setting conditions for generative literacy learning for adolescent english learners — or not!

Setting Conditions for Generative Literacy Learning for Adolescent English Learners — Or Not!

Literacy Research AssociationAnnual Conference, 2013

Dallas, Texas

Research Team

• Leslie Patterson, University of North Texas• Juan Araujo, Texas A&M University-Commerce• Carol Wickstrom, University of North Texas• Carol Revelle, University of North Texas• Janelle Quintans-Bence, Coppell ISD

Background

• Research (2008-2012) led by local National Writing Project site and funded by NWP.

• Initial Research Questions– How do teachers enact principles and practices

from a summer institute about Culturally Mediated Writing Instruction?

– How do their students respond?

Culturally Mediated Writing Instruction

•CMWI is a research-based approach that combines guided inquiry with reading/writing workshop.

•Teachers first invite students to take an inquiry stance toward authentic reading and writing tasks.

•Teachers then attempt to provide appropriate mediation for individuals and for groups of students.

Findings from Previous Study

• No one set of narrowly conceived instructional practices fits all English learners.

• An “inquiry stance” opens possibilities for literacy learning.

• Although each teacher enacted CMWI differently, we saw common patterns.

• We have come to call these patterns of generative learning because they encourage creative and adaptive thinking.

Patterns in CMWI Classrooms(revision of 2008-2010 findings)

• Empathetic, caring, and responsive relationships with and among the students

• Meaningful connections between and among ideas, texts, and experiences

• An inquiry stance toward social issues, curriculum, and literacy tasks

• Authentic tasks and audiences • Appropriate support or mediation

Affirmed by Published ResearchInstructional Patterns

Caring, empathy, & responsiveness

John-Steiner, 2000; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Noddings, 2005; Smith, 1988; Goodman & Marek, 1996

Meaningful connections Bomer, 1995; John-Steiner & Mahn, 1996; Tharp & Gallimore, 1988; Wells, 2007

Inquiry stance Burke, 2010; Dewey, 1923; Freeman & Freeman, Freire, 1970; Shor; ; Goodman; Edelsky, 2003, 2006; Short, Burke, and Harste, 1996; Wilhelm, 2006

Authentic work Cammarota and Fine, 2008; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Smith, 1988; 1998; Wink, 2010

Appropriate mediation—”just enough support”

John-Steiner & Mahn, 1996; Lantolf, 2000; Lantolf & Appel, 1994; Larkin, 2001; Mertz & Parmentier, 1985; Rogoff, 1990; Smith, 1988; Tharp & Gallimore, 1988; Vygotsky, 1978

Since then . . . • Our focus has widened to consider campus-

wide change.

• For a focus on systemic change, we looked to the study of complex adaptive systems.

• More specifically, we looked to Human Systems Dynamics — which applies concepts from complexity science to human systems.

Interdisciplinary Theoretical Frame

Socio-cultural Theory

Human Systems

Dynamics

Language and literacy learning are self-organizing, socio-cultural processes.

Human Systems Dynamics (www.hsdinstitute.org) assumes self-organization: Patterns emerge in open, diverse, and nonlinear systems.

Complex Adaptive System

1. Agents in the system transact . . .

2. Transactions generate patterns . . .

3. Patterns emerge at multiple scales. . .

4. Patterns influence the subsequent transactions among agents.

5. New information from outside the system can influence the transactions within the system

What’s an Agent to Do?Through Adaptive Action,

agents see, understand, and influence patterns.

See patternsWhat?

So What?

Now What?

Understand patterns

Influence patterns

Therefore, We Assume . . .

• Agents transact in schools at multiple scales.

• Responses are surprising and contradictory.

• Generative patterns sustain these systems.

• We cannot “make” generative patterns emerge.

• Adaptive Action can set conditions for generative patterns to emerge .

2011-12 CMWI Initiative

• Goal: to support teachers in an urban high school — a “low performing” school in the midst of restructuring effort

• Research team was partner in restructuring grant

• Five-day institute for teachers, Summer 2011• Online discussions; opportunity to post plans

and reflections• Meetings throughout the year to support

teachers

Data Generation and Analysis

• Reflexive narratives written by each member of the research team—based on observations, interviews, reflective journals, and student surveys.

• Analysis of reflexive narratives; CMWI patterns as initial codes; additional codes from subsequent readings of data.

Finding: Pockets of Generative Learning

• Isolated instances of these generative learning patterns – Consistently in Janelle’s classroom– Occasionally, in other classrooms– In campus leadership team working on grant

• But those patterns were overwhelmed by non-generative patterns

Finding: Non-generative Patterns at Multiple Scales

• Standardization• Climate of fear and compliance• Caring relationships but limited expectations

Similar patterns across multiple scales

Finding: Caring (and Enabling?) Relationships

Example:

As the next class entered the room, Connie (pseudonym) told them to get their folders and to copy the agenda. At this point many students indicated that they did not have anything to write with nor did they have any paper. A number of students also indicated that they were hungry so Colleen went to her cabinet across the room and pulled out a number of different kinds of crackers. If students had a quarter, they paid her, but she “loaned” students the money if they were not able to pay her.

Findings: Few Meaningful Connections between and among Ideas, Texts, and Experiences

ExampleI saw rote memorization activities, worksheets,

teacher-only discussions, and students writing (on the student survey) “death would be better (than being in this class)” in their reflections about what they were learning.

Findings: Inquiry Stance Not Useful; Maybe Even Risky

Example

The teacher I observed had a very positive attitude about the work we were doing and asked regularly for help. I believe she wanted to use my suggestions, but I think she was afraid. If she were to continue on with the work that she did with her team, she was safe. The team had created packets of study, so the work was easier. There was less planning to do. Truly, I believe she was scared.

Findings: Lack of Authentic Tasks and Audiences

Example

They were told to copy the agenda, respond to the prompt, copy the vocabulary definitions, and then work on the packet in their folder. This pattern was repeated throughout the semester.

Finding: Mediation for Compliance

Example

Once the testing was over in April, the students were given a project. The project was to be an extension of a Shakespeare play. They were given an instruction sheet and worked in the library to complete the project. Although the librarian provided support for the students with the use of technology, I never heard Colleen provide assistance or any further explanation than to read the direction sheet. Most of the students did not complete the assignment. For those students that did complete the work, the projects looked to be reproductions of ideas that they had found in their research.

Conclusion

• We were unsuccessful in this initiative.

• Non-generative patterns were more powerful than the generative patterns we tried to amplify.

• Professional development should acknowledge the dynamics of complex systems.

Implications for Future Practice

• Emphasize systemic similarities across instructional practice and campus leadership.

• Inquiry, dialogue, conversations, and actions based on shared assumptions and goals (Adaptive Action).

• Begin with more concrete focus on a particular instructional change with the potential to generate the pattern.

Implications for Future Research

• What are the underlying dynamics that generate these patterns?

• How can we infuse “Adaptive Action” in the work of everyone in the system?

• What is the relationship between these patterns and evidence of student learning?

Closing Comment

“Working in a large urban district in a low performing school requires hope, vision, and transformative leadership. Leaders need to be able to champion struggling learners . . . (to know that students) are more than a test score. . . . And leaders need to understand what it means to move forward together as a healthy organization. It means rebuilding trust and confidence in one another. That takes time.”

—Janelle’s reflexive narrative

References• Eoyang, G. H. (2001). Conditions for self-organizing in human systems. Doctoral

dissertation, The Union Institute and University. • Eoyang, G. H. and Holladay, R. (2013). Adaptive action: Leveraging uncertainty in

your organization. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press. • Patterson, L., Holladay, R., and Eoyang, G. (2013). Radical rules for schools:

Adaptive Action for Complex Change. Circle Pines, MN: Human Systems Dynamics Institute.

• Patterson, L., Wickstrom, C., Roberts, J., Araujo, J., and Hoki, C. (2010). Deciding when to step in and when to back off. The Tapestry Journal, 2, 1, 1-18. http://tapestry.usf.edu/journal/v02n01.php

• Wickstrom, C., Araujo, J., Patterson, L., and Hoki, C. (2011). Teachers prepare students for careers and college: "I see you," therefore I can teach you. 60th Yearbook of the Literacy Research Association. Oak Creek, WI: Literacy Research Association, Inc.

• Wickstrom, C., Patterson, L., and Isgitt, J. (2012). One teacher’s implementation of Culturally Mediated Writing Instruction. 61st Yearbook of the Literacy Research Association. Oak Creek, WI: Literacy Research Association, Inc.