development

Readings

Hoff (2014): Ch. 8 (pp. 239-259) and Ch. 10 (bottom of p. 302- top of p. 321)

Heath, S.B., Mangiola, L. , Schecter, S.R., and Hull, G.A., Eds.(1991):  Children of Promise: Literate Activity in Linguistically and Culturally Diverse Classrooms  - Introduction and Ch. 1 (pp. 11-19); Ch. 3 (pp. 33-39); and Ch. 5 (pp. 48-51) - use original page numbers

Content Core

You are about to read a portion of an extensive paper on literacy and society.  The purpose for having you read this is to get you thinking about how the way in which children are raised and then schooled can conflict; how the teachings at home can be at odds with the educational system and what that system privileges.  As you read, consider how these conflicts impact children; how a child of color, who is told he is equal at home and taught the language of his family and culture feels when he gets to school and learns mostly about white people and their history, and that his language isn't correct.  Consider how schooling impacts the learning and identities our students develop, and how this then shapes students' learning from school forward.  Reflect upon the intersection of culture and literacy in the journey of human learning. 

*The references from the complete paper have been included for your research in this course.

Literacy and Society

Literacy is a purposeful, historical, and cultural process that is constantly re-invented and embedded in social and cultural goals and practices.  How we use literacy – our literacy domains and practices – “are patterned by social institutions and power relationships” (Barton & Hamilton, 2012, p. 7). The ways literacy is defined resides in the unobservable macro process: the group and culture that is in power (Barton & Hamilton, 2012; Gee, 2012).  This dominant Discourse of a society gets to decide what kinds of literacy are privileged and what kinds are not (Gee, 2012; Moss, 2007).  Most often our literacy is defined through academic institutions, with books and activities chosen by schools (Barton & Hamilton, 2012; Cowan, 2005; Campano & Ghiso, 2010).  When practices from minority groups are left out of the definition of literacy, as well as the schools, this serves to marginalize the beliefs and identities they possess (Gee, 2012; hooks, 1994; Ladson-Billings, 2009; Ma’ayan, 2012).  We are then caught between the binary of school literacy vs. vernacular literacy; the macro v. micro processes (Barton & Hamilton, 2012).  The micro processes, our observable, individual practices including the way we name ourselves as literate or not (Bloome et al., 2010), has to do with institutional power and is tied to our domains.  The further away one gets from those powers, the less influence the power sources have.

"Olivia reading a story to a child" by  Pictures by Ann is licensed under  CC BY-NC-SA 2.0

Literacy is constructed in power relations and nothing can separate it from power; it is institutional.  This paper will discuss the processes and practices that create social inequities, but also leave spaces for growth and transformation through the use of powerful theoretical frameworks that disrupt the status quo.

Language, Literacy, and the Power of Positioning

Foucault argues that “power and knowledge directly imply one another” (as cited in St. Pierre, 2000, p. 496); those who have power, control the knowledge that is disseminated.  The dominant group in society doesn’t have to know or understand those who are not like them (Howard, 2016).  The language that is in charge of the ‘norming’, and “who gets to speak” (St. Pierre, 2000, p. 485) is the dominant Discourse of a society.  Gee (2012) defines Discourse as “ways of behaving, interacting, valuing, thinking, believing, speaking, and often reading and writing, that are accepted as instantiations of particular identities by specific groups……ways of being ‘people like us’ ” (p. 3).  Discourse, with a capital D, is an identity: who we are; how we communicate and think, and what we accept as a society.

In the United States, the dominant language is Standard English. The dominant language and Discourses of society (the macro processes), control the institutions that teach children (hooks, 1994) and how those children construct not only their own identities, but the identities of characters in literature (Beach et al., 2008; hooks, 2000; Sumara, 1996; Thein et al., 2012).  Those Discourses tell children what is normal and acceptable, and what is not, creating binaries that exist in the language, the readings, and hence, the curriculum (Beach, et al., 2008; Dutro, 2010).  Students who are quick to conform, or who have been brought up in the dominant Discourse, will be successful (Beach, et al., 2008); those who do not, will remain in the margins (e.g. hooks, 1994; hooks, 2000). According to Vaught (2011), Hollingworth (2009), and hooks (1994), whites use the educational system to exclude others.  It is here within the language of our society, that we see how the macro processes impact the micro, simultaneously marginalizing, yet empowering those to fight against the language that situates them.

Language

Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) is both theory and method postulating that the language we use (written, visual, and spoken) is woven into our lives, thereby reinforcing identities (Beach et al., 2008; Bloome et al., 2010; Gee, 2012; Lewis, 2006).  Lewis (2006) discusses how language works ‘against’ people and how it must work ‘for’ us.  Unconsciously, classrooms are filled with messages about how to participate, what kind of participation is allowed, as well as by whom (Bloome et al., 2010).  Within that participation is a complex set of rules that participants interpret, and observers need to figure out within the context of intonation, gestures, and the class (Bloome et al., 2010).  Through CDA, there is a methodology that analyzes “how power works in vernacular texts and exchanges” (Lewis, 2006, p. 374).  This is an important tool for keeping us vigilant to the power that language has over our society.

Gee (2012) states, “any language is full of similarity judgments that have been made long ago in the history of the language – and which are now taken for granted and rarely reflected upon by current speakers of the language” (p. 93).  Janks’ (2010) cautions, even when language is corrected or “redesigned”, the redesign may still leave certain groups “invisible” (p. 183).  Botelho & Rudman (2009) as well as Janks (2010) remind us to be mindful of binaries that position people as either/or and thereby give power to one while simultaneously marginalizing another (Janks, 2010).

Theory

Constructivism

Constructivism is the belief that we each ‘construct’ our understanding of new knowledge based on previous experiences.  Through existing student knowledge, new learning, and collaboration with classmates and the teacher, learning will be actively constructed (Cowhey, 2006; Dewey, 2009; Gonzalez et al., 2005).  Dewey (2009) is considered the first constructivist with his seminal work,  The Child and the Curriculum. Dewey utilized Rousseau’s Unfoldment Theory, which supports the idea that children are naturally curious and interested in their worlds (Tracey & Morrow, 2017).  This combined with the teacher and the classroom environment, will create a successful learning environment, which stems from the interests and knowledge base of the children (Cowhey, 2006; Dewey, 2009; Flores, 2017). 

Rosenblatt’s (1978;1982) transactional theory has its roots in Schema Theory which is also under the constructivism umbrella.  This theory utilizes the knowledge students bring to a text and how it impacts their interaction with that text.  Through this interaction, knowledge will be constructed about the text.   Gonzalez et al., (2005) embraced student funds of knowledge as being an integral part of the learning that must occur in schools, also enabling students to construct knowledge from their existing schema.  By encouraging students to make connections between their knowledge and new knowledge, the learning that is constructed will be more meaningful and powerful to the students. 

Poststructural Feminism  

Poststructural feminist theory looks at how power, discourse, and knowledge impact women.  Poststructural feminists concern themselves with trying to understand the social mechanisms that influence the attitudes people choose to adopt and act out (Anderson & Damarin, 2001). St. Pierre (2000) describes Poststructural feminists as those who “believe the struggles of women are local and specific rather than totalizing.  Relations of power are complex and shifting.  Resistance and freedom are daily ongoing practices” (p. 493). They challenge the binaries that are blatantly accepted so that we can better understand the power relations that limit particularly women (Villaverde, 2008).  Binaries are the distinctly male/female perceptions of society where women fall on the negative side of that opposition (Cherland, 2005; Skelton, Francis, & Read, 2009; St. Pierre, 2000).  Those with a Poststructural feminism stance believe that with regard to these binaries, the male is privileged and the female, disadvantaged (Cherland, 2005; Skelton et al., 2009; St. Pierre, 2000).  Cherland (2005) believes many of the literary works presented in classrooms today reinforce these binaries and without discussion, gender roles are subtly encouraged and worked into students’ perceptions of themselves.  Anderson and Damarin (2001) maintain that Poststructural feminists aim to “empower” those who are “marginalized” and help them to seek different definitions, meanings, and interpretations (p.2).  Weedon (1987) and others seek to understand why women tolerate societal norms that position them as subordinate to men (Cherland, 2005; Skelton et al., 2009).

Critical Literacy Theory 

Critical Literacy Theory’s roots are in sociolinguistics (i.e. Hart & Risley, 1995; Heath, 1983) and socio-cultural theory (i.e. Gonzalez et al., 2005).  From these came social constructivism (Vygotsky, 1978) and Freire’s work in Brazil (Freire, 1970/2012).   Critical Literacy Theory is a rather broad umbrella that Shor (1999) defines as “learning to read and write as part of the process of becoming conscious of one’s experience as historically constructed within specific power relations” (p. 1); where we analyze text for both hidden and blatant messages.  Critical Literacy Theory is developing a consciousness of the political and exclusionary nature of educational institutions and finding the balance between preaching one’s opinion and helping students to find their voices and their place within the dominant culture (Shor, 1999).  Critical literacy is providing a way to transform education from one in which some students are subordinate and the status quo is preserved, into one that empowers students to exist in their cultural worlds  and in academia simultaneously, without having to sacrifice one for the other (Dean, 1999; Ma’ayan, 2012; Pari, 1999).  Through the discourse that is critical literacy, power relations are foregrounded, questioned, and embraced (Gee, 2012; Shor, 1999). 

Critical Race Theory (CRT)  

Ladson-Billings (1998) is credited with bringing CRT, a ‘counter story’ to the educational community.  Her work with Tate (1995) outlines the specific tenets of Critical Race Theory.  While it shares commonalities with Critical Literacy Theory, it differs in that it emphasizes the significance, specifically of race, property, and the intersection of the two, to understand the inequity in our society (Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995). CRT’s starting point with racism, is that it is ‘normal’ in America and that civil rights legislation largely benefitted whites (Ladson-Billings, 1998; Vaught, 2011).  In looking at CRT from a power and positioning perspective, CRT would argue that schools are failing some children by privileging the dominant culture (Vaught, 2011).  CRT helps to deconstruct the oppressive structures in our schools (Ladson-Billings, 1998; Vaught, 2011), reconstruct agency, and construct “socially just relations of power” (Ladson-Billings, 1998, p. 9).

Critical Race Theory can be used to disrupt the “Othered” Discourses inherent in schools.  Botelho and Rudman (2009) maintain whites dominate the educational landscape and people of different cultures are regulated to ‘other’ status.  They also feel schools tend to teach about people of different races during specific periods that many call ‘heroes and holidays’ and as ‘multicultural literature’, rather than as an integrated part of our shared history.  Pulling groups out of the narrative of history and relegating them to specific portions of the curriculum provides an unbalanced, ‘single story’ (Adichie, 2009), and alienates the very cultures we seek to honor. 

Morrell (2008) discusses the Western philosophical traditions in terms of Anti-colonial Discourses.  This discourse brings to light how “colonial regimes use language and literacy to maintain colonial hegemony” by limiting, prohibiting, and controlling education and information (p. 59).  Colonized nations overturned their situations in relatively short time periods once they changed the language and tools “that they employed to deconstruct dominant language and texts” (p. 62).  By acknowledging the relegation of cultural groups to the margins of our curriculum, we can begin the work of bringing out these stories and integrating them into our common, shared history.  

Social Practice

Literacy is a practice that is socially and culturally constructed by the dominant group in any society (Barton & Hamilton, 1998; Gee, 2012; Serafini, 2012; Street, 1993).  These practices are defined by and privilege, the language and knowledge of the dominant Discourse (Gee, 2012).  Literacy practices “involve values, attitudes, feelings, and social relationships” (Barton & Hamilton, 1998, p. 6).  In order to change how we define literacy, “social practices… need to change” (Harste, 2009, p. 39).  Many researchers have examined social and cultural groups to demonstrate the importance of understanding situated social and cultural literacies (Barton & Hamilton, 1998; Cowan, 2005; Freire, 1970/2012; Heath, 1983).  

The multiliteracy theory considers how students make use of ‘alternative’ (not “essayist” or school defined or assessed), multiple texts, such as the use of computer, magazines, creative writing (not assigned in class), books of their own choosing, film, and music (Ma’ayan, 2012).  The New London Group, a group of researchers from Connecticut, developed the idea of multiliteracies to denote new ways in which we view teaching and learning (Cazden, 2001; Gee, 2012; New London Group, 1996).  The broader the understanding of what constitutes literacy (Barton & Hamilton, 1998; 2012; Cowan, 2005), and how the social and cultural worlds of learners collide with school to interact with school-defined literacy, the greater our success will be with helping students navigate academia and utilize their funds of knowledge as a position of strength. 

Socio-Cultural Theory 

Socio-cultural theory is based in the work of Bronfenbrenner (1979) and his “four spheres of influence: the microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, and the macrosystem” (Tracey & Morrow, 2017, p. 163). While it is related to Sociolinguistics, Socio-cultural theory doesn’t focus solely on language; rather it incorporates a myriad of perspectives: social, cultural, and historical, with the greatest emphasis on the cultural (Davidson, 2010).  It seeks to use the practices of diverse cultural groups within the context of literacy, using the learner’s home environments and funds of knowledge to position them from a place of knowledge, rather than a deficit (Davidson, 2010; Gonzalez et al., 2005).  Socio-cultural Theory helps inform our teaching practices to create “alternative cultural perspectives that serve to challenge beliefs and attitudes” (Beach et al., 2008, p. ix). 

Written by and intellectual property of: Cousineau, J. (2019). Literacy and Society (Unpublished paper). University at Albany, Albany, NY.

References

Adichie, C. (Performer) (2009).  The danger of a single story [Web]. Retrieved from .  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9Ihs241zeg

Anderson, J. H., & Damarin, S. K. (2001). Poststructural feminism and research in educational communications and technology.  AECT, Retrieved from  http://learngen.org/~aust/EdTecheBooks/AECT HANDBOOK96/10/10-04.html

Anstey, M. & Bull, G. (2009). Developing new literacies: Responding to picturebooks in multiliterate ways. In J. Evans (Ed.),  Talking beyond the page: Reading and responding to picturebooks (pp. 26- 43). New York, NY: Routledge.


Anyon, J. (1980). Social class and the hidden curriculum of work.  The Journal of Education, 162(1), 67-92.

Apple, M. (1988).  Teachers and texts: A political economy of class and gender relations in education. New York, NY: Routledge.

Appleman, D. (2009).  Critical encounters in high school English: Teaching literary theory to adolescents (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Au, W. (2012).  Critical curriculum studies: Education, consciousness, and the politics of knowing. New York, NY: Routledge.

Au, K. and Mason, J.M. (1981). Social organizational factors in learning to read: The balance of rights hypothesis.  Reading Research Quarterly, 17(1), 115-152.

Auerbach, E. (1999). “Teacher, tell me what to do”. In I. Shor & C. Pari (Eds.),  Critical literacy in action: Writing words, changing worlds (pp. 31-52). Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Heinemann.

Aukerman, M.S. (2007). When reading it wrong is getting it right: Shared evaluation pedagogy among struggling fifth grade readers.   Research in the Teaching of English, 42(1), 56-103.

Bakhtin, M.M. (1981).  The dialogic imagination. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.

Barthes, R. (1967).  Mythologies. New York, NY: Hill and Wang.

Barton, D., and Hamilton, M. (1998).  Local literacies: Reading and writing in one community. London, England: Routledge.

Bauer, D. (1999). The other “F” word: The feminist in the classroom. In I. Shor & C. Pari (Eds.),  Critical literacy in action: Writing words, changing worlds (pp. 225-237). Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Heinemann.

Beach, R. & Swiss, T. (2011). Literary theories and teaching of English Language Arts. In D. Lapp & 
D. Fisher (Eds.),  Handbook of research on teaching the English Language Arts (3rd ed.) (pp. 145- 
151). New York, NY: Routledge. 


Beach, R., Thein, A.H., & Parks, D. (2008).  High school students’ competing social worlds: Negotiating identities and allegiances in response to multicultural literature. New York, NY: Routledge.

Belanger, K., Strom, L., & Russo, J. (1999). Reading and writing on strike. In I. Shor & C. Pari (Eds.),  Critical literacy in action: Writing words, changing worlds (pp. 166-181). Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Heinemann.

Bigelow, B., Christensen, L., Karp, S., Miner, B., and Peterson, B. (Eds.) (1994).   Rethinking our classrooms: Teaching for equity and social justice. Milwaukee, WI: Rethinking Schools.

Blackburn, M.V. & Clark, C.T. (2011). Analyzing talk in a long-term literature discussion group:  Ways of operating within LGBT-inclusive and Queer Discourses.  Reading Research Quarterly, 46(3), 222-248.

Bloome, D., Carter, S.P., Christian, B.M., Otto, S., & Shuart-Faris, N. (2010)  Discourse analysis and the study of classroom language and literacy events: A microethnographic perspective. New York, NY: Routledge.

Bourne, J., & Jewitt, C. (2003). Orchestrating debate: A multimodal analysis of classroom interaction.  Literacy, 37 (2), 64-72.

Botelho, M.J. & Rudman, M.K. (2009).  Critical multicultural analysis of children’s literature: Mirrors, windows, and doors. New York, NY: Routledge.

Brass, J. (2010). The sweet tyranny of creating one’s own life: Rethinking power and freedom in English teaching.  Educational Theory, 60(6), 703-717.

Brooks, W. & Browne, S. (2012). Toward a culturally situated reader response theory.  Children’s Literature in Education, 43(1), 74-85. 


Cai, M. (2008). Transactional theory and the study of multicultural literature.  Language Arts, 85(3), 212-220.

Campano, G. (2007).  Immigrant students and literacy: Reading, writing, and remembering. New York, NY: Teachers College, Columbia University.

Campano, G. & Ghiso, M.P. (2010). Immigrant students as cosmopolitan intellectuals. In P. Coates, P. Enciso, C. Jenkins, & S. Wolf (Eds.),  Handbook of research on children’s and young adult literature (pp. 164-176). New York, NY: Routledge.

Cazden, C. (2001).  Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NJ: Heinemann. 

Cherland, M.R. (2005). Out of this world: Why literature matters to girls.  Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 48(7), 625-627.

Cherland, M.R. (2009). Harry’s girls: Harry Potter and the discourse of gender.  Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52(4), 273-282.

Christensen, Linda (2009).  Teaching for joy and justice: Re-imagining the language arts classroom. Milwaukee, WI: Rethinking Schools, Ltd.

Clarke, L.W. (2006). Power through voicing others: Girls’ positioning of boys in literature circle discussions.  Journal of Literacy Research, 38(1), 53-79.

Clifford, J. (1997).  Routes: Travel and translation in the late twentieth century. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Cochran-Smith, M., and Lytle, S. (1993).  Teacher research and knowledge.  New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Cochran-Smith, M., and Lytle, S. (1999). Relationships of knowledge and practice: Teacher learning in communities. In A. Iran-Nejad & P.D. Pearson (Eds.),  Review of research in education (pp. 249-305). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

Comber, B. & Cormack, P. (1997). Looking beyond skills and processes: Literacy as social and cultural practices in classrooms.  UKRA Reading, November .

Comber, B. & Simpson, A. (Eds.) (2001).  Negotiating critical literacies in classrooms. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Cooper, P. M. (2009). Children’s literature for reading strategy instruction: Innovation or interference?  Language Arts, 86(3), 178-187.

Cowan, P. (2005). “Reading at risk:” Cause for alarm?  Teachers College Record.

Cowhey, M. (2006).  black ants and Buddhists: Thinking critically and teaching differently in the primary grades. Portland, ME: Stenhouse Publishers.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1998). New standards, old inequalities: The current challenge for African-American education. (Ed.)  The state of Black America report. Chicago, IL: National Urban League.

Darling-Hammond, L., (2000).  Solving the dilemmas of teacher supply, demand, and standards: how we can ensure a competent, caring, and qualified teacher for every child. New York, NY: National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future.

Davidson, K. (2010). The integration of cognitive and sociocultural theories of literacy development.  Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 56(3), 246-256.

Dean, T. (1999). Multicultural classrooms, monocultural teachers. In I. Shor & C. Pari (Eds.),  Critical literacy in action: Writing words, changing worlds (pp. 87-102). Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Heinemann.

DeBlase, G. (2003). Acknowledging agency while accommodating romance: Girls negotiating meaning in literary transactions.  Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 46(8), 624-635.

Delpit, L. (2012).  Multiplication is for white people: Raising expectations for other people’s children. New York, NY: The New Press.

Denzin, N. (1997).  Interpretive ethnography: Ethnographic practices for the 21st century. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Dewey, J. (2009).  The Child and the Curriculum. [electronic resource]. Salt Lake City, NV: Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, 2009.

Dooley, C.M. & Assaf, L.C. (2009). Contexts matter: Two teachers’ language arts instruction in this high-Stakes era.  Journal of Literacy Research, 41 (3), 354-391.

Dozier, C., Johnston, P., & Rogers, R. (2005).  Critical literacy/critical teaching: Tools for preparing responsive teachers. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Dresang, E. T. & Kotrla, B. (2009). Radical Change Theory and synergistic reading for digital age youth.  Journal of Aesthetic Education, 43(2), 92-107. 


Dozier, C., Johnston, P., & Rogers, R. (2006).  Critical literacy critical teaching: Tools for preparing responsive teachers. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Dutro, E. (2010). What ‘hard times’ means: Mandated curricula, class-privileged assumptions, and the lives of poor children.  Research in the Teaching of English, 44(3), 255-291.

Ellsworth, E. (1989). Why doesn’t this feel empowering? Working through the repressive myths of critical pedagogy.  Harvard Educational Review, 59(3), 297-324.

Evans,K.S., Alvermann, D., & Anders, P.L. (1998). Literature discussion groups: An examination of gender roles.  Reading Research and Instruction, 37(2), 107-120.

Fairclough, N. (2000).  New labour, new language? London, England: Routledge.

Fassinger, P.A. (1995). Understanding classroom interaction: Students’ and professors’ contributions to student silence.  Journal of Higher Education, 66(1), 82-96.

Fecho, B. (2001). “Why are you doing this?”: Acknowledging and transcending threat in a critical inquiry classroom.  Research in the Teaching of English, 36, 9-37.

Fisher, D. & Ivey, G. (2007).  Farewell to  A Farewell to Arms: Deemphasizing the whole-class novel.  Phi Delta Kappan, 494-497.

Flores, T. (2017). Writing the threads of our lives: Stories from a bilingual family writing project.  Culturally Sustaining and Revitalizing Pedagogies: Language, Culture, and Power, 29, 209-223.

Foss, A. (2002). Peeling the onion: Teaching critical literacy with students of privilege.  Language Arts, 79(5), 393-403.

Fox, T. (1999). Basic writing as cultural conflict. In I. Shor & C. Pari (Eds.),  Critical literacy in action: Writing words, changing worlds (pp. 68-86). Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Heinemann.

Freire, P. (2012).  Pedagogy of the Oppressed. (M.B. Ramos, Trans.). New York, NY: Bloomsbury Academic. (Original work published 1970).

Freire, P. (1987). The importance of the act of reading. In P. Freire & D. M. Acedo (Eds.),  Literacy: Reading and the word and the world. S. Hadley, MA: Bergin & Garvey.

Freire, P. (1998).  Teachers as cultural workers: Letters to those who dare teach. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Freire, P., & Macedo, D. (1987).  Literacy: Reading the word and the world. New York, NY: Bergin and Garvey.

Gee, J. P. (1999).  An introduction to discourse analysis theory and method (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.

Gee, J.P. (2012).  Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses, 4th ed. New York, NY: Routledge.

Giroux, H. (1988).  Teachers as transformative intellectuals.  New York, NY: Bergin & Garvey.

Glaser, B. G., and Strauss, A. L. (1967).  The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.

Gonzalez, N., Moll, L., Tenery, M., Rivera, A., Rendon, P., Gonzales, R., & Amanti, C. (1995). Funds of knowledge for teaching in Latino households.  Urban Education, 29, 443-470.

Gonzalez, N., Moll, L.C., & Amanti, C. (2005).  Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in households, communities, and classrooms. New York, NY: Routledge.

Gutierrez, K., Barquedano-Lopez, P., & Tejeda, C. (1999). Building a culture of collaboration through hybrid language practices.  Theory into Practice, 38 (2), 87-93.

Harste, J.C. (2002). Multimodality: In perspective.  In J.V. Hoffman and Y.M. Goodman (Eds.),  Changing literacies for changing times: An historical perspective on the future of reading research, public policy, and classroom practices (pp. 34-48). New York, NY: Routledge.

Harste, J.C. (2003). What do we mean by literacy now?  Voices from the Middle,10(3), 8-12.

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

Hicks, D. (2004). Back to Oz? Rethinking the literary in a critical study of reading.  Research in the Teaching of English, 39(1), 63-84.

hooks, b. (1994).  Teaching to transgress: Education as the practice of freedom. New York, NY: Routledge.

hooks, b. (2000).  Where we stand: Class matters. New York, NY: Routledge.

Hollingworth, L. (2009). Complicated conversations: Exploring race and ideology in an elementary classroom.  Research in the Teaching of English, 36 (1), 9-37.

Howard, G.R. (2016).  We can’t teach what we don’t know: White teachers, multiracial schools (3rd Ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Hughes-Hassell, S., Barkley, H.A., & Koehler, E. (2010). Using a Critical Race Theory framework to examine transitional books. American Library Association.

Jago, C. (2011) Comprehending complex literature. In  With rigor for all: Meeting common core standards for reading literature (pp. 29-53). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Janks, H. (2010).  Literacy and power. New York, NY: Routledge.

Janks, H. (2014).  Doing critical literacy: Texts and activities for students and teachers. New York, NY: Routledge.

Jewitt, C. J. (2005). Multimodality, “reading”, and “writing” for the 21st century.  Discourse: Studies 
 in the Cultural Politics of Education, 26(3), 315-331. 


Johnston, P.H. (2004).  Choice words: How our language affects children’s learning. Portland, ME: Stenhouse Publishers.

Johnston, P.H. (2012).  Opening minds: Using language to change lives. Portland, ME: Stenhouse Publishers.

Jones, S. (2012). Critical literacies in the making: Social class and identities in the early reading classroom.  Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 13 (2), 197-224.

Jones, S., Clarke, L.W., & Enriquez, G. (2010).  The reading turn-around: A five-part framework for differentiated instruction. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Kincheloe, J., and McLaren, P. (1998). Rethinking critical theory and qualitative research. In N. Denzin and Y. Lincoln (Ed.),  The landscape of qualitative research.  Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 260-299.

Kontovourki, S. (2012). Reading leveled books in assessment-saturated classrooms: A close examination of unmarked processes of assessment.  Reading Research Quarterly, 47 (2), 153-171.

Krupnick, C.G. (1985). Women and men in the classroom: Inequality and its remedies.  On Teaching and Learning, Retrieved from  http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/html/icb.topic58474/krupnick.html

Ladson-Billings G., & Tate W. (1995). Toward a Critical Race Theory of education.  Teachers College Record, 97, 47–68.

Ladson-Billings, G. (1998). Just what is critical race theory and what’s it doing in a nice field like education?  International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 11 (1), 7-24.

Ladson-Billings, G. (2009).  The dream-keepers: Successful teachers of African American children.  San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Larson, L.C. (2010). Digital readers: The next chapter in e-book reading and response.  The Reading Teacher, 64(1), 15-22.

Lewis, C. (1997). The social drama of literature discussions in a fifth/sixth-grade classroom.  Research in the Teaching of English, 31(2), 163-204.

Lewis, C. (2000). The limits of identification: The personal, pleasurable, and critical in reader response.  Journal of Literacy Research, 32(2), 253-266.

Lewis, C. (2006). “What’s discourse got to do with it?”: A mediation on critical discourse analysis in literacy research.  Research in the Teaching of English, 40(3), 373-379.

Luke, A., & Freebody, P. (1999). Further notes on the four resources model.  Reading Online. Retrieved from readingonline.org/research/lukefreebody.html

Luke, A., & Freebody, P. (2003). Literacy as engaging with new forms of life: The four roles model. In G. Bull & M. Anstey (Eds.)  The literacy lexicon. Sydney, Australia: Prentice Hall.

Ma’ayan, H.D. (2012).  Readingirls: The lives and literacies of adolescents. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Marsh, J. (Ed.) (2005).  Popular culture, media and digital literacy in early childhood culture. London, UK: Falmer Press.

Marshall, E. (2004) Stripping for the wolf: Rethinking representations of gender in children’s Literature.  Reading Research Quarterly, 39 (3), 256-270.

Martinez, M.G. & McGee, L.M. (2000). Children’s literature and reading instruction: Past, present, and future.   Reading Research Quarterly, 35 (1), 154-169.

May, L. (2011). Animating talk and texts: Culturally relevant teacher read-alouds of informational texts.  Journal of Literacy Research, 43(1), 3-38.

McIntosh, P. (1989). White privilege: Unpacking the invisible knapsack.  Peace & Freedom, July/August, 10-12.

McLeod, J. (2009). What  was Poststructural feminism in education?  Routledge International Handbook of Critical Education. New York, NY: Routledge.

Meacham, S.J. (2003). Literacy and street credibility: Plantations, prisons, and African American literacy from Frederick Douglass to Fifty Cent. Presentation at the Economic and Social Research Council Seminar Series Conference, Sheffield, United Kingdom, March.

Mohanty, S. (1997).  Literary theory and the claims of history: Postmoderism, objectivity, multicultural politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Morrell, E. (2008).  Critical literacy and urban youth: Pedagogies of access, dissent, and liberation. New York, NY: Routledge.

Moss, G. (2007).  Literacy and gender: Researching texts, contexts, and readers.  New York, NY: Routledge.

Moya, P. (2000). Powtmodernism, “realism,” and the politics of identity. In P. Moya & M. Hames-Garcia (Eds.),  Reclaiming identity: Realist theory and the predicament of postmodernism (pp. 67-101). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Nagle, J. (1999). Social class and school literacy. In I. Shor & C. Pari (Eds.),  Critical literacy in action: Writing words, changing worlds (pp. 159-165). Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Heinemann.

Neverow-Turk, V. (1999). Researching the minimum wage: A moral economy for the classroom. In I. Shor & C. Pari (Eds.),  Critical literacy in action: Writing words, changing worlds (pp. 238-245). Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Heinemann.

New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures.  Harvard Educational Review, 66 (1), 60-92.

Nieto, S. (1996).  Affirming diversity. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Nieto, S. (2003).  What keeps teachers going? New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Oslick, M.E. (2013). Children’s voices: Reactions to a criminal justice issue picture book.  The Reading Teacher, 66(7), 543-552.

Pantaleo, S. (2002). Grade 1 students meet David Wiesner’s  Three Pigs. Journal of Children’s Literature, 28(2), 72-84.

Pantaleo, S. (2007). Scieszka’s  The Stinky Cheese Man: A tossed salad of parodic re-versions.  Children’s Literature in Education, 38 (4), 277-295.

Pari, C. (1999). Resisting assimilation: Academic discourse in the writing classroom. In I.

Shor & C. Pari (Eds.),  Critical literacy in action: Writing words, changing worlds (pp. 103-125). Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Heinemann.

Pincus, M.R. (2005). Learning from Laramie: Urban high school students read, research, and reenact  The Laramie Project. In T. Hatch et al (Eds.),  Going public with our teaching: An anthology of  Practice (pp. 147-165). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Richardson, E. (2013). Developing critical hip hop feminist literacies: Centrality and subversion of sexuality in the lives of Black girls.  Equity & Excellence in Education, 46(3), 327-341.

Rosenblatt, L. (1978).  The reader, the text, the poem. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

Rosenblatt, L. M. (1982). The literary transaction: Evocation and response.  Theory into Practice, 21 (4), 268-277.

Rosenblatt, L.M. (1995).  Literature as Exploration. (5th ed.). New York, NY: The Modern Language Association.

Saussure, F. (1915/1966).  Course in general linguistics.  New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Schall, J. & Kauffmann, G. (2003). Exploring literature with gay and lesbian characters in the elementary school.  Journal of Children’s Literature, 29(1), 36-45.

Schleppegrell, M.J. (2004).  The language of schooling: A functional linguistics perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Sensoy, O. & Marshall, E. (2010). Missionary girl power: Saving the “Third World” one girl at a time.  Gender and Education, 22(3), 295-311.



Serafini, F.  (2012). Expanding the four resources model: Reading visual and multi-modal texts.  Pedagogies, 7 (2), 150-164.  

Shor, I. (1999). What is critical literacy? In I. Shor & C. Pari (Eds.),  Critical literacy in action: Writing words, changing worlds (pp. 1-30). Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Heinemann.

Shor, I. & Pari, C. (Eds.). (1999).  Critical literacy in action: Writing words, changing worlds. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Heinemann.

Sipe, L.R. (1998). Learning the language of picturebooks.  Journal of Children’s Literature 24(2), 66-75.

Sipe, L.R. (2008).  Storytime: Young children’s literary understanding in the classroom.  New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Skelton, C., Francis, B., & Read, B. (2010) “Brains before ‘beauty’?” High achieving girls, school, and gender identities.  Educational Studies, 36(2), 185-194.

Spradley, J.P. (1979).  The ethnographic interview. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning. St. Pierre, E.A. (1999). A historical perspective on Gender.  English Journal, 88(3), 29-34.

St. Pierre, E.A. (2000).Poststructural feminism in education: An overview.  Qualitative Studies in Education, 13(5), 477-515.

Strauss, A., and Corbin, J. (Ed.) (1997).  Grounded theory in practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Street, B. (1984).  Literacy in theory and practice.  Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Street, B. (1993). The new literacy studies, guest editorial.  Journal of Research in Reading, 16(2), 81-97.

Strong-Wilson, T. (2007). Moving horizons: Exploring the role of stories in decolonizing the literacy education of white teachers.  International Education,  37(1), 114-131.

Sumara, D. (1996).  Private readings in public: Schooling the literary imagination. New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc.

Tatum, B.D., (1999). Teaching white students about racism: The search for white allies and the restoration of hope. In I. Shor & C. Pari (Eds.),  Critical literacy in action: Writing words, changing worlds (pp. 53-67). Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Heinemann.

Tatum, A. W. (2008). Toward a more anatomically complete model of literacy instruction: A focus on African American male adolescents and texts.  Harvard Educational Review, 78(1), 155-180. 


Thein, A.H., Guise, M., & Sloan, D.L. (2012). Exploring the significance of social class identity performance in the English classroom: A case study analysis of a literature circle discussion.  English Education, 44(3), 215-253.

Tracey, D.H., and Morrow, L.M. (2017).  Lenses on reading: An introduction to theories and models, 3rd ed. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Vasquez, V.M. (2014).  Negotiating critical literacies with young children, Tenth Anniversary Edition . New York, NY: Routledge.

Vaught, S.E. (2011).  Racism, public schooling, and the entrenchment of white supremacy: A critical race ethnography. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Villaverde, L.E. (2008).  Feminist theories and education: A primer. New York, NY: Peter Lang  Publishing, Inc.

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

Weiler, K. (2008). The feminist imagination and educational research.  Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 29(4), 499-507.

Wissman, K. (2007).  “Writing will keep you free”: Allusions to and recreations of the fairy tale Heroine in  The House on Mango Street. Children’s Literature in Education, 38 (1), 17-34.

Wissman, K.K. (2011). “Rise up!”: Literacies, lived experiences, and identities within an in-school “other space”.  Research in the Teaching of English, 45 (4), 405-438.

Wren, D.J. (1999). School culture: Exploring the hidden curriculum.  Adolescence, 34 (135), 593-596.

Assignment 1

APA Citation

1 ½ pages

 you are to discuss this intersection of culture, learning, language, and literacy. Consider how culture and socialization impact how we learn, what we learn, and our literacy and language practices.  Apply what you have learned so far to learning from infant to adult learning. 

· How is what we learn impacted by our culture and society?

· How is what we learn impacted by our school experiences?

· How is what we learn impacted by our literacies?

· What theory or theories from this course have influenced you the most, and how?

Assignment 2

topic to be chosen from the theories attached at the beginning of this paper.

½ page

Assignment Instructions

IMPORTANT: For this assignment, you must upload your topic into the assignment area for this module. You are NOT allowed to choose Maslow or physiological needs for this paper as we have already written a paper on this topic.  Reminder that your work can NOT use McLeod or Cherry as sources.  You cannot use websites as sources.  Your paper should begin with your course texts and use their references to further your research.

In your topic upload, explain which option you have chosen and why, and any questions you have regarding your choice.  I don't expect this to be more than a brief paragraph unless you have many questions.