learning in/through collaborative poetry translation ...jolle.coe.uga.edu › wp-content › uploads...

JournalofLanguageandLiteracyEducationVol.11Issue2—Fall2015http://jolle.coe.uga.edu

LearningIn/ThroughCollaborativePoetryTranslation:DocumentingtheImpactofPoetryInsideOutwithHigh

School-AgedEnglishLanguageLearners

JiePark

JiePark isanAssistantProfessorofEducation insecondary literacyandEnglish language learningatClarkUniversity,Worcester,Massachusetts.Herresearchinterestsincludeadolescentliteraciesacrosscontexts,languagepracticesofbi-andmultilingualyouth,andyouthresearchasaformofpractitionerinquiry.Herworkhas appeared inEnglishEducation, JournalofAdolescent andAdultLiteracy, andTheEnglishJournal.

ABSTRACT:AlthoughtranslationispartofthebilingualexperiencesofEnglishlanguagelearners,literacyteachersandteachereducatorsknowlittleabouthowtranslationcanbeusedwithhighschool-agedEnglishlanguagelearnersandwithwhataffordances.Basedondiscoursedatacollectedfromamixed-grade(grades11and12)shelteredEnglishclassinanurbanhighschool,thispaperreportsontheimpactofPoetryInsideOut,aliteracyprograminwhichstudentstranslateworld-classpoemsfromtheiroriginallanguage(e.g.,Spanish,French,Chinese,etc.)intoEnglish.Findingssuggestthatparticipationinpoetrytranslationandinstructureddiscussionsaboutpoetryandtranslationcanfosterstudents’semanticawareness;capacityforevidence-basedreasoning;andtheirwillingnesstolistentoandlearnfromclassmates.Thestudy’sfindingsspeaktothepotentialofPoetryInsideOutasaprogramwhichrecruitsEnglishlanguagelearners’emergentbi-andmultilingualismasaresource.

Keywords:middleschool,strugglingreaders,readingstrategies,literaturediscussion

JournalofLanguageandLiteracyEducationVol.11Issue2—Fall2015

135

Introduction

n my capacity as a university-based teachereducator, I often hear preservice and in serviceteachers say that they are committed to

providinglanguage-richexperiencesfortheirEnglishlanguagelearners,butstrugglewithhowtomakethenecessary changes to theirpractice.Many times thechallengeisinresponsetotheCommonCoreEnglishLanguage Arts and disciplinary literacy standardsand is especially difficult foreducators who are tasked withsupportinglanguagelearnerswhocome to theUnited States at thesecondary-school level (Suárez-Orozco, Suárez-Orozco, &Todorova, 2008). Current andaspiring teachers wonder: Howcanwebuild a classroomculturewhere students participate inchallenging intellectual work,regardlessoftheircurrentlevelofproficiency in English?What are some examples ofliteracy programs that not only build on, but alsoextendwhatEnglishlearnersknowaboutandcandowithlanguage?

Inthisarticle,Iintroduceonesuchliteracyprogram,knownasPoetry InsideOutor “PIO.”DevelopedbytheCenterfortheArtofTranslationin2000,PIOisapoetry- and translation-based literacy curriculumwhere students translate world-class poems, fromtheir original language (e.g., Spanish, Chinese,Japanese, etc.) into English. Since its inception, theprogramhastrainedteachers inSanFrancisco,NewYork, San Diego, Boston, and Philadelphia (Centerfor theArtofTranslation,2015).PIOhasbeenusedin elementary and high school classrooms, withmonolingual English aswell as bi- andmultilingualstudents, and towards different ends (Rutherford,2012). For example, with monolingual Englishstudents, PIO has been shown to create“opportunities[forstudents]tolearntowritepoetryvia the closest possible contact – translation”(Rutherford, 2009, p. 208). This article, however,focuses on the implementation of PIOwith Englishlanguagelearners.Drawingondatacollectedfromamixed-grade(grades11and12)shelteredEnglishclasstaught by Lori1 , I illustrate the ways in which

collaborativepoetrytranslation,acentralcomponentofPIO,enablesEnglish language learners toengagein linguistic, analytical, and social work. Althoughtranslation is part of the unique bilingual andmultilingualexperiencesofEnglishlanguagelearners(Genesee, Lindholm-Leary, Saunders, & Christian,2005; Orellana, Dorner, & Pulido, 2003), literacyteachers and teacher educators know little abouthow literary translation can be used in classroomswithhighschool-agedEnglishlanguagelearnersand

withwhataffordances.

For the past two years Ihave been collaboratingwith a university-basedcolleague and two ESLteachers to understandwhathappenswhenEnglishlanguage learners areapprenticed into thepractice of collaborativepoetry translation. For the

purposesof thispaper I focusondatacollectedandanalyzed from the first year of the study,wherewefound that in collaborativepoetry translation,Lori’sstudents developed their capacities as thinkers,language users, and collaborators. Moreover, Loriherself came to a fuller understanding of herstudents’ resources andpower. In the conclusionofthe paper I argue for developing sites for teacherinquiry into language and literacy—sites whereteachers of English language learners, with thesupport of university-based teacher educators, candocument their work, question their assumptionsabout language learners, and inquire into theinterplay of literacies and identities within largeractivitystructures.

PoetryInsideOut:ALiteracyProgramBasedonPoetryTranslation

InPoetry InsideOut students translatepoems fromtheir original language into English. Althoughtranslation and interpretation are often usedinterchangeably, there is a difference between thetwo. According to Marty Rutherford (2012), a keydesigner of Poetry Inside Out, bilingual youth areskilledatimpromptuinterpretingforthemselvesandothers; they are adept at oral paraphrasing, in real

I

1Allnamesexcepthersarepseudonyms.

Collaborativepoetrytranslation,acentral

componentofPIO,enablesEnglishlanguagelearnersto

engageinlinguistic,analytical,andsocialwork.

Park,J.(2015)/LearningIn/ThroughCollaborativePoetryTranslation

136

timeandonthespot,fromonelanguagetoanother.Infact,deepethnographicwork(seeOrellana,2009;Valdés, 2001; Zentella, 1997) has shown thatimmigrant children and youth regularly serve asinterpreters, speaking for and on behalf of familiesand friends, so that they may access knowledge,information, and resources. Professional literarytranslationofwrittentexts,ontheotherhand,rarelyoccursonthespot(Valdés,2014).Instead,thewordsandthetextarefixed,allowingthetranslatortotakeher time in considering her options, use multipleresources suchasdictionaries, andmake judgmentsaboutwhattheauthoristryingtocommunicate.Thetranslatorhasmore time than an interpreter topayattention and care to word choice, grammar (e.g.,verbtenseoragreement),syntax(e.g.,wordorderinlanguages that differ in basic subject/verb/objectstructure),andeventheculturalandpoliticalaspectsoflanguage.

The kind of literary translation that is supported inPIO ismade possible, even in caseswhere studentsdo not speak the language of the original poem,throughastrategicallydesigned“poempagepacket”(Figure 1). The first page of the poem page packetcontains the poet’s name, birth (and death) date,countryoforigin,and language thepoem iswrittenin. Below that, on the left side of the page, is thepoem itself. If written in a non-Roman script, atransliteratedversionisprovidedaswellsothepoemcan be read aloud by all who read English. On therightsideofthepagethereisaphotoordrawingofthe poet and a brief biography that includesinformation relevant to the meaning of the poem.Beginningonthesecondpageisthekeythatmakestranslation possible — the “translator’s glossary”whichincludesadictionary-typedefinitionwithpartof speech information, as well as carefully selectedpossiblesynonymsforeverysinglewordorlinguisticparticlethatmakesupthepoem(seeFigure1forthetranslator’sglossaryofElGrillobyAlbertoBlanco).

In terms of the choice of poems used in theclassroom, teachers are encouraged to use PoetryInside Out flexibly and purposefully, in ways thatcomplement and amplify the classroom curriculum.Once teachers complete amultidayworkshopgivenbytheCenterfortheArtofTranslation,theyreceive

access to a password-protected folder, on GoogleDrive, which holds all the poem page packets.Teachers have autonomy to choose the poems thatbest fit their students’ interests and needs. Forexample, although Lori began the program with aSpanish poem, she subsequently chose poemswritteninlanguagesthatnoneofherstudentsknew(e.g.,Albanian,Polish,Chinese,andJapanese).Lori’scolleague, however, relied primarily on poemswritten in Spanish because he taught Spanish-speaking newcomers, many who were at “zeroEnglish”(Valdés,1998).

In terms of its structure, there is a recurring set ofactivitiesandparticipant structures ina typicalPIOprogram. Before students engage in the work oftranslation, they read aloud and discuss thebiographyofthepoet,writteninEnglish,andseveralstudents take turns reading thepoem in itsoriginallanguage – even in caseswhere no one in the classspeaksthelanguage.Iftheoriginallanguageusesanalternate orthography (e.g., Japanese), students relyon a transliterated version to help them read thepoemaloud.Afterreadingthebiographyandpoem,students work with the poem page and translator’sglossary — first in pairs, developing a “phrase-by-phrase”translation.Thisphrase-by-phraseversionisan initial attempt to break into the language andmeaningofthepoem,akintoaroughdraft.Thelinesofthetranslatedpoemmightsoundodd,butitisthebest attempt at a beginning translation thepartnership can produce. Then, two groups of twocome together as a group of four, with theirrespectivephrase-by-phrase translations, inorder tocreatewhatiscalleda“make-it-flow”translation–aversion that is faithful to and does justice to theoriginal poem. Then each group of four presents apublic reading of their “make-it-flow” translations,followed by a whole-class discussion about thetranslations, the choices each groupmade, and themeaningoftheoriginalpoem.Inspiredandinformedbythetranslationofseveralpoemsfromaroundtheworld, over a period of weeks, students eventuallywritetheirownpoems2(seeFigure2).

InthecaseofPIO,studentstranslatewithandinthecompany of others,making translation a discourse-intensive communal practice. In other words,

2Studentscreateapoempagepacketoftheirown,withapoem,self-portrait(insteadofaphotograph)andbiography.Ifthepoemisintheirnativelanguage,theycreateatranslator’sglossary.Thesepoemsareoftencollectedintoaclassbook,presentedpublicallyinapoetryreading,andevensometimespublished.


137

translation motivates participants to engage indiscussions that depend upon, and supportways ofusing language, of thinking, andof associatingwithothers(Gee,2001).Thispaperbuildsonandextendsexisting research on Poetry Inside Out (Park,Simpson, Bicknell, & Michaels, 2015; Rutherford,2009, 2012) by highlighting how a group of high-schoolagedEnglishlanguagelearnersparticipatedintranslating experiences, and by paying attention tothe affordances of collaborative translation on notonly students’ language and literacy, but alsorelationshipswithclassmates.

TheoreticalFramework

This article draws on data collected by a researchgroup, which includes Jie and Lori. Socioculturalunderstandings of language and literacy informedthe research group’s work (Gutierrez & Orellana,2006; Lam & Warriner, 2012; Valdés, 2014) andhighlightedtheresources,strategies,andexperiencesthat language learners bring to the work oftranslation. Instead of viewing language-learningyouth as deficient, sociocultural theoristsacknowledge that language learners, as emergentbilinguals(García&Kleifgen,2010),understandhowlanguageworks,andbringaheightenedawarenessofthe social, cultural, and even ideological aspects oflanguage.Rather thanconsiderwhatLori’s studentslacked, we intentionally shifted our gaze to whattheyweredoingandsayinginthecontextofPIO.

Sociocultural frameworks, built on the work ofVygotsky (1978), center on investigating the socialformationof literacy.This traditionhasemphasizedthepatternedinterplayof language,knowledge,andtechnologies (i.e., tools or artifacts) within largeractivity structures. In other words, socioculturalframeworks help literacy researchers and educatorsto “shift away from students’ individuallyaccomplishedcompetenciesandabilitiestofocusonthemutuallyconstitutiverolesofco-participants[…]ingoal-directedactivities”(Pacheco,2015,p. 136).Inadditiontotheinteractionsbetweenandamongco-participants, socioculturalists recognize the ways inwhichparticipationinaliteracyeventismediatedbytextual tools and social practices (DeNicolo &Franquiz, 2006). Informed by the thinking ofsocioculturalists, we approached Poetry InsideOut,

including the poem page and recurring participantstructures and activities, as a mediational tool thatcreatesaffordancesforbothteachersandstudents.

Lastly,asocioculturalframinghelpedresearchgroupmembers to pay attention to the hybridity andmovement of language. Rather than a separation oflanguages, sociocultural theorists are interested instudying themovement of languages and identitiesacross contexts as well as exploring how a practicelike translation is part of a “larger ecology of astudent’s life (or literacy repertoire)” (Gutierrez &Orellana,2006,p.504).

ContextandParticipants

LoriteachesESL(EnglishasaSecondLanguage)andshelteredEnglishinaGrade7-12school inanurbandistrict in the US Northeast. For 72 percent of the497 students in the school,English isnot their firstlanguage. Eighty-nine percent receive free andreduced-priced lunch. Lori and a colleague areresponsible for educating adolescent languagelearnerswithvaryingdegreesofEnglishproficiency.Because of state policies on bilingual instruction,English language learners at Lori’s school receivelanguage support through ESL and shelteredcontent-area courses – although at the time of thestudy, only the Biology and English classes weresheltered. The students were assigned to Lori’sshelteredEnglish classbasedonEnglishproficiencylevels, determined by the ACCESS for ELLs(Assessing Comprehension and CommunicationStatetoStateforEnglishlanguagelearners),whichisanannualassessmentdevelopedbytheWorld-ClassInstructional Design and Assessment Consortium(WIDA).

Knowing my interest in working with adolescentlanguage learners and their classroom teachers, theschool principal introduced me to Lori in October2013.Ibeganasanobserver,butshiftedtotheroleofparticipant observer as I developed relationships oftrust with Lori and her students. In January 2014, Iinvited Lori and her colleague to attend a two-dayworkshop on PIO, given byMarty Rutherford fromthe Center of the Art of Translation. Shortlythereafter, Lori began to implement PIO in hersheltered English class, which consisted of twelve


138

students, ages 16 to 18, whose home languagesinclude Spanish, Arabic, Vietnamese, French, andTwi.Some,likeMaryam,hadbeeninthecountryforlessthanayear,whileothershadbeeninthecountryfor three years. According to levels set forth byWIDA standards (WIDA, 2012), Lori’s studentsmostly had levels of “developing” (Level 3) or“expanding”(Level4).),WhenLoriandhercolleaguebegantoimplementPIO,Iaskedthemtojoinafour-person research group – of teacher researchers anduniversity-based researchers – to document PoetryInside Out and its impact onEnglishlearners.Forthispaper,I decided to focus on Lori’sshelteredEnglish classbecauseit was the class where I spentthemost time as a participantobserver.ThismeantthatIhadin-depth knowledge of theyouth and could gather robustdata.

DataCollectionandAnalysis

Critical to the design of theresearch is the collaborationbetween university-basedresearchers and teacherresearchers. This collaborationprovided the opportunity tocollectawiderangeofdatasourcesandperspectives,providing a more complete picture of studentlearning. After several weeks of documenting PIO,the research team noticed that the talk involved inPIO stood in contrast to what typically happens inclass discussions (often referred to as IRE orInitiation-Response-Evaluation), where the teacherasksaquestion,studentsattempttogettheanswer,andtheteacherevaluatesthestudent’scontributionasrightorwrong(Mehan,1979).Havingnoticedthis,the research team decided to investigate thecapacities developed in and from the talk thathappens when students participate in collaborativepoetrytranslation.

Inanattempttotrackherowntalkmovesandthoseofherstudents,Loriaudio-recordedherselfandherstudents as they engaged in PIO. She, often usedmore than one tape recorder around the class to

record not only the small group discussions asstudents worked on the “phrase-by-phrase” and“make-it-flow” translations, but also the publicsharing of translations and subsequent whole-classdiscussion.Lorialsodocumented,throughateacherjournal, her experience of designing, orchestrating,and sustaining discussions about poetry andtranslation. I also documented the work of Lori’sstudents, taking field notes and audio-recordingsmall-groupworkandwhole-classdiscussions.Iwasa participant observer in Lori’s classroom, visiting

the class for three or fourconsecutive days, every twoweeks,whilestudentsengagedwith Poetry Inside Out.Between January and June2014, Lori implemented PIOonceeverytwoweeks.

I transcribed audiotapes fromsmall-group discussions ofpoetry translation and whole-class discussion. In analyzingtranscripts of discussions—“phrase-by-phrase,” “make-it-flow,” and the whole-classdiscussion after the publicsharing of translations—theresearch team, including Lori,relied on a descriptive review

protocol(Carini,2000).Usingthedescriptivereviewprotocol, we first describedwhatwe noticed in thetranscriptintermsofstudents’discursivemaneuversand reasoning practices. For example, we noticedthat students repeatedly said, “It’s almost the samething.” Then, from the descriptions, we generatedclaims about what the students were working tounderstandoraccomplish.Ifwetaketheexampleof“It’s almost the same thing,” we inferred thatstudents were working through the subtledifferences in word meaning, and exercising theirsemantic awareness. The last round of thedescriptive review process focused on identifyingpedagogicalimplicationsfromthedata.Forexample,during a descriptive review of a transcript from awhole-class discussion of a Chinese poem, wenoticed students exploring the rules of translation(i.e., Can translators add words?). Based on thisdescriptivereview,Loristructuredfuturewhole-class

Informedbythethinkingofsocioculturalists,we

approachedPoetryInsideOut,includingthepoempageand

recurringparticipantstructuresandactivities,asamediationaltoolthatcreatesaffordancesforbothteachers

andstudents


139

discussionssothatstudentswerediscussingnotonlythemeaningof the translatedpoems,but also theirdecisionsastranslators.In keeping with sociocultural theories’ focus onlanguageandcommunication,wealsouseddialogic,deliberative, and participatory talk in classrooms toguide our data analysis (Michaels, O’Connor, &Resnick,2008).Readingthetranscripts,weidentifiedinstances of highly dialogic discourse betweenstudents—based on evidence of students carefullylistening to each other; explicating their ideas andquestioning others; engaging in evidence-basedreasoning;andvaluingthemselvesandeachotherasthinkersandlanguage-users.

Attheendoftheschoolyear,Iinterviewedtenoutofthe twelve students about their experiences withPIO. I was unable to interview two students,MariaandLorenzo,becauseMariamovedoutofstate,andLorenzo was absent during the week of theinterviews. Interviewdatawereanalyzedinductivelyfor themes related to the process of collaborativetranslation; strategiesused to translateapoem;andperceived challenges and benefits to collaborativetranslation. Although much of the interview dataconfirmed what we learned from analyzingtranscriptsofthetranslationprocess,Itookseriouslyany discrepant data, including data from a smallnumber of studentswho said that they did not feelinvested in translating an adult-poet’s work. Astudent shared in an interview, “The poems thatwe’ve read […] it’s either about animals ormysticalthings or you know. So I don’t see anything thatconnects tome.”Their comments shed lighton thechallengesofimplementingPoetryInsideOut,whicharedescribedindetailinthediscussionsection.

Findings:DevelopingCapacitiesandKnowledgethroughCollaborativeTranslation

As stated before, the research group sought toinvestigate the capacities and understandings thatadolescent English language learners developed inand through collaborative poetry translation. Basedon analysis of data from sociocultural perspectives,welearnedwhatLori’sstudentsweredevelopingasaresult of engaging with the mediational tools,activities, and practices of Poetry Inside Out.Specifically, we learned that Lori’s students were

developing their semantic-awareness; capacity forevidence-based reasoning; and stance ofcollaboration.Thestudy’sfindingsfeaturethevoicesof all twelve participants in three divided sections:Semantic Awareness, Capacity for Evidence-BasedReasoning,andStanceofCollaboration.Table1 (seeAppendix) provides, participant names, year ofarrival to the US, home country, and primarylanguage(s).

SemanticAwareness

WhenLorifirstintroducedPIOandannouncedthatthey were going to translate a Spanish poem, thestudents were skeptical. Oliver, a native SpanishspeakerfromtheDominicanRepublic,predictedthattranslation would be difficult “because there aresomeexpressionsinSpanishthatyoucan’ttranslateinto English.”Manuel questionedwhether he couldtranslateintoEnglishsince,althoughheknewmanywordsinSpanish,hedidnotknowthesamewordsinEnglish. Others focused on the fact that they weretranslating poetry. Maryam, who had attendedschoolinJordan,expressedafearofpoetry.Shesaid,“I never stand up and say, ‘That’swhat I feel aboutthepoem.That’sthemeaningforit.’I’veneverdonethatbefore.”William insisted that “nobody,nobodylikes poetry.” Unfazed by the students’ comments,Lori explained that they would rely on thetranslator’s glossary and each other to translate thepoem, El Grillo by Alberto Blanco. She remindedstudents that theyhad the “goldofknowing twooreven three languages,” and shared that she hadtranslated the Spanish poem herself—a fact thatimpressedstudentsandevenelicitedafewgiggles.

Lori began by asking volunteers to read El Grilloaloud.During the time that three students read thepoem, I noted students encouraging each other toread(“takeyourtime”or“dothebestyoucan”)andclappingaftereachreading.MaryamaffirmedAaron,the second reader who did not speak Spanish, forbeing“goodwithlanguages.”

When students began translating El Grillo, Iobservedhowtheyacknowledgedandwrestledwithsubtlenuancesofmeaninginwords.Inmostphrase-by-phrase work, students questioned word choice,worked to define words, questioned whether and


140

howaword’smeaningdiffersfromitsdefinition,andcametounderstandtheconceptofsynonyms—allofwhich build semantic awareness (Kaiser, 1987;Wright, 2010). In other words, semantic awarenessrefers toanawarenessof themeaningofwordsandphrases, as well as the relationship between words(e.g., synonyms, antonyms,homonyms, etc.). It alsoreferstoanawarenessofhowwemakesenseofandrespond to language. In debating which words touse, Lori’s students were exploring what wordsmean,howthepossible synonymsdiffer, andwhichpossible synonym to use in the translation and towhateffect.Forexample,inthediscussionbelow,Jo,Manuel, andMaryamwereworkingon the “phrase-by-phrase” translation, and discussing the meaningof the word, hierba. According to the translator’sglossary, thepossiblesynonymsforhierbaaregrass,lawn,orweed.JoaskedManuelwhathierbameans.

Jo:Whatdoesitmean,thisword? s it mean, this word?Manuel:What? That’s like grass. Like, youknowwhatgrassmeans?Jo: Yeah. Among the grass of the. It’smakingitmore.Grassofthesky.It’sweird.Manuel:Yeah.Betweenthegrassofthesky.Somethinglikethat.Maryam:Grass or lawn. It’s almost thesamethingbutwithdifferentfeelings.Jo:Grass is a good word because we’retalking about the country sky, like, empty.Likegrassbetter.Withlike,somethingthatisthegrass.Yeah,Ithinkweshouldchoosegrass.It’smorenatural.Natural.Isitamongorbetween?Ichoseamong.Maryam:Notbetween?Jo:Ichoseamong. ong.Maryam:Youchooseamong?Butwhatthatwordmeans? (January, 2014,Make-It-FlowTranslation)

In this exchange Jo,Manuel, andMaryam not onlymadedecisionsaboutwhatwordtouseandwhy,butalso considered the larger meaning of the poem,perhaps evendrawingon thebiographyof thepoetwhichmentions that nature is a frequent theme inBlanco’s poems. The students positionedManuel, anativespeakerofSpanish,asanexpert.However,Jo,a student from Vietnam, also brought her owninsights.Defending“grass”over“lawn,”sheinsisted,“The author try to put the readers in the feeling ofnature. Silence night and music of the cricket.”

Maryam acknowledged that grass and lawn conveydifferent feelings to the reader.NeitherManuelnorJo knew the meaning of “among,” promptingMaryamtoreachforanEnglish-Arabicdictionaryonthe table. Even after consulting the dictionary,Maryam was unsure whether to use “among” or“between.” Manuel convinced Jo and Maryam thatthey should use “between” since “among” was too“fancy” and “people in the nature don’t talk likethat.”

As Maryam, Manuel, and Jo decided on “betweenthe grass”, a different pair decided to use “weed,”offeringupevidencethatweedsaretallerthangrassorlawn.Inthepair-work,Ialsoheardstudentssaytoeach other, “What did you get for this part?” and“Let’s talk about it.” If a pair included two Spanishspeakers, I heard them ask each other, “Que tupiensas?”(Whatdoyouthink?)and“Quesignifica?"(What does it mean?). In a research meeting, Loricommentedonthewaysinwhichherstudentswerelistening to each other, asking for clarification,building on as well as questioning the thinking ofclassmates, and arriving at consensus—all withoutrelyingontheteacher.

After translating El Grillo, Maryam describedtranslation as simultaneously easy and difficult: “Inthe beginning I thought that translating poems issomething hard, but after this poem, it makes mefeel like it’s not a hard thing. And it’s not an easythingtodotoobecauseyouhavetounderstandthemeaning.” In order to produce a translation withfidelity,studentshavetochoosewordsthat“fit” themeaning of the poem. In the interview, Williamexplained, “You have to find the right words. Youhavetofindtherightwordstofitthepoeminorderto, you know, make it connect to the author’spurpose.” Students took seriously each word thatmade up the poem, exploring subtle differencesbetween possible synonyms and inquiring whatmakes one synonym better than another, given theintended tone, message of the poem, and evensetting of the piece. Cyrus, a young man from theCentral African Republic, shared that selecting aword involves that they “sense the tones of thecommunication.” In translation, students not onlydevelopedtheabilitytomakeviablemeaningoutofwords and phrases (Weingartner, 1969), but also


141

gainedawarenessofhowtheyuseavailableresources(e.g., dictionaries, poet biographies, personalconnections to the poem) to assign meaning towordswhentranslatingpoetry.

CapacityforEvidence-BasedReasoning

The students understood poetry translation as ameaning-making act in which translators have tomake sense of the original text and consider thepoet’spurpose.Toconstructmeaningfromthepoemand infer the poet’s intent, students drew on thebiographyof thepoet.Theybegan to take seriouslywhocreatedthetext,whatwasimportanttohimorher, and what motivated the poet. Thus, astranslators, students also became more perceptiveandcarefulliteraryreaders,understandingthattextsare created by human beings from the contexts oftheir lived experience. Students inferred theintentionsandmessageofthepoetbyexaminingtheevidence in the form of the poet’s biography. Inaddition, they were able to consider the validity oftheirownandclassmates’translations.Literatureondeliberative discourse (see Cazden, 2001; Michaels,O’Connor, & Resnick, 2008) suggests that powerfullearning happens when students draw reasonedconnectionsandconclusions,whicharethenusedbyothers for the purpose of further deliberation,critique, and elaboration. In the exchange betweenCarlos and Aaron, they drew on the biography ofHuangXiangtomakesenseofthepoemDuChang3.Lori’sstudentstranslatedDuChangduringthethirdweekofApril,threemonthsintothePIOprogram.

Carlos:Hewas in theprisonalone [….]Heput his country, his people first, thenhisself.That'swhatit'sabout.Like,hewasapoet that had been in prison because hebelievedintherightofdemocracy.Aaron:Communist.Carlos:Mm hmm. This one, I don't get it,thisline.Aaron:Thepoemkindarelatestohislife?Carlos:Yeah.Aaron: His biography? Kinda relates to itso.Carlos:Whenhewasinprison.(April,2014,Phrase-by-PhraseTranslation) was in prison. (April, 2014, Phrase-by-Phrase Translation)

In the interview, Carlos shared at length how thepoet’s biography became a frame of reference fromwhich to construct the poem’s meaning. Heexplained, “In the biography he talk about his lifethathewasinjailandallthatstuff.Andinthepoemhewas saying almost the same thing.Like,hewerein jail. And we could understand it.” Carlosunderstood that readers cannot separate the poemfromthepoet,inthiscasethepoet'sfeelings,beliefs,and political and historical positions in communistChina.Studentsstartedtopaymoreattentiontothecreator of the original text –who the poetwas or isandwhat happened to himor her. The fact that somanystudentscontinuallyreferredtothebiographyofHuangXiang suggests that English learnerswerenot only paying more attention to the creator oftexts,butalsopersonalizingandhumanizingpoetry.

Studentsdevelopedintheirabilityandwillingnesstonot only share their reasoningwithothers, but alsolisten to, understand, and question each other’sreasoning. For example, Carlos, Aaron, and Pabloworked on creating a “make it flow” translation ofthe Chinese poem, Du Chang. Agreeing that thepoem was about the poet’s time in solitaryconfinement, the three boys discussed possibletranslations for the title, which included “SingingAlone,” “I Sing Alone,” or “Alone Croon.” The boyseventually decided on “Alone Croon” after thefollowingdiscussion:

Aaron: Idon’tknow.Wechose “croon”andtome Idon't know. We chose “croon” and to meCarlos:Croon(overlappingtalk).Idon'tlikecroon.Aaron:I don't understand 'croon' but Ithink,butIwantthemeaningofthatword.What“croon”is?Pablo:Coulditbethespiritorsoul?Carlos:Oh.Solikewithyourvoice.Youhear(toAaron)?Aaron:Ummhum.Carlos:Using your voice, like he likes tomakemusicwithhisvoice,hisspirit.Aaron:Seethe“croon?”? I'mnotsureaboutthe "croon" (looking in dictionary). It's tosing in gentle or murmuring voice. Youknowlikewhenhewasinprison,youknow,

1HuangXiang’sbiographyonthepoempage:HuangXiangwasborninHunanProvinceinChinain1941andhasbeenwritingpoemssince1950.In1978,hestartedanundergroundwriters’societyandaliterarymagazine,bothnamedEnlightenment.Tenyearslaterhewasarrestedforhispro-Democracyactivitiesandsentencedtothreeyearsoflabor.Heultimatelyservedtwelveyearsinprisonwherehespentmuchtimeinsolitaryconfinement.HuangXiangandhiswifelivedinexileintheUnitedStatessince1997.HeandhisfamilynowliveinNewYork.Tothisday,HuangXiang’sworksremainsbannedinChina.


142

sing like quiet, he would. So like, "alonecroon.”Carlos:Alonecroon?Aaron:Yes. (April, 2014, Make-It-FlowTranslation).

I was surprised by Carlos’ statement—“I don’t likecroon”—since Carlos and Aaron, as a pair, hadalready decided to use croon. However, I realizedthatinsaying“Idon’tlikecroon,”Carlosunderstoodtranslation as an ongoing attempt to constructmeaning. Second, I noticedAaron’s commitment tounderstanding the word croon. He stated, “I wantthe meaning of that word [croon]” Aaron’s use ofwant signals a strong desire to understand themeaning of a word. Third, although Pablo did notparticipateasmuchasAaronandCarlos,hemadeanimportant contribution, suggesting that “croon”couldberelatedtothespiritorsoul.CarlosextendedPablo’s contribution by adding “So like with yourvoice…”Together,Pablo andCarlos constructed theidea that one’s voice can be an expression of thespirit or soul, and not just the sounds utteredthrough one’s mouth. I noticed Carlos’ talk move(“You hear?”), directed at Aaron, and intended toensure that Aaron heard Pablo. Through this talkmove,CarlossignaledtheimportanceofPablo’sidea.Lastly, Aaron did not accept “croon” until heconsulted the dictionary. He read the definition of“croon” to the group—“To sing in gentle ormurmuringvoice.”Referencingthepoet’sbiography,Aaronreasonedthatthepoetmusthavesung“quiet”because he was in prison. Going through thisdeliberativeprocess,Pablo,Carlos,andAaronagreedon “Alone Croon” for the title. This processmotivatedtheboystoarticulate,withevidence,theirtranslationchoicestothemselvesandothers.

Although students knew that there is not a single“right” answer in Poetry Inside Out, they debatedwhat makes a good translation. Below is part of awhole-class discussion, following the public readingofthetranslationsforDuChang.Theexcerptbelowcaptures a particularly rich exchange between fivestudents. It began with Maryam’suncharacteristicallyboldpronouncement.

Maryam:Mypoemisbetter.William:No. You want to go bring judges?Bringjudges?Mypoemhasamore,like,youknow,ageneralizedideaofwhattheauthor

was, like, you know the background of theauthor.Hislifeandeverything.Lorenzo:Ihaveaquestion.Ihaveaquestion[to William]. Why does your poem say,“Poem,poem”twice?William: Becauseit’sarepetitioninpoem.Aaron:Yeah, (snapping his fingers) I wasgoingtotalkaboutit.Lorenzo:There’s only one, once, it sayspoeminthere.Onlyonce.Nottwice.Aaron:That’swhatI’msaying.Lorenzo:Thenyouwrotepoem,poemtwice.Maria:Because we can add words to makemoresense.(April,2014,PublicSharingandWhole-ClassDiscussion)

Lorenzo questioned William because William’sgroup, in translating the poem, decided to use“poem” twice.William responded that poems oftencontain repetition. Not entirely satisfied withWilliam’sresponse,Lorenzocitedtheoriginalpoem,whichonlysays“poem”once.LoriandIwerestruckbynotonlystudents’carefulattentiontoandrespectfor theoriginal text,butalsotherelativeabsenceofLori’s voice in this discussion, which continued foranother twelve minutes, and focused on whether,andwhatwordscanbeaddedbyatranslator.

StanceofCollaboration

Comingupwitha“good”translationofaword,line,orentirepoemisacomplexfeat.Differentfrommosttraditional translation activities performed by asingletranslator,PoetryInsideOutrequiresstudentsto translate with others (Rutherford, 2009). In thecompanyofothers, students-as-translatorsconsider,learn toarticulate,andrevisewhat theybelieveandwheretheystandonwordchoiceandthemeaningofthepoem. Interviewing students, Iheardcommentsliketheonebelow:

William:SoifIsay,Iwantthisword,andmygroup member want that word, he has togivemereasonswhythiswordbestfitsthatwordhewantstochoose,youknow.Soyouhave to come into an agreement upon oneword, but you have to back up yourreasoning why you want that word to bechosen.Manuel:When we choose a word, like,‘cause we were in group, and we have to


143

discuss and if another, if one of my groupthinks that that’s not a good word and Ithinkthat’sagoodword,wehavetodiscuss.Maryam:Weneedtodiscussaboutit.Speaka lot. And why do you choose that. I’mtelling you thatmine is right.Why do youchoose that one? We always say, yeah, Iwanttoknowwhy.

I-R-E and skills-based instruction offer limitedopportunities for problem solving and engagementinsubstantivediscussions(Petrosky,McConachie,&Mihalakis,2010).Contrarytoskills-basedinstruction,PIO facilitated a process by which students usedcollaborative inquiry to produce meaning.William,Manuel,andMaryamdescribedhowbeingpartofagroupinvolvedcomingtoanagreementandsharingthoughtprocesses.

Collaboration (Bruffee, 1993; Wells, 2001) in whichparticipants work together to problem solve andconstructmeaningisnotwithouttensions,however.Even among Lori’s students, some believed thatcertain voices are more valid and privileged thanothers are. Denis described his group’s interactionsduringPIO:

Denis:I do whatever they want me to do.They said its cricket. I tried, but they said,this is good, this is good. And when I waswithWilliam ‘cause he know a lot, he said,“Nah,nah,nah.Thisisgood.”Sowesaidthat,the thing he said. Maybe Maria was agreedwith me, Oliver, maybe, because they, likeme, they don’t know a lot of English. AndWilliamsaid,“Oh,thisisgood.”

DenissuggestedthatEnglishlanguageproficiencyisaformofpowerthatshapeswhogetstospeakinthegroup.Insettingswheresomestudentsareperceived(or see themselves) as having more English thanothers have, collaboration can become a site ofcontestationandsilencing.

The majority of transcript and interview data,however, pointed to the benefits of engaging in acollaborative, deliberative process wherebyparticipants must reach consensus and generate agroup translation. In that process, Lori’s studentscame to not only listen and tolerate, but also valueothers’ideasandreasoning.Goingbeyondwhattheirpeers think or believe, they worked to understand

whytheirpeersbelieveorthinkincertainways.Forexample, Jo said that she tends to bring a “realistperspective” to translating poems while Maryamthinks in “metaphor.” Lori’s students came to seehow they translated using their own “funds ofknowledge” (Moll & Gonzalez, 2001), whether it isknowledge of the language of the poem, lifeexperiences that might resemble the poet’s, or aparticular perspective or interpretive lens (e.g.,scientific,metaphorical,etc.).Theyaskedeachotherfor their reasoning(“Iwant toknowwhy”).Williamsummarized the learning that happens in andthroughcollaboration:

William:I feel like working alone isn’tlearning.Cause learning’sgettinganew ideafrom someone or something, and improvingyourownideawiththesameideathatyou’regetting. And then exploring the idea withother people. Then you’ll learn from themtoo.

They learned to work through a complex text andtask— a “puzzle," according to one student. Theyalso learnedtotake indifferentandnewideas fromothers,andusethoseideastoexpand,reflecton,andimprovetheirownthinking.

Discussion

Translation is an under-utilized practice in middleand secondary schools (Martínez, 2010; Orellana &Reynolds, 2008).However, as we can see from Loriandher students,collaborative translationofpoetrycan become a site for cultural, linguistic, andintellectualaccomplishment,forEnglishlearnersandteachers of English learners alike. Drawing on themediational tool of the poem page packet, andworkingwithco-participantsinthesharedactivityofpoetry translation, students developed semanticawareness; engaged in evidence-based reasoning;and cultivated a stance of collaboration. In thissection,Ireviewanddiscussthekeypointsfromthestudy’sfindings.

Mostofthe“phrase-by-phrase”deliberationsfocusedon word choice. Students’ discussions focused onfinding the best possible synonym to advance themeaning and tone of the poem. In the process ofdeliberating about word meaning and synonyms,studentsdevelopedsemanticawareness,which,asa


144

formofmetalinguisticknowledge,canhelpstudentsto see “language as an object, subject tomanipulation”(Lee,1993,p.94).Therewas,however,less evidenceof studentsdiscussing issuesof syntaxandgrammar – although theydid, at times, discussrulesforsubject-verbagreement;differencebetweenthe articles “a/an” and “the”; and the idea that insome languages, like Spanish, the adjective mightfollowthenoun,andnottheotherwayaround.

In choosing the words, Lori’s students understoodthattranslationinvolvesfirstfiguringouttheidea(s)or meaning(s) of the poem, not just substitutingwords from one language into another language.That is, their perception of the poem's meaninginformed their word choice. In constructing themeaning of the poem, students focused on thebiography of the poet, using information about thepoettoinferthepoet’sbackground,worldviews,andeven artistic commitments. At times students alsodrew upon their lived experiences as evidence. Forexample, to help others understand why the poet,Huang Xiang, was imprisoned for pro-democraticactivities,Joexplainedthatinhercountry’shistory:

Communists, they just only want for thegovernment. The leader, they always saygood about the people, that everything theleadergiveforthepeople,but,butthetruth,they justeat for themselves, they justmakeforthemselves,andthepeoplehavetoworkhard every year, and they didn’t getanything.

In justifying their understanding of the poem,students marked, for themselves and others, wheretheir evidence came from, and how the evidencesupportedtheirposition.Studentsassumedacriticalorientationtowardsthetranslationscreatedbytheirclassmates,questioninghowtheirclassmatesarrivedat their translations and with what evidence. Twoexpressionsweheardalotfromstudentswere“Proveit”and“Iwanttoknowwhy.”Studentswereengagedinreasoninginthecompanyofclassmates.

Despite data suggesting that the more EnglishproficientpeersdismissedthelessproficientEnglishspeakers,themajorityofstudentstookseriouslynotonly what their peers think, but also how andwhythey think in certain ways. In interviews, moststudents commented on gaining a new view of

collaboration as a result of Poetry InsideOut. Theydeveloped the willingness and stamina forcollaboration,aswellas“talkmoves”(e.g.,“Iwanttounderstand” or “I agree with you, but…”) whichsupported them in learning about and from theirclassmates’ideas.Inaninterview,Joshared,

History, like, we usually have team work,andIalwayssay,“Justletmedoit.Youcan,um,Iwillgiveyousomething.”Sometimehegave his own idea. And now really I acceptit.Before Ididn’t. Idon’tuse toaccept it. Iputitintheproject.AndItoldhim,explainhimaboutmyideaandhisidea,andputitinone.And in art one,we,uh,wehave todolike some project. And um, I explain howwhy I draw like this, like that, and theysometime,theygavereallygreatideaforme.

According to interview data, the stance ofcollaboration was what students carried with, andapplied to contexts beyond the Sheltered Englishclass. Students like Jo shifted their approach tocollaboration.Insteadofofferingtodothework(i.e.,“Just let me do it”) or assigning smaller tasks toindividuals (i.e., “I will give you something”), Joengaged in an exchange of ideas. In an exchange,participants not only “go public” with their ownthinking and recognize the thinking of theirclassmates, but also come to hold multipleperspectivesaboutasingletextorlineoftext.

Thestudy’sfindingsspeaktothepotentialofPIOasa program, which “treats multilingualism asnormative,notdeviant” (Bailey&Orellana, 2005,p.67). However, I acknowledge that PIO andcollaborative translation can be difficult toimplement under certain circumstances. Forexample, in Lori’s classroom, we noted how somestudents relied on theirmore English-capable peerstomakedecisionsforthepairorgroup,whileothersfelt silenced by their more English-capable peers.However,wealsoknowfromworkingwithLoriandother teachers in the district that in order for thePIOcurriculumtobeeffectivewithdiversestudents,including newcomers, it should be modified (seePark et al., 2015). In one example, Lori’s colleagueadapted the poem pages so that Spanish-speakingnewcomers translated from one language (e.g.,English, Japanese) into Spanish—the students’dominant language. This was after he observed his


145

newcomersmostlysubstitutingEnglishwordsforthepoet’s words. He discovered that students weretranslatingfromoneforeignlanguage(e.g.,Chinese)toanotherlanguagestillnewtothem–inthiscase,English. In another example, Lori asked the CenterfortheArtofTranslationtodrawuponmorepoemsthat address issues and themes, includinghomesickness, immigration, racism, to which herEnglishlanguagelearnerscanconnect.

ConcludingNote:FosteringTeacherLearningandInquiry

Throughout the spring of 2014, Lori exploredquestions related to implementing PIO with thesupport of a weekly teacher-research seminar withother teachers at her school and a neighboringelementary school. Facilitated by a colleague andmyself, teachers brought aspects of their ownclassroom practice to the table in the form oftranscripts and audio recordings. Lori ended theschoolyearexcitedtocontinuePIOinthe2014-2015academic year. Not only did she have specificquestions she wanted to pursue, she had alsodeveloped a commitment to documenting her ownwork as well as that of her students’ participationandlearning.Attheendofthe2014schoolyear,Lorisharedthefollowingreflection:

ConductingteacherresearcharoundPIOhasprovidedmewith the opportunity to reflecton my student's learning and how I canbetter address their learning needs. Duringthe research process, I recorded andtranscribed classroom discussions thatstudentswerehaving.Witheachencounter,Iwas able to better see how students weremaking connections to the poet, his [poet’s]lifeandhowtheirrespectivelivescouldhave

affected the meaning of the poem. Theyengagedindiscussionsthatincludedreligion,other works of literature and their ownpersonal experiences. There are many timesthat I am unable to give studentsindividualized attention during the class. Byrecording and listening later, I was able topick up on things that I had originallymissed.Workingwithanotherschoolteacherandprofessorsprovidedanotheropportunityfor patterns to be seen. By analyzing anddiscussing the transcripts that weregenerated, I was provided with yet anotherchance to reflect onwhatmy studentsweresaying.(June,2014,ResearchMeeting)

Shehasplansforseveralconferencepresentationsinthe coming year. PIO has positioned both herstudents and her as makers of meaning and newknowledge.

Inclosing,IwanttoechothenecessityofsupportingteachersofEnglish-languagelearners(Geneseeetal.,2005). Teachers of emergent bilinguals need newkindsofprofessional learningopportunities tomeetthe challenges of standards-based reforms andaccountability mandates. They need support withrespect to instructional practices that recruit thelinguistic and cultural strengths of their students,but also with structures that promote a classroomcultureofpublicreasoning.Teachersalsoneedtimeandspace toworkwithcolleagues to reflectonanddocument their work, improve their practice, andcontributetothedevelopmentofnewknowledge inthefieldoflanguageandliteracyeducation.

References

Bailey,A.,&Orellana,M.F.(2015).Adolescentdevelopmentandeverydaylanguagepractices:Implicationsfortheacademicliteracyofmultilinguallearners.InD.Molle,E.Sato,T.Boals,&C.A.Hedgspeth(Eds.),Multilinguallearnersandacademicliteracies:Socioculturalcontextsofliteracydevelopmentinadolescents(pp.53-74).NewYork,NY:Routledge.

Bruffee,K.A.(1993).Collaborativelearning:Highereducation,interdependence,andtheauthorityofknowledge.Baltimore,MD:JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress.


146

Carini,P.F.(2000).Prospect'sdescriptiveprocesses.InM.Himley&P.F.Carini(Eds.),Fromanotherangle:Children'sstrengthsandschoolstandards:TheProspectCenter'sdescriptivereviewofthechild(pp.8-2220).NewYork,NY:TeachersCollegePress.

Cazden,C.B.(2001).Classroomdiscourse:Thelanguageofteachingandlearning(2nded.).Portsmouth,NH:Heinemann.

CenterfortheArtofTranslation.(2015).PoetryInsideOut.Retrievedfromhttp://www.catranslation.org/poetry-inside-out

DeNicolo,C.P.,&Franquiz,M.E.(2006).“DoIhavetosayit?”:Criticalencounterswithmulticulturalchildren’sliterature.LanguageArts,84(2),157-170.

García,O.,&Kleifgen,J.A.(2010).Educatingemergentbilinguals:Policies,programs,andpracticesforEnglishlanguagelearners.NewYork,NY:TeachersCollegePress.

Gee,J.P.(2001).Whatisliteracy?InP.Shannon(Ed.),Becomingpolitical,too:Newreadingsandwritingsonthepoliticsofliteracyeducation(pp.1-9).Portsmouth,NH:Heinemann.

Genesee,F.,Lindholm-Leary,K.,Saunders,W.,&Christian,D.(2005).EnglishlanguagelearnersinU.S.schools:Anoverviewofresearchfindings.JournalofEducationforStudentsPlacedatRisk,10(4),363-385.

Gutierrez,K.D.,&Orellana,M.F.(2006).The“problem”ofEnglishlearners:Constructinggenresofdifference.ResearchintheTeachingofEnglish,40(4),502-507.

Kaiser,M.M.(1987).It's“just”amatterofsemantics!VirginiaEnglishBulletin,37(1),63-72.

Lam,W.S.E.,&Warriner,D.S.(2012).Transnationalismandliteracy:Investigatingthemobilityofpeople,languages,texts,andpracticesincontextsofmigration.ReadingResearchQuarterly,47(2),191-215.

Lee,C.D.(1993).Signifyingasascaffoldforliteraryinterpretation:ThepedagogicalImplicationsofanAfricanAmericandiscoursegenre.Urbana,IL:NationalCouncilofTeachersofEnglish.

Martínez,R.A.(2010).“Spanglish”asliteracytool:TowardanunderstandingofthepotentialroleofSpanish-Englishcode-switchinginthedevelopmentofacademicliteracy.ResearchintheTeachingofEnglish,45(2),124-149.

Mehan,H.(1979).Learninglessons:Socialorganizationintheclassroom.Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress.

Michaels,S.&O’Connor,C.(2013).Conceptualizingtalkmovesastools:Professionaldevelopmentapproachesforacademicallyproductivediscussion.InL.B.Resnick,C.Asterhan,&S.N.Clarke(Eds.),Socializingintelligencethroughtalkanddialogue(pp.333-347).WashingtonDC:AmericanEducationalResearchAssociation.

Michaels,S.,O'Connor,C.,&Resnick,L.(2008).Reasonedparticipation:Accountabletalkintheclassroomandinciviclife.StudiesinPhilosophyandEducation,27(4),283-297.


147

Petrosky,A.R.,McConachie,S.M.,&Mihalakis,V.(2010).DisciplinaryliteracyintheEnglishlanguageartsclassroom.InS.M.McConachie&A.R.Petrosky(Eds.),Contentmatters:Adisciplinaryliteracyapproachtoimprovingstudentlearning(pp.129-162).SanFrancisco,CA:Jossey-Bass.

Moll,L.C.,&Gonzalez,N.(2001).Lessonsfromresearchwithlanguage-minoritychildren.InE.Cushman,E.R.

Kintgen,B.M.Kroll,&M.Rose(Eds.),Literacy:Acriticalsourcebook(pp.156-171).Boston,MA:Bedford/St.Martin’s.

Orellana,M.F.,Dorner,L.,&Pulido,L.(2003).Accessingassets:Immigrantyouth'sworkasfamilytranslators

or"para-phrasers".SocialProblems,50(4),505-524.Orellana,M.F.(2009).Translatingchildhoods:Immigrantyouth,language,andculture.NewBrunswick,NJ:

RutgersUniversityPress.Orellana,M.F.,&Reynolds,J.F.(2008).Culturalmodeling:Leveragingbilingualskillsforschoolparaphrasing

tasks.ReadingResearchQuarterly,43(1),48-65.Pacheco,M.(2015).Bilingualism-as-participation:Examiningadolescents’bi(multi)lingualliteraciesacrossout-

of-schoolandonlinecontexts.InD.Molle,E.Sato,T.Boals,&C.A.Hedgspeth(Eds.),Multilinguallearnersandacademicliteracies:Socioculturalcontextsofliteracydevelopmentinadolescents(pp.135-162).NewYork,NY:Routledge.

Park,J.Y.,Simpson,L.,Bicknell,J.,&Michaels,S.(2015).“Whenitrainsapuddleismade”:Fosteringacademic

literacyinEnglishlearnersthroughpoetryandtranslation.EnglishJournal,104(4),50-58.Rutherford,M.(2009).PoetryInsideOut:Bridgingculturesthroughlanguage.Englishteaching:Practiceand

critique,8(2),207-221.Rutherford,M.(2012).PoetryInsideOut:Ahighexpectation,cross-culturalliteracyprogram.InC.Dudley-

Marling&S.Michaels(Eds.),High-expectationcurricula:Helpingallstudentssucceedwithpowerfullearning(pp.45-58).NewYork,NY:TeachersCollegePress.

Suárez-Orozco,C.,Suárez-Orozco,M.M.,&Todorova,I.(2008).Learninganewland:Immigrantstudentsin

AmericanSociety.Cambridge,MA:BelknapPress.Valdés,G.(1998).Theworldoutsideandinsideschools:Languageandimmigrantchildren.Educational

Researcher,27(6),4-18.Valdés,G.(2001).LearningandnotlearningEnglish:LatinostudentsinAmericanschools.NewYork,NY:

TeachersCollegePress.Valdés,G.(2014).Expandingdefinitionsofgiftedness:Thecaseofyounginterpretersfromimmigrant

communities.NewYork,NY:Routledge.Vygotsky,L.S.(1978).Mindinsociety:Thedevelopmentofhigherpsychologicalprocesses.(M.Cole,V.John-

Steiner,S.Scribner,&E.Souberman,Eds.).Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress.Weingartner,C.(1969).Semantics:Whatandwhy.EnglishJournal,58(8),1214-1219.


148

Wells,G.(2001).Action,talk,andText:Learningandteachingthroughinquiry.NewYork,NY:TeachersCollegePress.

World-ClassInstructionalDesignandAssessment(WIDA)Consortium.(2012).PerformanceDefinitions.

Retrievedfromhttps://www.wida.us/standards/RG_Performance%20Definitions.pdfWright,W.E.(2010).FoundationsforteachingEnglishlanguagelearners:Research,theory,policy,andpractice.

Philadelphia,PA:CaslonPublishing.Zentella,A.C.(1997).Growingupbilingual:PuertoRicanchildreninNewYork.Malden,MA:Blackwell.


149

Table1

StudentsinLori’sshelteredEnglishclass

CountryofOrigin

Age* PrimaryLanguage(s)

Gender YearofArrivaltotheUS

Aaron Ghana 15 Twi,English M 2012

Carlos PuertoRico 17 Spanish M 2011

Cyrus CentralAfricanRepublic

18 Kari,Sango,French

M 2011

Denis ElSalvador 18 Spanish M 2011

Jo Vietnam 16 Vietnamese F 2013

Lorenzo Guatemala 18 Spanish M 2009

Maria PuertoRico 16 Spanish F 2011

Maryam Iraq/Jordan 17 Arabic F 2014

Manuel PuertoRico 18 Spanish M 2011

Oliver DominicanRepublic

16 Spanish M 2013

Pablo Peru 17 Spanish M 2013

William Ghana 17 Twi,English M 2010

*Ageasof2014

learning in/through collaborative poetry translation ...jolle.coe.uga.edu › wp-content › uploads...

Documents