Literacy Practices among Sudanese Refugee Families:
A Dissertation Proposal
Kristen H. Perry
Michigan State University
2
Rationale and Literature Review
Studying the literacy practices of diverse communities has the potential to offer important
insights into the development of literacy in sociocultural contexts. Such studies may shed light
into the myriad ways in which individuals navigate and negotiate the various literacy landscapes
and contexts that surround them. The purpose of this study therefore is to explore these issues in
depth in one community—families of refugees from southern Sudan. In this study, I intend to
examine: (1) the ways in which the literacy practices of Sudanese refugee families reflect the
various literacy landscapes they have experienced as refugees, including the landscape of the
United States; (2) the ways in which these refugees negotiate, appropriate, and transform literacy
practices through their experiences; and (3) the ways in which young refugee children negotiate,
appropriate and transform the differences between U.S. school-based literacy practices and the
practices of their homes and communities.
Literacy in Sociocultural Contexts
Scholars who look at literacy in sociocultural contexts agree that literacy looks different
among different people, in different places, and in different historical times (Barton & Hamilton,
1998; Barton, Hamilton & Ivanič, 2000; Street, 2001b). Context, therefore, seems to play an
important role in determining the shape of literacy in a particular community. Because literacy
practices look different depending on the community that is using literacy, literacy scholars have
determined that it is more appropriate to speak of “multiple literacies” than of “literacy” as a
single, reified entity (Street, 2001b). Researchers operating within a framework of literacy as
social practice (Barton & Hamilton, 1998, 2000; Street, 2001b) recognize that literacies are
multiple not only across communities, but also within them—communities, and the individuals
that inhabit them, have multiple purposes and uses for literacies in their daily lives. Recent
3
literacy research suggests, however, that schools still very much operate under a singular, “uniliteracy” framework; that is, they tend to view literacy as something which individuals (or even
entire communities) either possess or do not possess, rather than viewing literacy as a
multiplicity of practices which may or may not look the same in different communities. This
“uni-literacy” lens operates within what Brian Street (2001a) terms an autonomous model of
literacy. This model conceptualizes literacy as a particular set of skills and abilities, a literacy
which is both universal and neutral. In contrast, Street argues that literacies are multiple and
closely connected with culture and power.
Groups that are outside of the mainstream, such as southern Sudanese refugees, are of
particular interest in current literacy research. Street (2001b) suggests that “research in cultures
that have newly acquired reading and writing draws our attention to the creative and original
ways in which people transform literacy to their own cultural concerns and interests” (p. 430).
Focusing on groups outside of the mainstream also serves to highlight issues of power
relationships in terms of literacy practices. The social practice frame of literacy (Barton &
Hamilton, 1998; Barton, Hamilton, & Ivanič, 2000; Cope & Kalantzis, 2000; Street, 1995,
2001a) recognizes power as an integral aspect of both language and literacy use. Cultural
contexts and power relationships pattern literacy practices in ways that make some more
dominant than others, and this is particularly apparent in schools. Many scholars agree that the
institution of formal schooling often provides a venue where dominant and less dominant literacy
practices clash—that is, the literacy practices sanctioned and promoted by schooling are not
necessarily those practices which children encounter in their everyday lives (Au, 2000; Cairney
& Ruge, 1998; Gonzalez et al, 1995; Heath, 1983; Lipka & McCarty, 1994; Purcell-Gates, 1995,
in press).
4
Underachievement of Marginalized Populations
Indeed, some scholars theorize that much of the reason why many children, particularly
those from minority or otherwise marginalized communities, do poorly in schools compared with
mainstream children is because their literacy practices differ so greatly from those of formal
schooling. Cultural compatibility theory assumes that children learn to behave competently in
their native cultural context, and schools expect children to hold certain values and to behave in
specific ways that are truly foreign to these children (Tabachnik & Bloch, 1995). Schools tend to
reflect the dominant culture, and, at least in the U.S., they are largely staffed by White, middleclass women. Teachers, who may not understand the cultural context of such students, judge
minority or otherwise marginalized children by standards from their own background and deem
them to be lacking. Understanding the different ways in which various communities value and
use literacy is therefore an important first step in finding ways to make literacy instruction in
schools more relevant and meaningful for all children.
Such differences become even more apparent when we consider the status of different
minority groups. Not all minority groups are the same; and according to John Ogbu (1992), the
relationship between the minority group and the dominant group in a society plays an important
role in determining minority responses to schooling. The most important distinctions in Ogbu’s
hierarchy are between voluntary and involuntary minority communities. The former are groups
that have moved to the United States more or less voluntarily, such as immigrants who seek out
opportunities that may not have been available in their home countries. In contrast, involuntary
minorities are those who became part of a society unwillingly through slavery or colonization.
Ogbu suggests that these two groups respond to formal schooling in radically different ways;
voluntary minorities “buy into” the dominant society’s rationale of schooling as a way to get
5
ahead, while involuntary minorities resist or reject schooling, because they see few (if any)
opportunities afforded by schooling.
Regardless of whether there are discontinuities for minority or marginalized students
between practices of schooling or rationales for schooling, it is clear that such mismatches can
have serious consequences for students and communities. These consequences may be
specifically academic, or they may affect the community more broadly. Academic consequences
of cultural mismatches can include decreased participation in class, lower test scores, and
increased referrals for special education services for minority children (Cairney & Ruge, 1998;
Lucas, Henze & Donato, 1990; Rueda & Garcia, 1996). Broader community consequences
include alienation of students, parents and communities from schooling as well as decreased
economic opportunities (Cairney & Ruge, 1998; Moll, Saez & Dworin, 2001; Purcell-Gates,
1995; Zanger, 1994). In contrast, school practices and values that more closely align with those
of students and communities may have positive outcomes. Positive academic outcomes of closer
cultural alignment may include increased test scores and achievement (Au, 1980; Lipka &
McCarty, 1994), more active participation in classrooms (Au, 1980; Au & Mason, 1981;
Cairney, 2000; Lipka, 1991), and greater reported pride and self-esteem in students (Lucas,
Henze & Donato, 1990; Moll, Saez, & Dworin, 2001). In terms of literacy instruction, cultural
alignment may occur in both the literacy practices that take place in the classroom and in the
language of instruction.
Literacy and Power
Issues of cultural alignment affect schools and communities, as well as society at large.
Cultural mismatches between formal schooling and different communities are simply a symptom
of disproportionate power relationships in a society. Pierre Bourdieu (1991) suggests that when
6
schools and other formal institutions dismiss the discourses and practices of marginalized groups
they enact a form of “symbolic violence.” Such symbolic violence is especially relevant to
groups such as refugees, who are often characterized as uneducated and wholly illiterate. Those
who view literacy through a dominant lens impose Western conceptualizations of literacy upon
other cultures, with the result that the literacy practices of these non-Western groups are further
pushed to the margins. Unfortunately, using this dominant, autonomous lens only serves to
perpetuate the idea of the great cognitive divide between modern and traditional societies (Street,
2001a). Instead of viewing cultures as perched on either the “literate” or the “illiterate” sides of
a great chasm, Alan Rogers (2001) suggests that different cultures with varying degrees of
“literacy penetration” utilize varying literacy practices (p. 211); in addition, these various literacy
cultures clearly meet and interact, and their various literacy practices therefore transact with each
other.
Challenges Faced by Immigrants and Refugees
If literacy practices vary across all communities, what can the study of specific
communities offer to researchers and practitioners? All immigrants to the United States face
certain challenges, both in their daily lives and in formal schooling experiences. Many of these
challenges fall under a broadly “cultural” umbrella (Campey, 2002; Glenn, 1992), while other
challenges are more specific to issues of language and literacy (Glenn, 1992). Cultural
challenges might include facing different laws and customs in a new country. Many immigrants
also struggle with traditional family structures that are upset when parents rely on children—who
may have more competence in the new language or culture—to translate or to act as cultural
brokers (Campey, 2002; Pryor, 2001). Language and literacy challenges may include speaking or
learning to speak a language in which refugees have minimal (if any) proficiency; learning new
7
conversational conventions (Tharp, 1989); learning to read and/or write in a new language,
which also may involve learning a different alphabetic or orthographic system (e.g., moving
from Chinese characters to the Roman alphabet); or simply becoming literate in any language for
the first time (Pryor, 2001). All of these challenges, both broadly cultural and specifically related
to language and literacy, have important implications for U.S. schools, which must absorb
immigrant students regardless of their experiences and abilities. Although researchers may not be
able to document the literacy practices of every community in this country, studies of individual
communities nonetheless may offer important insights into the ways in which we think about
literacy development and the ways in which we implement literacy instruction in schools.
Studies of literacy practices in immigrant and refugee communities are particularly
relevant to the realities of life and education in the United States today. The demographics of the
U.S. are increasingly shifting to reflect populations from around the globe, and projections
suggest that White Americans of European heritage may become a minority in this country by
sometime in the next century (Pellegrini, 2000). U.S. teachers, who typically come from White,
middle-class backgrounds, need to understand their students’ cultural contexts in order to better
meet their educational needs, and this pressure will only increase as the population demographics
change over the next generation. Studies of the literacy practices of immigrant communities,
particularly Latino immigrants, have become more common recently (e.g. Lucas, Henze, &
Donato, 1990; Moll, Saez, & Dworin, 2001; Zanger, 1994), but there are relatively few studies of
literacy practices among refugees. While studies of immigrants as a broad category (including
refugees) may have similar insights to offer about the literacy practices of newcomers and the
ways in which those practices relate to schooling, it is important to conduct specific and separate
studies of refugees. No two immigrant experiences are alike, but it is important to recognize that,
8
as broad categories, “regular” immigrants and refugees have distinct characteristics and
experiences in their native countries that differently shape their experiences in the U.S., their
literacy practices, and their relationships with formal schooling.
Immigrants leave their native lands and come to the United States (and other countries)
for a variety of reasons, including seeking out different or better educational and employment
opportunities and higher standards of living, accompanying family members who seek such
opportunities, or escaping difficult situations in their home countries. Refugees represent a
specific subset of immigrants to the United States, and in fact, they are legally distinct from other
types of immigrants. Anthony Richmond (2002) suggests that refugees are now the new
“underclass”, which distinguishes them from more fortunate immigrants. Refugees have been
forced to flee their native countries for a variety of reasons; they may seek refuge from
oppressive political or economic systems; from religious, ethnic, or political persecution; from
warfare; or from genocide (Richmond, 2002; U.S. Committee for Refugees, 2004). Host nations
grant asylum to refugees with the understanding that refugees will return to their native countries
should the situation in that country improve. However, it appears that most refugees do not
eventually return home and instead typically apply for permanent resident status, and sometimes
even citizenship. The main difference between “regular” immigrants and refugees, therefore,
appears to be whether or not they left their home countries under duress, and whether or not they
have a realistic option to return to their native lands (Richmond, 2002). This distinction between
immigrants and refugees has important consequences for the classroom in the U.S. While
children from both categories face common challenges of adjusting to a new country, a new
culture, and (potentially) a new language, refugee children may also be coping with far more
serious problems. These problems may be physical—such as malnutrition, disease, or injury
9
(e.g., wounds from warfare)—or they may be psychological—such as grief, post-traumatic stress
disorder, or other psychiatric problems (Campey, 2002; Pryor, 2001). Indeed, due to the nature
of their disrupted lives, many refugees face the additional challenge of having attended very
little—if any—formal schooling.
Who are the Southern Sudanese?
The southern Sudanese are members of various tribes located in southern Sudan; these
southerners, typically black African Christians, have been engaged in a civil war against the
northern-dominated Arab Muslim government for over twenty years. The current war is the
result of centuries of deep ethnic and religious divisions. This war has completely devastated
southern Sudan. At least two and a half million people have been killed since the beginning of
the conflict, and five million people have been displaced as refugees. Militias bomb, pillage and
destroy villages and crops, slaughter families, rape women, and capture both women and
children to be taken to the north, where they are kept as slaves and forced to convert to Islam
(Bok, 2003; Yang, 2002). The conflict in Sudan has caused a mass exodus of southerners, many
of whom end up as refugees in Egypt or in the Kakuma Refugee Camp near Lake Turkana in
Kenya. Southern Sudanese refugees typically spend many years in these nations of refuge. Many
of these refugees are lucky enough to be granted asylum in countries such as the United States,
Canada, Great Britain, and Australia, and these countries have made a particular effort to resettle
the thousands of orphaned youth commonly known as the “Lost Boys” (U.S. Department of
State, 2001).
The Purpose of this Study
Through this study, I hope to accomplish five things. First, this study will create a picture
of the literacy practices, beliefs, and values of a particular group of Sudanese refugees.
10
Educational researchers have suggested that such research may be used by educators to better
serve students from a particular background (Luke, 2003; Moll & Diaz, 1993; Moll & Gonzalez,
1994; Street, 2001a); part of the purpose of this study, therefore, is to provide educators with
practical implications for working with refugees. This study will also document the literacy
experiences of Sudanese refugee children in American schools, as well as illustrate the ways in
which these children negotiate the complex landscapes of literacy in the home, community, and
at school. This examination will likely provide implications for schooling and formal instruction
in literacy, as well as raise questions about the nature of literacy development in these children.
Finally, this study will inform an emerging theoretical perspective about the ways in which home
and community practices and beliefs about literacy transact with those of formal schooling
(Cairney & Ruge, 1998).
Research Questions
I used two broad research foci to shape the design of this study: (1) literacy practices of
southern Sudanese refugee families and the literacy landscapes they reflect, and (2) negotiation,
sense-making, and appropriation of literacy practices between homes, communities, and schools
by Sudanese refugee children. These foci are:
1) How do the literacy practices of these Sudanese refugee families in the U.S. reflect the
various literacy landscapes they have experienced as refugees?
1a) How do the language and literacy practices of Sudanese refugee families from
educated backgrounds reflect the different layers of their experiences as refugees
(e.g., first country of refuge, country of ultimate resettlement, available languages
and literacies, experiences with schooling, experiences with religion)? How do these
11
refugees negotiate, appropriate, and/or transform literacy practices through these
experiences?
1b) What do the similarities and differences in language and literacy experiences of
refugees who have taken different routes suggest about the development of their
literacy practices?
2) How are the young Sudanese refugee children born in the U.S. from these families
negotiating, making sense of, appropriating and/or transforming the differences between U.S.
school-based literacies and the literacy practices of their homes and communities?
I have also identified several contextual questions that will be important to answer in
order to address the research foci outlined above:
1) What are the literacy practices and literacy experiences of these Sudanese refugee families,
including the children, now?
2) What were the reported literacy practices and literacy experiences of these Sudanese families
in the various African countries in which they lived before being resettled in the U.S.?
3) How do the refugee experiences compare between families who sojourned in Egypt or Kenya
before being resettled in the U.S.? What are the similarities and differences in the literacy
practices of refugee families who sojourned in different countries?
4) What are the experiences of this group of Sudanese refugee children in American schools?
What literacy practices do these children experience in school?
5) In which ways do the literacy practices of these parents and their children differ currently? In
which ways are they similar? What insights does this information provide for literacy theory
and practice?
Delimitations and Limitations
12
The term “literacy” is used in many ways and can have many meanings. For the purposes
of this study, I am using a definition of literacy that is print-based; literacy involves practices
(including the mechanics of reading and writing), beliefs, and values that surround printed texts.
Because literacy practices include beliefs, values, attitudes and other sociocultural factors, they
are not visible or observable. They must be inferred from literacy events, which are the visible
interactions around texts (Barton & Hamilton, 1998, 2000). The definition of text also varies by
researcher; I am using a definition of text that involves printed or written material. However,
print-based literacy practices are always embedded in larger discourse practices which include
visual and oral literacies. I understand that any research into print-based literacy practices needs
to recognize and account for these broader discourse and textual contexts.
There are two important potential limitations for this study. The first is a limitation of
language. I do not speak the native languages of southern Sudanese refugees (e.g., Dinka, Nuer,
Madi, etc), nor do I speak Arabic, a language which many learned in the Sudan or in Egypt. This
potential limitation is moderated by the fact that most southern Sudanese refugees speak English,
with varying degrees of fluency. In fact, those who have lived in the U.S. for several years and
those who sought refuge in Kenya speak English quite fluently. I am less sure of the degree of
English fluency for southern Sudanese who sought refuge in Egypt, although those who have
lived in the U.S. for some time speak English with a good degree of fluency. Involving
participants in this study who potentially speak little English poses a serious limitation for the
amount of data I may collect, particularly through interviews, as well as for the validity of that
data. The effect of this limitation may be lessened by selecting participant families that have
attained certain levels of education.
13
The second limitation stems from my dual roles as researcher and tutor/mentor in the
southern Sudanese community, described below. There may be times when these roles conflict,
since I will be entering the homes of the Sudanese in both capacities. Purcell-Gates (1995)
describes a similar ethical dilemma in her work, and like her, I have decided that, ethically, my
role as a tutor will take precedence over my research when the roles conflict. Although the
researcher/tutor conflict may be a potential limitation, I believe that these intertwined roles
actually enhance the research by giving me legitimate access to participants’ home lives and by
increasing trust.
Method
Because this study seeks to deeply explore multiple layers of literacy contexts as well as
the various negotiations and transformations of literacy practices within the southern Sudanese
community, ethnography is the most appropriate methodology for this study.
Role of the Researcher/Positionality
In any ethnographic study, it is of utmost importance to consider what the researcher’s
role will be, particularly in terms of considering issues of access or negotiating entry into the
community. Issues of access are minimized in this proposed study, as I already have multiple
roles in the community—tutor, mentor, community board member, and previous researcher. I
have been tutoring Sudanese refugee youth for two and a half years, and I have sat on the board
of the Southern Sudan Rescue and Relief Association (SSRRA) for approximately ten months.
Although I am officially a tutor sponsored by Lutheran Social Services, I also have become an
unofficial mentor within the Sudanese community. Sudanese refugees often call upon me to help
them in a non-tutor capacity; for example, they ask for transportation to doctor’s visits or to the
grocery store, for help in filling out job applications, and for financial advice. In turn, the
14
Sudanese I tutor often invite me to participate in community events, such as graduation parties,
Sudanese holiday celebrations, and welcoming parties for new refugee families. These multiple
roles, therefore, provide legitimate access to both in-school and out-of-school literacy practices
in the Sudanese community. I plan to continue to volunteer my services as a tutor and mentor
within the southern Sudanese community, extending these services to young children and their
families. Because my previous work has, to this point, focused on older, orphaned youth, this
extension of volunteer services to families with children will be an important way for me to gain
access to the larger community.
Providing tutoring and mentoring services is an important part of researcher reciprocity,
of giving back to the community. Researchers do well to consider issues of reciprocity in
qualitative research to protect participants and to decrease the likelihood that they will feel
“used” by the researcher. Reciprocity allows a more natural relationship to develop between
researcher and participants, allowing the researcher to gain access to the community more easily,
which in turn increases the likelihood that data and findings are valid and reliable (LeCompte &
Schensul, 1999; Schensul, Schensul & LeCompte, 1999).
My role within this community is not only the result of a desire to enhance my research,
it is also a product of my commitment to work for the betterment of Africa and Africans. This
commitment is an important aspect of my positionality as a researcher in this community. My
commitment began during my service as a Peace Corps Volunteer in the southern African
kingdom of Lesotho. When I returned home from two years of service, I sought to maintain my
connection with Africa and Africans, because I wanted to continue working with Africans in the
areas of education and literacy, and because I was also committed to furthering the causes of
social justice, human rights, and peace in the world. I wanted to extend my Peace Corps service
15
by continuing to work for the betterment of Africa and Africans, because I believe they are all
too often overlooked by the developed world.
Sampling
The sampling method for this study will involve representative sampling through
reputational case selection. Reputational selection involves using community experts to suggest
those who might be the best informants, based upon what the researcher wants to study
(Schensul, Schensul & LeCompte, 1999). The sample for this study will include two southern
Sudanese refugee families, both from educated backgrounds. In this study, an “educated family”
is defined as a family with one or both parents having completed high school. One of these
families will have sojourned in Kenya before being resettled in the U.S., while the other will
have sojourned in Egypt. Both families will have young children who were born in the U.S.,
although they may have older children who were born outside the U.S. In each family, one of the
school-aged children born in the U.S. will serve as the focal child in that family. The focal
children from each family will be in the same grade at the beginning of the study, either
kindergarten or first grade.
Naming
Participants in the study will be allowed to choose whether or not they remain
anonymous. Research ethics and guidelines typically require that researchers protect the
identities of participants through assigning pseudonyms. However, these guidelines are based on
the assumptions that individuals need this protection, and that they also desire it (Grinyer, 2002).
Grinyer suggests, however, that it is problematic for researchers to make this assumption for
participants. In a study of the effects on families when young adults are diagnosed with cancer,
Grinyer and her colleagues surveyed the families and found that, to the researchers’ surprise,
16
about three-quarters of the participants wished to use their own names as a way of maintaining
ownership of their stories and of honoring their loved ones’ lives (Grinyer, 2002). Grinyer
therefore suggests that researchers must negotiate the balance of protecting participants from
possible harm while at the same time preventing the loss of ownership of their words and stories.
I faced this same dilemma in my previous work with Sudanese refugees. One young man refused
to participate in my earlier study because I intended to change his name; he explained to me that
he believed he had something important to say, and he wanted the world to know that he was the
one who said it. Protecting the identities of participants is appropriate in many situations, and
such situations certainly can arise with refugee participants who may rightly fear persecution.
However, allowing refugee participants to retain ownership of their voices and their stories may
prove an empowering experience for individuals who may never have had a voice before.
For this reason, I will involve the participant families in the decision-making process
concerning names. These participants will have to make decisions on a number of levels.
Because it would be inappropriate for some family members to use pseudonyms while others are
identified by name, each family will have to decide, as a unit, whether or not to identify
themselves or to opt for pseudonyms. In addition, many refugees and other immigrants choose to
be called by their traditional name in America, while others choose a more American-sounding
name. Participants who choose to be identified may need to choose which of their names,
traditional or American-sounding, they prefer to use for the study. Participants who opt for
pseudonyms will have an opportunity to participate in choosing an appropriate pseudonym. For
families choosing anonymity, participants who use American-sounding names will be
encouraged to choose American pseudonyms; those who use traditional names will be likewise
17
encouraged to choose pseudonyms from their culture. Participants’ real names will be available
only to me and to any other researchers who assist with this project.
Data Collection Procedures
Addressing issues of reliability and validity in ethnographic research involves
triangulation across a variety of data sources which serve as sources of corroboration for each
other (LeCompte & Schensul, 1999). This study will use a variety of data sources across the
different contexts examined in this study in order to answer the various research questions
outlined above. Data to be collected include: (1) demographic information; (2) oral histories of
refugee experiences; (3) oral histories of experiences with schooling; (4) elicited statements
about beliefs, values, and attitudes toward both literacy and schooling; (5) information about
texts, language, literacy events, and sociotextual domains1 used in the current U.S. context; (6)
historical contextual information about texts, languages, literacy events and sociotextual domains
in Africa; (7) observations of school literacy events, texts, languages, and sociotextual domains;
and (8) examples of texts both available to and created by Sudanese refugees and their children
in various contexts.
Interviews. One primary source of data will be a variety of interview data, described
above. In order to collect oral histories, elicited statements, historical/contextual information, and
demographic information, I will tape record and transcribe various types of interviews. Some of
these interviews will be open-ended, with the aim to record general oral histories of participants’
lives in Africa, their experiences as refugees, their experiences with formal schooling, and
important aspects of Sudanese culture. Other interviews will be semi-structured and will follow a
1
My definition of sociotextual domain incorporates traditional conceptions of social domain with linguistic and
textual genre purposes. That is, sociotextual domains involve social activities that reflect social relationships, social
roles, social purposes and goals, and social expectations, and they also involve genre factors such as purpose and
text.
18
protocol based upon one developed by Victoria Purcell-Gates and myself for the Cultural
Practices of Literacy Study (Purcell-Gates, in press). These interviews will elicit statements
concerning beliefs, values and attitudes toward both literacy and formal schooling. In addition,
they will elicit information about various literacy practices. For example, the interview protocol
will include questions about types of texts that participants may read and/or write in their daily
lives for different purposes (see Appendix A). Other semi-structured interviews will be
conducted to obtain demographic information that has not been obtained in other situations.
Such demographic information will include: (1) countries where individuals have lived, and for
how long; (2) how long individual participants have lived in the U.S., and where they have lived
in the U.S.; (3) languages spoken, read, and/or written by participants; (4) levels of schooling
attained, and where; (5) occupation and/or parents’ occupation; (6) and religion practiced (see
Appendix B, based upon a survey used in the Cultural Practices of Literacy Study). Finally,
many interviews will occur on an informal, impromptu basis. Informal interviews likely will be
brief, with a specific focus. For example, informal interviews might ask on-the-spot questions
about a particular literacy event or text, or they may focus on cultural or other background
information. Interviews will be conducted with both parents and with focal children; other family
members may also be interviewed, as necessary. In addition, I will also administer a semistructured interview protocol to the classroom teachers of the focal children in this study. The
protocol will be structured with the purpose of obtaining information about: (1) the ways in
which Sudanese refugee children negotiate the landscape of schooling in the U.S.; (2) the ways
in which the teachers see these children making sense of literacy and literacy practices in school;
(3) the impact of the focal children’s refugee experiences on their school experiences; and (4) the
ways these children incorporate their cultural and community beliefs and practices in school (see
19
Appendix C). This protocol will be more fully developed once I have become more familiar
with the classroom contexts of the focal children.
Participant observation. A second key method for collecting several types of data will be
participant observation in a variety of settings, including participants’ homes, community
contexts, and the schools and classrooms of focal children. I will collect ethnographic fieldnotes
through the process of participant observation in these settings. These fieldnotes will describe
information about texts, languages, literacy events, and sociotextual domains used in refugees’
homes and communities, and in the schools attended by the focal children. The fieldnotes will
also describe important contextual information about each setting.
The school and classroom settings of the focal children from these refugee families may
present special challenges to data collection through participant observation. The first challenge
is one of access. Because I will need to focus my attention on the Sudanese focal child, I will
need to position myself in the classroom in such a way as to limit distractions from other
children. Although finding an authentic role in the Sudanese community is an important factor in
collecting valid and reliable data, this is less possible in the classrooms. Anne Dyson’s (2003)
techniques involve maintaining separation in the classroom; “I made no effort to become one of
the gang. I was ‘busy’ with writing in my notebook, I was ‘interested’ in children, and I wouldn’t
‘tell on them’” (pp. 20-21). For the classroom observations in this study, I will model my
classroom presence on Dyson’s. I will also audio record many of the classroom sessions I attend
and will attach a microphone to the focal child in order to capture speech and dialogue that may
illustrate the ways in which that child is negotiating, making sense of, and/or appropriating
literacy and literacy practices in the classroom.
20
Artifacts. Gathering various textual artifacts will provide a third important method of data
collection. I will collect or make copies of examples of texts that are available to Sudanese
refugees in a variety of contexts. Examples of such texts might include religious texts, recipes,
community bulletins, or homework assignments. In addition, I will collect or make copies of
examples of texts created by Sudanese refugees. Examples of such texts might include notes,
letters, homework assignments, artwork, or letters to the editor. In some cases, artifacts may not
necessarily be written texts—they may be photographs of written texts or of practices
surrounding texts. Photographs can document the visual literacy environment, and they may also
capture moments in which interactions around texts take place (Barton & Hamilton, 1998;
Hamilton, 2000). In this study, photographs may be used to capture: (1) the print literacy
environment in the homes of southern Sudanese refugees, specifically focusing on texts within
that environment; (2) the print literacy environments of places frequented by the refugee families
(e.g. church bulletin boards or signs at social services offices); and also (3) the print literacy
environments of the schools attended by southern Sudanese refugee children.
Data Analysis Procedures
Data analysis for this study will involve analyzing emerging patterns through coding,
content analysis, discourse analysis, and multi-sited ethnography (Hamilton, 2004).
Coding. Data from fieldnotes, interview transcripts, and artifacts will be coded. This
coding will take place on a variety of levels. The most basic level of coding will involve
identifying texts, languages, sociotextual domains, and contexts of the various literacy events
described in the study. Specific codes will emerge from the data themselves. These data will be
organized into a data matrix, and the codes from these events will be incorporated into multiple
methods of analysis such as matrices, conceptual maps, and so forth (Miles & Huberman, 1994).
21
Interview transcripts and literacy artifacts will be further coded using methods of content
analysis, theme analysis, and discourse analysis, described below.
Content/discourse analysis. Decisions made during transcription represent a first level of
analysis of interview and observational data. Apart from basic coding, content, theme, and
discourse analyses may be situated within a broader ethnographic study as an important method
of triangulating findings (Tusting & Ivanič, 2004). Content analysis in this study will focus on
the historical and cultural contexts of the southern Sudanese. This content will be coded, and
these codes will be used to analyze the historical and cultural contexts which reflect the literacy
practices of the southern Sudanese. In contrast to content analysis, theme analysis allows
important themes to emerge from the data, rather than relying on pre-set codes. Theme analysis
may be useful in this study to understand the meanings that participants ascribe to literacy, to
education, and to their literacy practices in general. In addition, theme analysis may help
illustrate the ways in which refugees and their children make sense of, negotiate, appropriate and
transform literacy practices across their literacy landscapes. The third method, discourse
analysis, will analyze issues of voice and the tensions that exist between themes or codes from
the content analysis. Discourse analysis of the transcripts will provide important insights into the
ways in which participants position themselves as literacy practitioners in their various contexts.
Like theme analysis, discourse analysis may provide insights into sense-making, negotiation,
appropriation, and transformation of literacy practices. In addition to analyzing the content,
themes, and discourses of interview transcripts, literacy artifacts (texts and photographs) will
also be analyzed using these methods.
Multi-sited ethnography. An emerging and useful method of qualitative analysis is multisited ethnography, described by Mary Hamilton (Lancaster Literacy Research Centre Summer
22
School, July 2004). Multi-sited ethnography is an approach to understanding context that
involves following “threads”, typically by using mapping or semantic webbing activities. This
approach to analysis addresses several problematic issues facing researchers: (1) the
impossibility of assuming that “communities” are closed systems, (2) what counts as relevant
context, and (3) the need to make links between the local setting and more global events or
influences (Hamilton, 2004). This method is particularly well-suited to helping researchers infer
literacy practices from visible literacy events and texts. The multi-sited approach to analysis uses
visual representations to trace the threads of literacy practices from the local through the global
system. I will use this method of analysis by choosing specific literacy events and then following
various “threads” by identifying the immediate settings, participants, resources, and the values,
beliefs and forms of knowledge that shape that event. These threads will help to identify the
ways in which hidden participants, social domains, beliefs and values, and structured routines
and pathways enable or constrain literacy practices for the southern Sudanese in this study. This
method of analysis is therefore particularly appropriate for understanding the ways in which
Sudanese literacy practices reflect the various literacy landscapes encountered by refugees, as
well as the ways in which the children negotiate the literacy landscapes of home, community,
and school.
Validation of findings. Two major research strategies will be used to validate the findings
of this study. The first is triangulation across multiple data sources and multiple methods of
analysis (LeCompte & Schensul, 1999). Triangulation involves using several data sources to
corroborate findings. This corroboration will be achieved in this study through the use of
observations, participant interviews, and artifacts. Not only will I collect data from a variety
sources, but I will also use multiple methods to analyze those data. The second strategy involves
23
participant checks. In my capacity as researcher, I will involve my participants in checking the
findings in two stages. Participants will first be involved in checking findings during the data
analysis stage of the study. This sort of participant checking has been particularly helpful in my
past work with the Sudanese, where the participants showed me where some of my findings were
erroneous and clarified their positions to me on those issues. Participants in this proposed study
will also be involved in a final check of the data after I have written up the results of the study
for publication. At this stage, participants will have an opportunity to read through the draft of
the manuscript in order to ensure that participants’ experiences are faithfully represented.
Significance of the Study
The proposed study will attempt to offer important insights into the development of
literacy in sociocultural contexts by closely examining a community of Sudanese refugees. This
study will show the ways in which literacy practices can reflect cultural and literacy landscapes.
Through this study, I hope to shed light into the myriad ways in which individuals navigate and
negotiate, make sense of, appropriate from, and transform the various literacy landscapes and
contexts that surround them. Similarly, this study will illustrate the ways in which the literacy
practices of this community align (or not) with the practices of formal schooling, and it will also
illustrate the ways in which refugee children negotiate these different landscapes of home,
community, and schooling.
As Luke (2003) notes, these are important goals for current literacy research; they are
particularly important as a way to counteract the homogenizing force of current educational
legislation in the U.S. Ethnographic research that studies multiple communities, such as those
represented by the Sudanese refugees, is important because “much of the literature on
multiculturalism tends to treat all multilingual ‘ethnicities’ of a piece, without due attention to
24
social class, location, and history” (Street, 2001b). This study will also provide an important
body of literacy information about a “new” population—at least, one that is relatively new to the
United States context. Although research has demonstrated that creating culturally-compatible
instruction in schools helps minority students achieve in literacy, it is also clear that strategies
that work in one community cannot necessarily be transferred to other communities where
cultural and linguistic patterns may be completely different (Foster, 1992). Therefore, this study
will provide important insights into the literacy practices of the southern Sudanese community,
which educators may use to more effectively work with this specific community.
Finally, this study will add to the growing body of work that informs theory about
school/home/community transactions in literacy practices. More deeply examining literacy
practices in various communities will allow researchers to have a better theoretical understanding
of the ways in which culture influences beliefs about and practices of literacy. Likewise, studies
such as this one can lead to a greater theoretical understanding of the ways in which the various
practices of schools and of families and communities (1) transact with each other, and (2)
transform individual pathways to adult literacy practices.
25
References
Au, K. (1980). Participation Structures in a Reading Lesson with Hawaiian Children: Analysis of
a Culturally Appropriate Instructional Event. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 11,
91-115.
Au, K. (2000). A Multicultural Perspective on Policies for Improving Literacy Achievement:
Equity and Excellence. In M. Kamil, P.B. Mosenthal, P.D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.),
Handbook of Reading Research (pp. 835-851). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Au, K. & Mason, J. (1981). Social organizational factors in learning to read: The balance of
rights hypothesis. Reading Research Quarterly, 17, 115-152.
Barton, D. & Hamilton, M. (1998). Local literacies: Reading and writing in one community.
London: Routledge.
Barton, D. & Hamilton, M. (2000). Literacy practices. In D. Barton, M. Hamilton, & R. Ivanič
(Eds.), Situated literacies: Reading and writing in context (pp. 7-15). London: Routledge.
Barton, D., Hamilton, M., & Ivanič, R. (Eds.). (2000). Situated literacies: Reading and writing in
context. London: Routledge.
Bok, F. (2003). Escape from Slavery. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power (G. Raymond & M. Adamson, Trans.).
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Cairney, T. (2000). The construction of literacy and literacy learners. Language Arts, 77, 496505.
26
Cairney, T. and Ruge, J. (1998). Community Literacy Practices and Schooling: Towards
Effective Support for Students. Australia: Department of Employment, Education,
Training and Youth Affairs.
Campey, J. (2002). Immigrant Children in our Classrooms: Beyond ESL. Education Canada, 42,
44-47.
Cope, B. & Kalantzis, M. (Eds.). (2000). Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of
social futures. London: Routledge.
Dyson, A.H. (2003). The Brothers and Sisters Learn to Write: Popular literacies in childhood
and school cultures. New York: Teachers College Press.
Foster, M. (1992). Sociolinguistics and the African-American Community: Implications for
Literacy. Theory Into Practice, 31, 303-311.
Glenn, C.L. (1992). Educating the Children of Immigrants. Phi Delta Kappan, 73, 404-409.
Gonzalez, N., Moll, L., Tenery, F., Rivera, A., Rendon, P., Gonzales, R., & Amanti, C. (1995).
Funds of knowledge for teaching in Latino households. Urban Education, 29, 443-470.
Grinyer, A. (2002). The anonymity of research participants: Assumptions, ethics, and
practicalities [Electronic version]. University of Surrey Social Research Update, 36.
Retrieved July 8, 2004, from http://www.soc.surrey.ac.uk/sru/SRU36.html
Hamilton, M. (2004, July). Multi-sited ethnography. Session presented at the Lancaster Literacy
Research Centre Summer School, Lancaster, UK.
Hamilton, M. (2000). Expanding the new literacy studies: Using photographs to explore literacy
as social practice. In D. Barton, M. Hamilton, and R. Ivanič (Eds.), Situated literacies:
Reading and writing in context (pp. 16-34). London: Routledge.
Heath, S. (1983). Ways With Words. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
27
LeCompte, M.D. & Schensul, J.J. (1999). Designing & Conducting Ethnographic Research.
Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.
Lipka, J. (1991). Toward a culturally based pedagogy: A case study of one Yup’ik Eskimo
teacher. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 22, 203-223.
Lipka, J. & McCarty, T. (1994). Changing the Culture of Schooling. Anthropology and
Education Quarterly, 25, 266-284.
Lucas, T., Henze, R., & Donato, R. (1990) Promoting the Success of Latino Language-Minority
Students: An Exploratory Study of Six High Schools. Harvard Educational Review, 60,
315-340.
Luke, A. (2003). Literacy and the Other: A sociological approach to literacy research and policy
in multilingual societies. Reading Research Quarterly, 38,132-141.
Miles, M. & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd
ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Moll, L. & Diaz, S. (1993). Change as the Goal of Educational Research. In E. Jacob & C.
Jordan (Eds.), Minority Education: Anthropological Perspectives (pp. 67-79). Norwood,
NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Moll, L. & Gonzalez, N. (1994). Lessons from research with language-minority children.
Journal of Reading Behavior, 26, 439-456.
Moll, L., Saez, R., & Dworin, J. (2001). Exploring Biliteracy. The Elementary School Journal,
101, 435-449.
Ogbu, J. (1992). Adaptation to minority status and impact on school success. Theory into
practice, 31, 287-295.
28
Pellegrini, F. (2009, August 31). The coming of the minority majority. Retrieved December 10,
2004, from http://www.time.com/time/search/printout/0,8816,53774,00.html
Pryor, C.B. (2001). New Immigrants and Refugees in American Schools. Childhood Education,
77, 275-283.
Purcell-Gates, V. (1995). Other people’s words: The cycle of low literacy. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Purcell-Gates, V. (Ed.) (in press). Cultural Practices of Literacy: Case Studies of Language,
Literacy, Social Practice, and Power. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Richmond, A.H. (2002). Globalization: Implications for immigrants and refugees. Ethnic and
Racial Studies, 25, 707-727.
Rogers, A. (2001). Afterword: Problematising literacy and development. In B.V. Street (Ed.),
Literacy and development: Ethnographic perspectives, (pp. 205-222). London:
Routledge.
Rueda, R. & Garcia, E. (1996). Teachers’ Perspectives on Literacy Assessment and Instruction
with Language-Minority Students: A Comparative Study. Elementary School Journal, 96,
311-332.
Schensul, S.L., Schensul, J.J., & LeCompte, M.D. (1999). Essential Ethnographic Methods.
Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.
Street, B. (1995). Social Literacies: Critical approaches to literacy in development, ethnography,
and education. London: Longman.
Street, B.V. (2001a). Introduction. In B.V. Street (Ed.), Literacy and development:
Ethnographic perspectives, (pp. 1-17). London: Routledge.
29
Street, B. (2001b). The New Literacy Studies. In E. Cushman, G.R. Kintgen, B.M. Kroll, & M.
Rose (Eds.), Literacy: A critical sourcebook (pp. 430-442). Boston: St. Martin’s Press.
Tabachnick, B.R. & Bloch, M.N. (1995). Learning in and out of school: Critical perspectives on
the theory of cultural compatibility. In B.B. Swadener and S. Lubeck (Eds.), Children
and Families “at Promise”: Deconstructing the Discourse of Risk. Albany, NY: State
University of New York Press.
Tharp, R.G. (1989). Psychosocial Variables and Constants: Effects on Teaching and Learning in
Schools. American Psychologist, 44, 349-359.
Tusting, K., & Ivanič, R. (2004, July). Meanings and interpretations: Approaches to analysis of
textual data. Session presented at the Lancaster Literacy Research Centre Summer
School, Lancaster, UK.
U.S. Committee for Refugees. (n.d.). Worldwide refugee information. Retrieved December 10,
2004, from http://www.refugees.org/world/worldmain.htm
U.S. Dept of State. (2001, June 11). Fact Sheet: Sudanese (Kakuma) Youth. Retrieved February
28, 2004, from http://www.state.gov/g/prm/rls/fs/2001/3398.htm
Yang, D.C. (2002). Kakuma Turkana. St. Paul, MN: Pangaea.
Zanger, V. (1994). “Not Joined In”: The social context of English literacy development for
Hispanic youth. In B. Ferdman, R.M. Weber, and A. Ramirez (Eds.), Literacy Across
Languages and Cultures.
Appendix A 30
Literacy Practices among Sudanese Refugees Study
Semi-Structured Interview
(Each participant should have already read and discussed the Informed Consent letter with the
interviewer and have signed the consent form)
This protocol is to be administered over several sessions.
Start the interview with this narrative elicitation: “What does literacy mean to you?”
As the interview progresses, use interviewee’s responses to elicit further information about
cultural and historical context (e.g. “What was life like in the refugee camp?”, “What kinds
of things did you do in school?”, “How do people share information in Sudan?”, “What
kinds of storytelling did you do?”, “Would you tell me a traditional story?”, etc)
OUT-OF-SCHOOL LITERACY
Current Literacy Practices
I. What kinds of things do you read in your life (that are not part of any school you might be
attending)? For each text or practice mentioned, elicit information about why (purpose of
reading), social context (as part of what type of activity, like work, church, committees, shopping
for family, etc.). (Ask which language these activities happen in, if you are not sure.)
PROMPTS (with each of the following, you can give example texts but don't ask about
any one specifically):

for daily tasks?

with your children? with your spouse? with your friends? with your co-workers?

for official purposes like getting a visa or work permit?

at your job?

for entertainment/fun/relaxation?

for information?

for shopping?

for worship (or religious purposes)?

Internet?
Appendix A 31
II. What kinds of texts do you write in your life (that are not part of any school you might be
attending)? For each text or practice mentioned, elicit information about why (purpose of
writing), social context (as part of what type of activity, like work, church, committees, shopping
for family, etc.) and how important and/or enjoyable/fulfilling is it (Don't belabor this; the goal is
to remain conversational and informal).
PROMPTS (with each of the following, you can give example texts but don't ask about
any one specifically):

for daily tasks?

with your children? with your spouse? with your friends? with your co-workers?

for official purposes like getting a visa or work permit?

at your job?

for entertainment/fun/relaxation?

for information?

for shopping?

for worship (or religious purposes)?

Internet?
Historical Literacy Practices (For adults)
I. When you were a child in Africa, what kinds of texts (or 'things') did people in your family (or
house) read regularly (except for those things that kids or adults read for school assignments)
(use questions from above to prompt)?
For each text or practice mentioned, elicit information about why (purpose of writing), social
context (as part of what type of activity, like work, church, committees, shopping for family,
etc.) and how important and/or enjoyable/fulfilling is it (Don't belabor this; the goal is to remain
conversational and informal).
PROMPTS (with each of the following, you can give example texts but don't ask about
any one specifically):

for daily tasks?

with the children? with their spouses? with their friends? with your co-workers? With
brothers/sisters?

for official purposes like getting a visa or work permit?
Appendix A 32

at your job?

for entertainment/fun/relaxation?

for information?

for shopping?

for worship (or religious purposes)?
II. When you were a child in Africa, what kinds of texts did your family write regularly (except
for those things kids or adults wrote for a teacher in school as an assignment) For each text or
practice mentioned, elicit information about why (purpose of writing), social context (as part of
what type of activity, like work, church, committees, shopping for family, etc.) and how
important and/or enjoyable/fulfilling is it (Don't belabor this; the goal is to remain conversational
and informal).
PROMPTS (with each of the following, you can give example texts but don't ask about
any one specifically):

for daily tasks?

with your children? with your spouse? with your friends? with your co-workers?

for official purposes like getting a visa or work permit?

at your job?

for entertainment/fun/relaxation?

for information?

for shopping?

for worship (or religious purposes)?

Internet?
III. What kinds of texts did other people in your community when you were a child read or
write? (these should be texts that the participant remembers seeing people use, not those that he
'supposes' people used)
PROMPTS (with each of the following, you can give example texts but don't ask about any one
specifically):

for daily tasks?
Appendix A 33

with your children? with your spouse? with your friends? with your co-workers?

for official purposes like getting a visa or work permit?

at your job?

for entertainment/fun/relaxation?

for information?

for shopping?

for worship (or religious purposes)?
IV. How was life different for you in Kenya/Egypt?
V. How was reading different or the same in the various places you have lived? How was
writing different or the same?
VI. How do you think the reading/writing you did is similar to or different than the
reading/writing your parents (or children) do now?
SCHOOL LITERACY PRACTICES
Current School Literacy Practices
I. What kinds of texts do you read in your school as part of the school instruction/assignments?
(e.g. textbooks, novels, basal readers, encyclopedias, internet, short stories, poetry, worksheets,
picture books, information books), etc.?
II. Which of these literacy practices/texts do you particularly enjoy? Dislike? Find Difficult?
Boring? Why? Examples?
III. What kinds of texts do students write in your school as part of the school
instruction/assignments? (e.g. stories, poetry, spelling practice, reports, worksheets,
essays/compositions, journals, class books, etc)?
IV. Which of these literacy practices/texts do you particularly enjoy? Dislike? Find Difficult?
Boring? Why? Examples?
Appendix A 34
Historical School Literacy Practices
I. What kinds of texts did you read in your school as part of the school instruction/assignments?
(e.g. textbooks, novels, basal readers, encyclopedias, internet, short stories, poetry, worksheets,
pictures books, information books, etc.?)
PROMPTS (for each of these, it will help to conduct a brief conversation about the grade-level
like where the participant lived then, do they remember the school, teacher, etc.?:

During Kindergarten?

During Grades 1-3?

During Grades 4-6?

During Grades 7-8

During Grades 9-12

During post High School education (technical school; college; education classes in the
military, etc. (for this, be sure to elicit what type of education/school they connect to
specific literacy practices)
II. Which of these literacy practices/texts did you particularly enjoy? Dislike? Find Difficult?
Boring? Why? Examples?
III. What kinds of texts did students write in your school as part of the school
instruction/assignments? (e.g. stories, poetry, spelling practice, reports, worksheets,
essays/compositions, journals, class books, etc)?
PROMPTS (for each of these, it will help to conduct a brief conversation about the grade-level
like where the participant lived then, do they remember the school, teacher, etc.?:

During Kindergarten?

During Grades 1-3?

During Grades 4-6?

During Grades 7-8

During Grades 9-12

During post High School education (technical school; college; education classes in the
military, etc. (for this, be sure to elicit what type of education/school they connect to
specific literacy practices)
Appendix A 35
IV. Which of these literacy practices/texts did you particularly enjoy? Dislike? Find Difficult?
Boring? Why? Examples?
V. When you were in school, do you remember how you felt about what you think about
learning to read? About learning to write?
VI. Do you think the reading and writing you did at school prepared you for the kinds of things
that you read and write now? Why or why not, or in what ways?
VII. How do you think the reading/writing you did at school similar to or different than the
reading/writing you do now as an adult? How do you think it is similar to or different than the
reading/writing your parents (or children) did/do?
Appendix B 36
Literacy Practices among Sudanese Refugees Study
Demographic Information
(to follow the Literacy Practices interview)
Date: __________________
Researcher: ______________________
(1) Name: ____________________________________
(2) Age Range: 0-7____; 8-12____; 13-18 _______; 19-30 _______; 31-55 _______;
55-70_______; 70+ __________
(3) Gender:
Male
Female
(4) Ethnicity: ______________________
(5) Country of birth: _______________
(6) Native language: ___________________
(7) Language(s) spoken in the home: _______________________
(8) Are you currently a student?
Yes
No
(8a)If yes, where do you attend school? _____________________________
(8b)What type of school is it? (e.g. elementary, high school, university, community
college, etc) ____________________________________
(9) Highest level of schooling you have completed:

Some elementary/primary school

Some college

Primary school (8th grade)

College degree (B.A./B.S.)

Some high school

Master’s degree

High school/12th grade

Graduate degree (Ph.D., M.D., J.D., etc)

Vocational training

Other: ________________
(10) Highest level of schooling your mother completed: (somewhere in here a question about
WHERE this schooling occurred (i.e. what country? What location in the country (like rural
village; capitol city; major city?)
Appendix B 37

Don't know

Some college

Some elementary/primary school

Primary school (8th grade)

College degree (B.A./B.S.)

Some high school

Master’s degree

High school/12th grade

Graduate degree (Ph.D., M.D., J.D., etc)

Vocational training

Other: ________________
(11) Highest level of schooling your father completed: (see above for location of schooling)

Don't know

Some college

Some elementary/primary school

Primary school (8th grade)

College degree (B.A./B.S.)

Some high school

Master’s degree

High school/12th grade

Graduate degree (Ph.D., M.D., J.D., etc)

Vocational training

Other: ________________
(12) Your occupation: _____________________
(13) Your mother’s occupation: _____________________
(14) Your father’s occupation: _____________________
(15) Number of people who live in your household: ________________
(16) Number of people under age 18 who live in your household: _________________
Appendix C 38
Literacy Practices among Sudanese Refugees Study
Semi-Structured Interview—Teachers
For each of the questions below, use the participant’s answers to elicit further information.
Be sure to get concrete examples!
(1) Tell me about how __________ (child’s name) uses reading and writing here at school. What
kinds of literacy activities does s/he do in the classroom?
(2) Tell me about how ___________ uses language here at school. Is __________ proficient in
English, in your opinion? Does he/she use English all the time? Does he/she ever use
his/her native language at school?
(2) Are the ways that ________ uses reading and writing similar to or different than those of
other children in the classroom? If yes, how?
(3) Do you think literacy/reading and writing makes sense to _____________? Is he/she
becoming a reader and/or a writer? Is this similar to or different from other children in
the classroom?
(4) Do you think _________’s background as a refugee (or as the child of refugees) impacted
his/her experiences with school? How? With reading and writing?
(5) Do you know much about ________ culture? Do you think ___________ brings his/her
culture into the classroom? How? Do you think his/her culture and community impact her
experience of schooling? If so, how? Her experiences with reading and writing?