No Habla Inglés: Exploring A Bilingual Child's Literacy Learning Opportunities in A Predominantly English-Speaking Classroom

Cynthia H. Brock & Mary Birgit McVee The University of Nevada, Reno

Angela M. Shojgreen-Downer Michigan State University

Leila Flores Dueñas The University of New Mexico

Abstract

 

In this investigation, we explore the nature of language-based social interactions of a Spanish-speaking child (pseudonym Adriana) in her predominately English-speaking classroom. In particular, this study examines ways in which a monolingual English_speaking teacher (the first author) and her research colleagues critically analyzed classroom discursive practices in the first author's third-grade classroom with an eye toward exploring Adriana's literacy learning opportunities in that classroom.

How does one stop reading the exterior signs of a foreign tribe and step into the inwardness, the viscera of their meanings? Every anthropologist understands the difficulty of such a feat; and so does every immigrant. (Hoffman, 1989, p. 209)

For many immigrant children, American classrooms are alien places with unfamiliar practices and language. And, increasingly, immigrant children who do not speak English as their first language are entering American public schools (Nieto, 1992; Genessee, 1994). For example, while the enrollment of children from linguistically and culturally diverse backgrounds has increased dramatically in large urban centers over the past decade, this increase is not limited to urban areas. During the 1990-91 school year, 39 states in all regions of the country reported increased numbers of children who do not speak English as their first language (U.S. Department of Education, Office of the Secretary, 1992). Additionally, between 1980 and 1990 there was over a 50% increase in the Hispanic population in the United States. (Garcia & McLaughlin, 1995, pp. 105-106).

Providing a quality education for the rapidly increasing numbers of ethnically and linguistically diverse children in American schools is a significant issue that must be addressed by educators at all levels across the country. The importance of this issue is exacerbated by the decline in the number of qualified bilingual teachers in the United States (Nieto, 1992; Committee on Developing a Research Agenda on the Education of Limited-English-Proficient and Bilingual Students, 1997). Consequently, mainstream teachers must play a pivotal role in working to meet effectively the educational needs of the many linguistically and culturally diverse children in American classrooms.

This investigation focuses on the literacy learning opportunities of one child, Adriana, an immigrant child from Mexico whose first language is Spanish. Adriana was one of a group of 32 third-grade students who were primarily bilingual (Spanish & English) students taught by the first author in a six-week federally funded migrant summer school program in a predominantly English-speaking classroom in the Northwest. Literacy learning opportunities, as used in the context of this investigation, refer to opportunities for children to interact with others (primarily through spoken and written language) to make sense of classroom activities (Alton-Lee, Nuthall, & Patrick, 1993; Tuyay, Jennings, & Dixon, 1995).

This investigation focuses on the first trade book unit in which Adriana and her class participated. The research question that guided this investigation was: Did Adriana have opportunities for literacy learning in the context of a trade book unit based on the text The Giving Tree (Silverstein, 1964)? If so, how and why were the opportunities constructed? If not, why not?

Review of Literature

We draw on the following lines of scholarship to establish a conceptual framework for this investigation: sociocultural theory (e.g., Vygotsky, 1978), analysis of classroom discourse (e.g., Cazden, 1988; Gee, 1990, 1996; Gumperz, 1986), and research on second language learners (e.g., Moll, 1986; Cummins, 1994). The first two lines of scholarship highlight the central role of language-based social interactions in facilitating human learning. The latter line of scholarship lays important conceptual groundwork for understanding the central role that Adriana's linguistic and cultural background plays in her literacy learning.

Sociocultural Theory

Sociocultural theory provides a powerful framework for examining the manner in which language is used in classroom communities to construct literacy learning opportunities. Sociocultural theorists posit that we are social beings; from birth, mediated social interactions shape the development of our thought and language (Moll, 1989; Wertsch, 1991). More specifically, however, both thought and language are constituted through mediated social interactions in the broader social, cultural, and historical contexts within which we exist. Furthermore, tool use—particularly the use of psychological tools such as spoken and written language—mediates all human learning (Wertsch, 1991). In the context of this study, then, we are primarily concerned with the ways in which others in Adriana's classroom community (e.g., her teachers & peers) interact with her to construct opportunities for her to use language as a tool for literacy learning.

Analysis of Classroom Discourse

Sociocultural theory serves as an important framework for much research on the analysis of classroom discourse, and the work on the analysis of classroom discourse is particularly germane to this investigation. In fact, many scholars interested in classroom discourse analysis draw upon the work of Vygotsky in their own work (see Cazden, 1988; Moll, 1990; Gee, Michaels, & O'Conner, 1992; Au, 1997). Studies of classroom discourse highlight students as "members of communities, as incumbents of social roles, and seek to explain their [i.e., the students'] use of language to achieve self-identification and to conduct their activities" (Gumperz & Hymes, 1972, p. vii). Classroom discourse refers to the ways in which particular people in particular classroom contexts with particular values and beliefs use language in socially agreed upon ways in their interactions with others (Gee, 1996). Consequently, the term of discourse is much more than merely knowledge about language.

Educators—especially educators of ethnically and linguistically diverse students—must be concerned with the notion of classroom discourse because effective participation in a classroom community involves much more than knowing the language of instruction (Gutierrez, 1993). Students and teachers must understand the subtle and often tacit ways to use language to interact in classroom communities. And these subtle ways of interacting are mastered through acquisition, or "enculturation (`apprenticeship') into social practices through scaffolded and supported interaction with people" who are already members of particular discourse communities (Gee, 1990, p. 147). That is, students learn to be successful members of classroom discourse communities with help from more knowledgeable others in particular classroom discourse communities (Moll, 1989).

While classroom discourse refers to the ways of using language in classroom contexts, discourse analysis refers to the task of making explicit those subtle and often tacit ways of using language in different contexts (Fairclough, 1989). Thus, discourse analyses can explicate the often unspoken norms and patterns of interactions in classroom communities. Making explicit these norms and patterns of interactions is especially important in classrooms with ethnically and linguistically diverse children, since tacit norms that shape the nature of classroom interactions can unknowingly preclude linguistically and culturally diverse children from being viable members of classroom learning communities (Gee, 1996).

Research on Second Language Learners

For most English-speaking children in American schools, the opportunities presented throughout elementary school build upon their entering abilities to engage in school discourse such as, academic talk about text. However, the home discourse of diverse learners may be significantly different from their school discourse (Au, 1980; Heath, 1983 ). Further, culturally and linguistically diverse learners may be educated in school contexts that differ dramatically from those of their English-speaking peers (Allington, 1991).

Typically, in districts where quality bilingual programs are not available to English language learners, children have been removed from the regular classroom to receive English as a Second Language (ESL) instruction in separate classrooms with other English language learners. This "pullout" approach for educating English language learners has undergone significant criticism from many educational scholars in the English language learning community (e.g., McLaughlin, 1985). Especially problematic are pullout programs where English language learners are predominantely required to do individual work in isolation on component skills of English. An unfortunate alternative to pullout programs is submersion programs where second language students are simply placed in the same classrooms as native English speakers with little teacher support and allowed to "sink or swim" (Richard-Amato, 1988).

Instead of programs that are isolating or lacking in support for students, many scholars in second language learning (e.g., Chamot & O'Malley, 1986; Cummins, 1994) argue that language acquisition is best facilitated when learners have opportunities to engage in meaningful interactions in authentic contexts where they can rely on gestures and nuances of voice tones and inflections as they learn to become proficient in English. Thus, in the absence of quality bilingual programs, second language learners can benefit from meaningful ongoing interaction with peers and their teacher in English-speaking classrooms (Cummins, 1994). By including English language learners within a supportive regular education setting, all class members can be provided opportunities to interact with and learn from peers with backgrounds different from their own. This allows English language learners the opportunity to become members of the same classroom discourse community as their English-speaking peers. However, for this model to succeed, scholars such as Moll & Gonzalez (1994) assert that English-speaking teachers must attend carefully to classroom language practices and provide qualitatively different literacy learning opportunities that take into account and value the languages and cultures of all children in the classroom community.

The call for teachers to pay close attention to diverse students' language practices and cultural backgrounds, to analyze classroom discourse, and to provide alternative learning opportunities for diverse students is not new. Work grounded in anthropology and sociolinguistics (e.g., Cazden, John, & Hymes, 1972; Ervin-Tripp & Mitchell-Kernan, 1977; Trueba, 1989) has substantiated the need to look closely at the discourse of linguistically and culturally diverse students. Many studies of linguistically diverse students in English-speaking classroom settings have attended specifically to the role of classroom discourse and how teachers can both provide and limit opportunities for student learning based on the discursive practices in the classroom (e.g., Au, 1980; Cazden, 1988; Gisela, 1994). Other researchers have looked at the practices of teachers and argued that teachers need to draw on the rich resources present in students' homes and communities as well as their knowledge of languages other than English (Moll, 1986; Moll & Greenberg, 1990; Franquiz & de la Luz Reyes, 1998).

The Context and Methods of the Study

The context for this study was a semi-rural community in the Northwest. While the local community is predominantely European American, the school system draws students from a nearby Native American reservation and an increasing Latino population that has moved into the area from Southern California and Mexico. Each summer, the focus community hosts a federally funded migrant summer school program that draws students from four nearby communities in the local area.

The Participants

Thirty-two students were enrolled in the third-grade classroom under study, though average daily attendance was 24_25 students because attendance at summer school was not mandatory. Twenty-seven students were bilingual in Spanish and English. One student (the focus child, Adriana) spoke only Spanish. The remaining students spoke only English. Georgia, a bilingual Spanish English assistant, and Colleen, an English-speaking volunteer, were also in the classroom daily. Georgia was an especially important member of the classroom community because she is fluent in Spanish and English, and she is Mexican American. She understood the language and cultural background of most of the children in the class. The first author, Cindy, was the classroom teacher; thus, she assumed the dual role of teacher and researcher. Cindy collected all data. Cindy spoke and understood only a few Spanish words.

While there were many participants in this classroom, we focus primarily on Adriana and Cindy. Adriana and her family had just moved to the Northwest from Mexico. Adriana is one of six children; she has two brothers and three sisters. A home visit by Cindy revealed that Adriana's family lived with the family of another child in class, Roberto, during the summer that she was attending summer school. Further, Roberto was Adriana's first cousin. In her classroom journal, Adriana stated that she and her family liked both the United States and Mexico. Additionally, she said that she only spoke Spanish and that her family and extended family spoke only Spanish at home.

Because Cindy was both the teacher and principal investigator in this study, she sought ways to balance her own view as a participant observer and insider in the actual classroom under study with others who were outsiders to her classroom. Thus, she invited Mary, Angela, and Leila (the second, third, & fourth authors) to work with her on this project. By using two lenses—insider and outsider—as we analyzed the data for this investigation, we strove to "make the familiar strange" (Erickson, 1986, p. 121). Additionally, because Cindy is a monolingual European American teacher from a middle-class American

background, there was much she did not know about Adriana's linguistic and cultural background. Since Mary has extensive experience working in a variety of different cultural contexts in Asia, and since Angela and Leila are both fluent in Spanish and understood Mexican culture, all three co-authors made important contributions to interpreting, translating, and analyzing the data pertaining to Adriana. In a similar vein, because of her role as teacher-researcher, Cindy was privy to ideas and issues of which "outsiders" might not have been aware.

The Literacy Program

The literacy program in Adriana's class included the following components: Book Club, morning news, daily journal writing, additional language arts activities, and silent reading. Table 1 gives an overview of each of the literacy activities the class engaged in during the target unit from 6-20 to 6-28.

Table 1: Focus Literacy Activities During The Giving Tree Unit

Date	Journal Prompt	Morning News	Book Club	Language	Silent Reading
6-20	Describe your Family	Yes	Yes	Dramatic Poetry	Yes
6-21	Describe Place You've Lived	Yes	Yes	No	Yes
6-22	Languages Spoken at Home	Yes	Yes	No	Yes
6-23	History of Schooling	Yes	Yes	No	Yes
6-24	Your Evaluation of Summer School	Yes	Yes	No	Yes
6-27	Directons for tree planting activity	No Book Club: Tree Planting Activities		Write About and Illustrate Tree Planting Experience	Yes
6-28	Attitudes & Feeling about Reading	Yes	Yes	No	Yes

Designed according to the tenets of sociocultural theory, the primary goals of Book Club are to: "(1) promote students' understanding, enjoyment, and choice to engage in literary activities, (2) help students learn to acquire, synthesize, and evaluate information from text, and (3) help students develop a language to talk about literacy" (Raphael & Brock, 1993, p. 181). The major components of Book Club include reading, writing, discussion, and instruction. Small student-led discussion groups are the central component of the program. Students engage in a variety of different reading, writing, and instructional activities to support their participation in Book Club discussions. For example, students read silently, with partners, and so forth, before writing about specific prompts designed to encourage them to carefully reflect on their reading prior to engaging in small group Book Club discussions. Additionally, students often engage in large group instruction prior to and/or after their Book Club discussions. "Instruction is designed to help students with the skills critical to reading, writing, small and large group discussion, and typically ranges from activities such as comprehension strategy instruction (e.g., mapping, sequencing) to instruction in small and large group discussion strategies" (Raphael & Brock, 1993, p. 181). (See McMahon & Raphael, 1997, for an expanded discussion of Book Club.)

The focus of this investigation is the first Book Club unit when the class read the text The Giving Tree (Silverstein, 1964). While we sometimes drew on data sources other than the data collected during the initial Book Club unit for this investigation, the data collected during Book Club were the most comprehensive (e.g., Adriana's written artifacts, audio tapes, video tapes, and so forth) and, thus, provided the richest data sources for analysis.

In general, as indicated in Table 1, the children wrote in their journals and engaged in Book Club, morning news, and silent reading each day. During Book Club, Cindy read a section of the text, The Giving Tree, daily to the children, asked the children to read a new section of the book each day with a peer, encouraged the children to work together and help one another as they responded in writing and/or drawing to the journal prompts they were asked to prepare for Book Club discussions, and asked the children to discuss the story with peers.

Data Sources, Procedures, and Data Analysis

A case study method was used in collecting and categorizing data based on methods suggested by Bogdan and Biklen (1992) and Merriam (1988). Data sources included audio tapes of literacy instruction during Book Club over the entire six-week period; video tapes of selected Book Club events (three to four selected literacy events were video taped each week); Cindy's daily personal reflection journals; detailed lesson plans for the entire six-week period of summer school; all students' written work, journals, personal reflections, etc., for the entire six-week period; notes of home visits made by Cindy over the course of the summer; and audio taped informal reading assessment protocols conducted individually with the students by Georgia, the bilingual assistant.

The research team conducted preliminary analyses during monthly meetings across the fall and the spring of the year following the data collection. Adriana's written journal entries and verbal comments on audio- and videotape were professionally translated and transcribed by a research assistant fluent in Spanish and English. The research team studied the data collected during different literacy activities that seemed to provide possible sites for the construction of literacy learning opportunities (e.g., Book Club discussions or journal writing). We focused on analyzing the patterns of writing and speaking that Adriana and her classmates engaged in during literacy activities (Gee, Michaels, & O'Connor, 1992). Thus, as we continued to analyze the data and develop working hypotheses, we also struggled to refine and revise our research questions (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). We refocused our questions to explore the ways in which Adriana worked with Cindy, Georgia, the bilingual classroom assistant, her peers, and others in her classroom community to construct literacy learning opportunities. This refining and focusing process shaped our interpretation of the data and our subsequent discussion of Adriana's opportunities for literacy learning and how those opportunities were facilitated or constrained by various discursive practices in her classroom community.

Results

In this section we trace the manner in which literacy learning opportunities were constructed between Adriana and her teachers and peers across the Book Club unit. While we analyze both written and spoken texts across the unit, we use our analysis of Adriana's daily written texts as the common thread that runs through this analysis, as well as the primary data source for the overall analysis. We focus heavily on Adriana's written texts because they provide an intriguing daily "road map" for exploring the construction of her literacy learning opportunities across the unit. Thus, while Adriana's written work during the Book Club unit is the focus of this analysis, where possible, we also examine pertinent oral interactions and practices around the construction and sharing of her written texts. Even though all literacy lessons were audio taped, Adriana very rarely spoke during the lessons, so audio taped comments made by Adriana are rare in the overall data set.

Table 2 provides an initial overview analysis of Adriana's written texts. We do not discuss each day of the unit in the same depth. We only briefly discuss Day 1 (6-20) below because the children did little talking and writing during that introductory day of the unit; Cindy did most of the talking in order to introduce Book Club and the unit. A more extensive analysis of Days 2, 3, 5, and 6 follow. Day 4 is not discussed because Adriana did little actual talking and only drew a picture in her Book Club log on Day 4. We provide some background information about Adriana's physical location in class to set a context for our brief description of Day 1.

Table 2: Overview Analysis of Adriana's Writing in Her Book Club Log During the Target Unit

Date	Task for Book Club Log	Teacher Task Goals	Written Work Produced by Adriana	Adriana's Book Club Log Similar to Peer Partner's?
6-20	1. Written Predictions	1.Logical written inferences	1. Literal task interpetation	Roberto: No
6-21	1.Share Sheet 2.Charactor Map	1. Identify & explain interests 2. Identify character traits	1. Summary 2.Summary in form of map	Roberto: No
6-22	1.Written Predictions 2.Character Map	1. Logical written inferences 2.Identify additional charactor traits	1. Summary 2. Task interpetation incorrect	Roberto: No
6-23	1. Picture & Explanation	1. Personal response	1. Incomplete; Picture only	Gabriela : No
6-24	1.Me & the Book Prompt 2.Commentary	1.Task comprehension 2.Critical response	1.Copied in English 2. Critical response	Gabriela: No
6-27	No Book Club: Tree Planting Activity
6-28	1. Summary 2. Opinion	1.Identifying main ideas, sequencing 2.Personal, critical response	1. Some key ideas presented; some events incorrect 2. Task not completed	Gabriela: No

Creating a Communicative Context

Adriana was the only child in class who did not speak English. Because Georgia (the bilingual classroom assistant) and Cindy felt that Adriana could benefit from being a part of the ongoing classroom activities, they made a deliberate decision from the very beginning of summer school to include Adriana in classroom events and not separate her from the rest of the students to work independently with Georgia. They were also concerned about whether she could participate in ongoing activities that were conducted primarily in English. Because Adriana

was one child—and the only monolingual Spanish-speaker—in a very large group of children, Georgia and Cindy felt that Adriana should have a capable bilingual peer partner who would play a crucial role in helping her participate in classroom activities. The process of choosing an effective peer partner for Adriana required a concerted effort that occurred over the span of several days and required negotiation among Adriana, her peers, and her teachers. Finally, Roberto was chosen. Not only was Roberto fluent in both Spanish and English and a very capable student, he was also Adriana's first cousin, and Adriana and her family were living with Roberto and his family. Additionally, Cindy wrote in her field notes: "I sensed that Roberto wanted to help Adriana." Thus, Adriana was Roberto's peer partner when the class started Book Club.

Beginnings: Book Club and The Giving Tree

Cindy did most of the talking during the first day of the Book Club unit (6-20). She shared some overview information about Book Club and introduced The Giving Tree (Silverstein, 1964) to the class. While introducing the story, she discussed the title of the book with the students and showed various pictures throughout the book. She asked the students to share some predictions about the story with one another. After several children shared their ideas aloud, she asked the children to write their individual predictions in their Book Club logs. She asked the children to address (1) why the author may have called the book The Giving Tree, and (2) what they thought the book may be about (Lesson plans, 6-20). In her log for that day, Adriana wrote the following:

por que tenia que ponerselo sino que ibanos a saber como sellama or que era el arbol. (Adriana's Book Club log, 6-20)

[English translation: because he (author) had to put it on otherwise we wouldn't know his name or that it was about the tree.]

Our interpretation of Adriana's writing is that she assumed Cindy was asking her to address why the author used a title for his book rather than why the author used that particular title for his book. Adriana appeared to interpret the task literally rather than inferentially as Cindy had intended. Additionally, Adriana did not complete the second part of the task.

While we do not know what Roberto said to Adriana pertaining to this task, we do know that Roberto understood the task and did some translating for Adriana. In his own Book Club log (6-20), Roberto wrote that the author gave the book that title because, "He's taking about how the tree gives lots of things." Further, he predicted that the book would be "About a tree that gives lots of things." We infer that Roberto did some translating for Adriana because she knew to write about the title of the book in her log, and she knew that the book had something to do with trees.

We do not know whether Roberto failed to translate the task thoroughly enough for Adriana, or whether she knew how to complete a literacy task such as this because she had never completed such a task in the past. We speculate that Adriana could have successfully completed the task if Cindy had recognized, at the time, that she needed more guidance and had asked Georgia to provide more assistance to her.

Creating and Sharing Texts: "Kind of" Accommodating Adriana

Roberto and Adriana were also peer partners on 6-21 as the class engaged in their first "fishbowl" Book Club discussion. In a "fishbowl" Book Club, a small group of children (typically 3 to 5) sit in a circle in the middle of the classroom with the rest of the class positioned around them outside of the circle. The children in the circle (i.e., the "fishbowl") may be chosen by the teacher or they may be volunteers. Prior to meeting in a "fishbowl" Book Club, the children in class complete some form of writing prompt about the portion of the trade book they have just read. (Adriana's actual written text in her Book Club log is included in Figure 1). The children then sit in the small circle and discuss the trade book they have currently been reading. The writing they did prior to the "fishbowl" Book Club is used as a starting point for the discussion. While the children in the small group are the main participants in the conversation, children from the "audience" may also contribute to the conversation by asking questions, making comments, and so forth.

The following conversational segment illustrates how Cindy sometimes altered "typical" classroom interactional patterns to accommodate Adriana's needs.

Cindy: (asking for volunteers to engage in the first Book Club discussion) What I need right now is I need three volunteers. And before you raise your hands I want to tell you what you're going to do. I need three people who did a lot of writing here. So, would you look at your sheet and if you did a lot of writing, and if you wouldn't mind coming to the front could you raise your hand please?

(some quiet talking in the background)

Cindy: Okay, I need it to be real quiet. The only person talking right now should be Roberto because he is explaining in Spanish to, um, Adriana what she is supposed to do. But everybody else should be quiet. Now, we need three volunteers, and I'm going to look and see where I see a lot of writing.

Cindy then mentioned that many children had done lots of writing and that it would be difficult to choose just three children from the many children who wanted to volunteer. The children were grouped in three large sections, so Cindy decided to invite one child from each section and to make sure that she invited both boys and girls. The following discussion ensued.

Cindy: Everybody will get a chance to do this at one time or another. Would . . . and we need one person from section two . . . I'm going to ask you to do it, Joel, because we have one girl and this way we'll have a boy . . . And, Adriana, (directing talk to Roberto) would you ask her?

Roberto: I explained to her already.

Cindy: Okay, Okay would you ask her, `Would you like to come up Adriana?' (to Roberto) Tell her she can speak in Spanish. (Roberto indicated that Adriana would participate).

Cindy: Roberto you can come with her if you want and explain what to do. Bring both chairs up, okay? (Roberto can be heard talking quietly in the background as the students brought their chairs to the front of the room).

Several points are worth noting relative to the above conversation. First, typical classroom protocol required that children remain quiet while the teacher was talking; however, Adriana's peer partner Roberto was encouraged to continue translating for Adriana as the teacher spoke. Cindy realized that in order for Adriana to gain access to classroom talk, her peer partner needed to explain what was occurring as the class interacted. Cindy intentionally positioned Adriana as a valued member of the classroom community; she altered "typical" classroom conversational norms to accommodate Adriana. Second, by explicitly inviting Adriana to join the small Book Club discussion and encouraging her to speak in Spanish, Cindy positioned Adriana as a valued member of the classroom community and Spanish as a valuable way to communicate in this classroom community. Finally, even though this was only the beginning of summer school, and everything including Book Club was new to the children, Adriana accepted the invitation to participate in the activity. Thus, one interpretation of Adriana's decision to participate in the first "fishbowl Book Club" is that Adriana chose not to just "sit on the sidelines." Rather, she chose to assume an active role in classroom events. An alternative interpretation for Adriana's choice to participate, however, is that Adriana may not have seen it as an option to refuse the teacher's request to participate.

A closer examination of the actual writing Adriana did in her Book Club log (and subsequently shared with her peers) for 6-21 revealed that Adriana did not clearly understand the writing task the teacher was asking her to do in her log. Cindy had asked the children to describe a section of the text that they would like to share with their Book Club group and to tell why they wanted to share this section. Adriana, however, wrote a summary of the text. Her written response is included in Figure 1. The English translation is typed below the Spanish text.

Adriana's interpretation of this task raises several issues. First, it appears to us that Adriana was working hard to complete school tasks; however, as with her writing sample for 6-20 we are unclear as to whether Roberto or Georgia did not thoroughly explain the actual task to Adriana, or whether Roberto or Georgia explained the task to her and she did not understand the nature of the school task she was asked to complete. That is, it may be that she did not have background experiences with this particular type of school literacy task and she was merely completing the kind of writing about stories that she knew how to do.

The data presented in this section illustrate that Adriana had a sense of some important events in the story that the class was reading, wrote about her ideas, and was invited by the teacher to share her ideas with the class. However, Adriana's written work reveals that she did not have the same opportunities for literacy learning as her English-speaking peers. Cindy sought to have the children identify and explain their interests relative to the text; Adriana only discussed some key events in the text—and some of the events she discussed, such as her comments about flowers, did not even pertain to the text. While it is possible that Adriana only needed a more accurate translation of the task, it is also possible that she needed more in-depth instruction to do the type of task she was being asked to complete. Undoubtedly, had Cindy ascertained at the time that Adriana needed more assistance, Cindy could have worked with Georgia to ensure that Adriana had more appropriate guidance and instruction in Spanish. Then, Adriana would have had literacy learning opportunities that resembled more closely those of her English-speaking peers.

Missing Instruction: Missing Conceptual Content

On the third day of Book Club, Cindy asked the children to do a written prediction and a character map in their logs. Rather than writing a prediction about what would happen next in the story, however, Adriana wrote a fairly extensive twelve-line summary of the story. Because her summary was similar to previous summaries in form and content, we do not discuss this particular summary in detail; rather, we include the information that she chose to write a summary again this day to illustrate that regardless of the variety of different tasks presented to the class, she wrote a summary for many of the tasks.

Adriana responded to the second writing task for 6-22 quite differently; we discuss this written response in more detail. For the second day in a row, Cindy had demonstrated how to construct a character map. She drew character maps with "tree" and "boy" on the chalkboard, and showed the class how to use spokes to list personality traits of the boy and the tree on the character maps. She then asked the children to construct a character map pertaining to either the boy or the tree (Lesson plans, 6-22).

Adriana's written response to this task is intriguing. Figure 2 provides an example of her actual written work. She wrote the word "tree" in a circle in the center of her paper and then wrote the following three spokes from the circle:

La dibujé la foto [I drew it, the picture.]

Por que de bemos dedibulor a la foto [Because we should draw the picture.]

Por que la foto es inportante [Because the picture is important.]

We believe that Adriana made a very serious attempt to complete the assignment but did not know what she was being asked to do. While we do not have Roberto's or Georgia's explanation to Adriana on audiotape, we would expect that the individual translating for Adriana told her to "Draw the picture on the chalkboard." We suspect further that Adriana put on her character map, word-for-word, the translator's directions for and/or comments about creating the character map. Additionally, we suspect that Adriana had probably never created a character map before, so she did not realize that one lists attributes of character's personalities on the spokes of character maps. Clearly, Adriana needed much more instruction in order to complete this task successfully. Her character map has the accouterments of a character map, such as the center and the spokes; however, the conceptual content about aspects of the story is missing.

Shifting Contexts: Shifting Conceptual Content

A few days after Roberto and Adriana began working as peer partners, Adriana told Cindy that she preferred to sit elsewhere in the classroom, perhaps by a girl. So, even though Roberto was Adriana's cousin, fluent in Spanish and English, and a very capable student academically, Adriana preferred a different peer partner. Georgia and Cindy discussed this situation and Georgia concurred that Gabriela might be a better peer partner for Adriana. Georgia mentioned that she had recently overheard snippets of conversations between Adriana and Roberto, and Georgia, too, questioned whether Roberto was consistently helpful to Adriana. In her field notes for June 23 Cindy wrote: "Georgia mentioned that sometimes he [Roberto] didn't do such a good job of explaining [assignments and class tasks]. Georgia felt that it kind of depended on his mood!" For Adriana, the choice of a peer partner was critical because she did not have direct access to most of the classroom talk in English. Consequently, her peer partner played an important role in helping her gain access to classroom events and discussions.

The day that Adriana had moved to the front of the classroom near Gabriela, Cindy demonstrated to the children how to do a Book Club writing prompt called, "Me and the Book." When using this prompt, children are asked to write about how the book relates to their own lives or reminds them of something they are familiar with in their own lives. Cindy created a "Me and the Book" written response in front of the children as a demonstration of how to complete this type of prompt. She then asked the children to copy this written prompt in their Book Club logs so that they would have a model of this prompt to refer to in the future. She also asked the children to write a brief commentary in their Book Club logs to discuss what would happen if all or most of the trees in a forest were cut down. After doing the demonstration and providing further directions for writing, Cindy began walking around the room to assist children. She walked up to Adriana and Gabriela's desks and the following discussion ensued.

Cindy: Gabriela, did you explain to Adriana what to do?

Gabriela: I told her to copy the, um, thing that . . .

Cindy: Would you explain to her in English, in Spanish, what words you're saying and then maybe she can write it in Spanish? You know what I'm saying? So you could read the English words, and tell her what to do and she could write it in Spanish.

Gabriela: Adriana, Este, um, dice la maestra que lo mio lo que tienes que escribir en Español. [Adriana, Um, the teacher says that mine, that you have to write it in Spanish.]

Adriana: Lo tenemos que copiar? Ya lo estoy copiando. [We have to copy it? I'm already copying it.]

Georgia was walking around the classroom to assist children and walked near Adriana and Gabriela's desks shortly after the above discussion occurred. As Georgia walked by Adriana and Gabriela's desks, Adriana asked her for clarification about what she was supposed to be doing, and the following exchange ensued:

Adriana: (To Georgia) Dice que? [What does it say?]

Georgia: Yes, that's what she, that's what you're supposed to do. Debes copiar esas que estan en negra y escribelo aqui. [You need to copy those that are in black and write them here.]

A copy of Adriana's journal entry for this task is included in Figure 3. Notice that the journal entry is written in English rather than Spanish as Cindy had suggested. Undoubtedly, this task had little value for Adriana since she did not read or speak English.

After copying the English words from the chalkboard, Adriana sought out an additional explanation for directions for the second part of the assignment. She asked Georgia for help and Georgia responded as follows:

Georgia: Bueno, Ahora tienes que escribir que si todos los arboles, se cortan todos los arboles, que va a pasar// si no hay arboles.

English translation: Okay, now you have to write that if all the trees, all the trees are cut, what is going to happen if there are no trees.

Adriana: (inaudible)

Georgia: Si no hay, si los hombres van al bosque y cortan los arboles, los animales que viven allí no van a poder

English translation: If there aren't, if men go into the woods and cut all the trees, the animals that live there are not going to be able to . . .

Gabriela: (completing Georgia's sentence) vivir

English translation: to live

Georgia: (combining both Spanish and English words in her sentence) Si, y no va a, no hay ah, hay que pa' nosotros que (inaudible) How do you say breath?

English translation: Yes, and there will not, there is not oh, we have to have for us, that How do you say, breath?

Gabriela: (answering the question that Gabriela posed in English) Respiremos?

English translation: We can breathe?

Georgia: (repeating after Adriana) Respiremos. (Inaudible) ¿Puedes escribir eso? Si los hombres cortan los arboles no pueden, los animales no pueden vivir. ¿Tú puedes excribir eso?

English translation: (repeating after Adriana) We can breathe. (Inaudible) Can you write that? If men cut the trees they can't, the animals can't live. Can you write that?

Adriana: ¿Por que no?

English translation: Why not?

After the above discussion, Adriana wrote the following comments in her journal (Adriana's Book Club log, 6-24):

Si Los hombres cortaban Los arboles

Los animales no vivieran no respirarian.

[English translation: If the men cut the trees the animals could not live nor breathe.]

The transcript segment above and Adriana's written response are both intriguing. They reveal that Adriana knew about the academic concepts that the children were learning in class. For example, the class had discussed that trees in forests provide homes for animals. In her written comments above, Adriana wrote that animals can not live and living things can not breathe if all of the trees were cut down. Most importantly, however, this was the very first time Adriana responded in a critical and conceptual manner in her Book Club log. We posit that the extensive scaffolding by Georgia and Gabriela in the conversation above enabled Adriana to produce this type of written response.

Missing Instruction and Missed Opportunities: Just Listing the Facts

All children in class had the option to write in their journals in Spanish or English. Cindy and Georgia encouraged Adriana to write in Spanish since the first day of summer school because they knew that she was most proficient in Spanish. Not only was Adriana encouraged to write in Spanish, but an excerpt from Cindy's field notes on June 28 below illustrates how Adriana's Spanish work was publicly valued in class.

At this point in time the class had just finished the book The Giving Tree, and Cindy had asked them to write a brief summary of the story and discuss their feelings about the story. This was the first time Cindy had asked the children to write a summary, and some of them experienced difficulty with the assignment. Further, many of the children had previously told Georgia and Cindy that they had never written in journals prior to summer school, so the teachers had struggled to get the children to write more than a sentence or two in their journals.

Cindy was surprised at how much trouble the students seemed to have at summarizing. A fair number of students just wrote that the book was about a tree and a boy. After Georgia and Cindy walked around and did lots of prompting, they wrote more. A few of the students wrote a lot of information. Adriana had over a page written in Spanish. Cindy publicly praised the students who wrote a lot and Georgia noticed Adriana and praised her and held up her journal saying what a good job she did.

Georgia's action was important for many respects. She positioned Adriana as someone in class who was doing valuable work. Additionally, all the children knew that Adriana wrote and spoke in Spanish in class. Georgia's action also positioned Spanish as a valuable language for engaging in classroom work.

While Adriana worked hard to complete a long summary of the story, the actual written product that she produced was difficult to understand and fraught with many conceptual and mechanical errors. For this assignment, Cindy asked the children to (a) briefly summarize key events in the story, and (b) explain whether they liked the story and articulate why or why not. The structure of this summary was similar to Adriana's other summaries; thus, we present a brief overview of similarities between this work and her other summaries to illustrate similar patterns in the ways in which she conducted summaries. First, her

summary was extensive—38 lines. Also, many of the events she described were correct, but, like the other summaries she created, some of the information she included was inaccurate. For example, she said the boy wanted to climb the tree's branches and trunk when the boy was old, but the tree no longer had branches and a trunk when the boy was old. Additionally, rather than give an overview of key events in the story, Adriana merely created a list of events in the story. Finally, for this task, Cindy asked Adriana and her peers to explain whether or not they liked this story. Consistent with her other written responses, Adriana did not engage in any personal response to the story.

Discussion

Looking across the different written products created by Adriana during the focus Book Club unit, it is apparent that she worked hard to complete carefully the school literacy tasks she was assigned. It is also apparent that, with one exception, the written work produced by Adriana was not consistent with Cindy's goals for the literacy tasks. That is, Cindy asked the children to write predictions about the story, identify character traits and create character maps to illustrate those traits, respond personally and critically to the text, identify main ideas and summarize key events in the story. Adriana's written work consisted primarily of literal interpretations of tasks and summaries whereby she listed events from the story. The work Adriana completed raises serious doubts about her literacy learning opportunities in her third grade classroom.

There are many possible explanations for why there was a mismatch between Cindy's literacy learning goals for her students and the actual work that Adriana produced. First, the language of instruction was problematic. Since most of the children in class were bilingual (Spanish & English), it would have been most helpful to Adriana—and others in class—if their teacher was fluent in Spanish. If Cindy had been able to write and speak Spanish, she could have gained first-hand knowledge about Adriana's need for more instruction in order to understand the nature and purpose of the tasks she was asked to complete. Consequently, Cindy could have provided more effective and appropriate instruction for Adriana.

Second, given that Cindy was not fluent in Spanish and needed to work primarily through interpreters with Adriana, it is clear that she needed to develop a better professional understanding of how to work effectively using the interpretive process. For example, on the day that Cindy taught the children to complete a "Me and the Book" prompt and spent time walking around the classroom to monitor the children's understanding, she walked to Adriana and Gabriella's desks to check on Adriana's progress. Rather than directly asking Adriana how she was doing, Cindy addressed Gabriella (Adriana's peer partner & interpreter). She talked about Adriana's needs to Gabriella rather than directly addressing Adriana herself. This type of interaction is problematic because Adriana was not treated as a speaking partner by Cindy; that is, she was treated as an object of discussion rather than a competent speaking partner.

Scholarship pertaining to deaf education (e.g., Siple, 1993; Roy, 1992) have much to say about the complex process of working with and through interpreters. Moreover, there are substantial similarities between the interpretive work done by sign language interpreters and foreign language interpreters (Siple, 1993). Unfortunately, Cindy was not aware of a host of important issues that should be addressed when working through interpreters. For example, simultaneous interpreting, such as the type of interpreting that Cindy asked Gabriella and Georgia to engage in, is a complex and cognitively demanding task that professional interpreters spend considerable time learning to do effectively (Shaw & Jamieson, 1997). It was a serious oversight on Cindy's part to expect another child in the classroom (i.e., Gabriella) to carry out such complex interpretive work without attending to the nature of the interactions fostered during interpretive events and without thinking about the process of how to interpret effectively to maximize understanding for all parties in the interpretive event. In short, Cindy needed to draw on the professional literature pertaining to interpretation/translation in her work with Adriana, Gabriella, and Georgia. Doing so could have significantly shaped the manner in which teachers and students interacted and subsequently positively impacted Adriana's literacy learning opportunities in her classroom.

Finally, it appears that Adriana's written work reflected a particular interpretation of school writing tasks. That is, Adriana was most likely socialized to engage in school literacy tasks much differently in Mexico. Adriana's lack of understanding about how to do the writing tasks she was asked to complete could be attributed to much more than merely insufficient translation from English to Spanish. Rather, she needed specific guidance in what it means to engage in "these types" of school literacy tasks. Thus, it was not merely the differences in languages (Spanish & English) that impacted Adriana's literacy learning opportunities, but the differences in the school literacy practices in which the languages were embedded (Cazden, 1988; Gee, 1996).

Concluding Thoughts

The specific contexts in which Adriana acted and interacted both shaped and influenced her literacy learning opportunities. Context does not refer merely to physical setting; rather, drawing on Erickson and Shultz (1981), "Contexts are constituted by what people are doing and where and when they are doing it" (p. 148). Context refers to "people in interaction," and therefore, contexts are temporal, dynamic, and continuously evolving (Erickson & Shultz, 1981, p. 148). Citing Mehan et al., and Erickson and Shultz further suggest that social contexts consist of shared situation definitions, and they exist within "the social actions persons take on the basis of these" shared situation definitions (p. 148). We suspect that Adriana and Cindy had considerably different "situation definitions" for what constitutes school literacy events.

Erickson and Shultz (1981) suggest that competence within social contexts can vary due to factors such as participants' cultural backgrounds and developmental levels. This implies that situation definitions are not necessarily equally shared, understood, or acted upon by all participants. Rather, similar situation definitions may be shared by a majority of participants—so there is a consensus about the situation definitions and social actions that constitute the context—or, some participants may be in positions whereby they have more to say about which situation definitions and social actions carry the most weight in constructing the context, or both. That is to say, while contexts involve dynamic, evolving, and temporal interactions, some participants may have more to say about how the interactions between participants constitute context (Davies & Harré, 1990). Thus, since Cindy was in a position of authority in the classroom context, the onus of responsibility for bridging different "situation definitions" of the classroom literacy activities was Cindy's rather than Adriana's.

Finally, even if participants in activities typically share an understanding of situation definitions based on appropriate behaviors to display in a given context, the meaning of those behaviors may vary from participant to participant within contexts. So, for example, while Adriana produced the form of the writing tasks she was asked to complete—such as the appropriate form for a character map—what it meant to do the school literacy tasks in this classroom varied significantly for Cindy and Adriana. "Doing" character maps for Adriana meant getting the form of the assignment right, and "doing" character maps for Cindy meant exploring and identifying traits of particular story characters.

The issues discussed here pertaining to the construction of literacy learning opportunities are shaped by characteristics of individual participants acting and interacting with others in the broader social, historical, and cultural settings within which immediate contexts are constructed. That is, the social, cultural, and historical backgrounds and experiences that individuals bring to the immediate context shape actions and interactions in specific contexts. In short, literacy learning opportunities are not the property of an individual, nor do they exist "out there" to be found. Rather, literacy learning opportunities—for Adriana and others—are co-constructed among people as they engage in activities through writing and speaking in particular contexts.

References

Allington, R. L. (1991). The legacy of "slow it down and make it more concrete." In J. Zutell, & S. McCormick (Eds.), Learner factors/teacher factors: Issues in literacy research and instruction (40^th yearbook of the National Reading Conference, pp. 19-29). Chicago: National Reading Conference.

Alton-Lee, A., Nuthall, G., & Patrick, J. (1993). Reframing classroom research: A lesson from the private world of children. Harvard Educational Review, 63 (1), 50-84.

Au, K. H. (1980). Participation structures in a reading lesson with Hawaiian children: Analysis of a culturally appropriate instructional event. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 11 (2), 91-115.

Au, K. H., & Carroll, J. H. (1997). Improving literacy achievement through a constructivist approach: The KEEP demonstration classroom project. The Elementary School Journal, 97 (3), 203-221.

Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1992). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.

Cazden, C. (1988). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann

Cazden, C., John, V., & Hymes, D. (1972). Functions of language in the classroom. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.

Chamot, A., & O'Malley, J. M. (1986). A cognitive academic learning approach: An ESL content based curriculum. Wheaton, MD: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education.

Committee on Developing a Research Agenda on the Education of Limited-English-Proficient and Bilingual Students. (1997) In D. August, & K. Hakuta (Eds.), Improving schooling for language-minority children: A research agenda. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Cummins, J. (1994). Knowledge, power, and identity in teaching English as a second language. In F. Genesee (Ed.), Educating second language children: The whole child, the whole curriculum, and the whole community (pp. 33-58). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Davies, B., & Harré, R. (1990). Positioning: The discursive production of selves. Journal for the theory of scoial behavior, 20 (1), 43-63.

Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 119-161). New York: Macmillan.

Erickson, F., & Shultz, J. (1981). When is a context? Some issues of theory and method in the analysis of social competence. In J. Green & C. Wallat (Eds.), Ethnography and language in educational settings (pp. 147-160). Norwood: Ablex.

Ervin-Tripp, S., & Mitchell-Kernan, C. (Eds.) (1977) Child discourse. New York: Academic Press.

Fairclough, N. (1989). Discourse and social change. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Franquiz, M. E., & de la Luz Reyes, M. (1998). Creating inclusive learning communities through English Language Arts: From Chanclas to Canicas. Language Arts, 75 (3), 211-220.

Garcia, E., & McLaughlin, B. (1995). Meeting the challenge of linguistic and cultural diversity in early childhood education. New York: Teachers College Press.

Gee, J. P. (1990/1996). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses (second ed.). London: The Falmer Press.

Gee, J. P., Michaels, S., & O'Connor, M. C. (1992). Discourse analysis. In M. LeCompte, & J. Goetz, (Eds.), The handbook of qualitative research in education (pp. 228-191). NY: Academic Press.

Genesee, F. (Ed.). (1994). Educating second language children: The whole child, the whole curriculum, the whole community. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Gisela, E. (1994). "Talking Circle": Conversation and negotiation in the ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 28 (2), 293-322.

Glaser, B. G., & Straus, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine.

Gumperz, J. J., & Hymes, D. (1972). Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography of communication. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc.

Gumperz, J. J. (1986). Interactional social linguistics in the study of schooling. In J. Cook-Gumperz (Ed.), The Social Construction of Literacy (pp. 45-68). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Guttierez, K. D. (1993). Unpackaging academic discourse. Discourse Processes, 19 (1), 21-38.

Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life, and work in communities and classrooms. New York: Cambridge.

Hoffman, E. (1989). Lost in translation: A life in a new language. New York: Penguin Books.

McLaughlin, B. (1985). Second langauge acquisition in childhood: Volume 2 school-age children. Hillsdale, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

McMahon, S. I., & Raphael, T. E., with Goatley, V. G., & Pardo, L. (1997). The book club connection: Literacy learning and classroom talk. New York: Teacher's College Press.

Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Moll, L. C. (1986). Writing as communication: Creating strategic learning environments for students. Theory into Practice, 25 (2), 102-108.

Moll, L. C. (1989). Teaching second language students: A Vygotskian perspective. In D. M. Johnson, & D. H. Roen (Eds.), Richness in writing: Empowering ESL students. New York: Longman.

Moll, L. C. (1990). (Ed.) Vygotsky and education (pp. 319-348). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Moll, L. C., & Greenberg, J. B. (1990). Creating zones of possibilities: Combining social contexts for instruction. In L. C. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky and education. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Moll, L. C., & Gonzalez, N. (1994). Lessons from research with language minority children. Journal of reading behavior, 26 (4), 439-456.

Nieto, S. (1992). Affirming diversity. White Plains, NY: Longman.

Raphael, T., & Brock, C. (1993). Mei learning the literacy culture in an urban elementary school. In D. Leu, & C. Kinzer (Eds.), Examining central issues in literacy research, theory, and practice (pp. 179-189). Chicago: National Reading Conference Inc.

Richard-Amato, P. A. (1988). Making it happen: Interaction in the second lanuage classroom from theory to practice. Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley.

Shaw, J., & Jamieson, J. R. (1997). Patterns of classroom discourse in an integrated, interpreted elementary school setting. American Annals of the Deaf 142, 40-47.

Silverstein, S. (1964). The giving tree. New York: Harper & Row.

Siple, L. (1993). Interpreters' use of pausing in voice to sign transliteration. Sign language studies, 79 (summer). Burtonsville, MD: Linstok Press.

Trueba, H. T. (1989). Raising silent voices: Educating the linguistic minorities for the 21st century. Boston: Heinle and Heinle.

Tuyay, S., Jennings, L., & Dixon, C. (1995). Classroom discourse and opportunities to learn: An ethnographic study of knowledge construction in a bilingual third grade classroom. Discourse Processes, 19 (1), 75-110.

U.S. Department of Education, (1992, June 30). The Condition of bilingual education in the nation: A report to the Congress and the President. Washington, DC: United States Department of Education, Office of the Secretary.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wertsch, J. V. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.