89) (2nd edition). New York, NY: Scholastic Inc.
Smitherman, G. (2003). The Historical Struggle for Language Rights in CCCC. In G.
Smitherman & Victor Villanueva (Eds.), Language Diversity in the Classroom: From
Intention to Practice (7-39). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Tatum, A. & Gue, V. (2010). Adolescents and Texts: Raw Writing: A Critical Support for
Adolescents. The English Journal, 99(4), 90-93.
Wilhelm, J. D. (2007). Imagining a new kind of self: Academic language, identity, and content
area learning. Voices from the Middle, 15(1), 44-45.
Zumbrunn, S. & Krause, K. (2012). Conversations with Leaders: Principles of Effective Writing
Instruction. The Reading Teacher, 65(5), 346-353, doi: 10.1002/TRTR.01053.