Reading, Mixed Methods and Marginalized Learners

Author(s):

Ulla Damber

Conference:

ECER 2008

Network:

7. Social Justice and Intercultural Education

Format:

Paper

Session Information

07 SES 02A, Social Justice and Diversities

Paper Session

Time:

2008-09-10

11:15-12:45

Room:

BE 016

Chair:

Chris Gaine

Contribution

In this paper I argue that there is a need for the use of mixed methods, and broader frames of reference in reading research. The essence of this paper is a discussion of how different perspectives on reading, as well as how quantitative and qualitative methods may be seen as representing a continuum, instead as disparate poles. Today the frameworks of a psycholinguistic view, and a social constructivist view of reading, are much seen as contrasting ways of describing how children become “readers”. As reading acquisition and reading development are very complex processes, I contend a pragmatic view on the researcher’s task, where collaboration across disciplines, and between researchers with different foci on reading, is possible. As reading competence, due to the close linkages between reading performance and academic success in general, may be seen as polarizing in the society, the conditions for applying critical perspectives, with regard to different theories of reading and different research methods, will be illustrated. The analyses that will be presented, draw mainly on three studies on reading, different in their nature, though the same area, and the same students are studied. The first study with data from the late 90´s, encompassed 1092 grade three Stockholm classes with the aim to find teacher, classroom, and student characteristics distinguishing 94 classes performing at a higher level than expected, with regard to socioeconomic and language factors. This study may be described as a study in the tradition of ´effective schools´ research. A psycholinguistic view of reading as information transfer, is reflected. A second, follow-up study, with the same objective, employed mixed methods, in a more focused study of eight of the overachieving classes, in a low-SES, multicultural area. The concept of literacy, as participating in a social practice dominates, thus adhering to a sociocultural, social constructivist framework. The analyses draw on theories of Vygotsky, Bernstein and Critical Language Theory. The third, still ongoing study, employs in-depth interviews to examine the educational trajectories of some the students in of the classes in the follow-up study, now when they have left upper secondary school. The same theoretical framework as in the second study is used, but the framework is widened also to include earlier research done in the tradition of Future Time Perspective research. As second language-learners easily may be categorized as immigrants with lower performance-levels in large-scale, statistical studies, the employment of qualitative methods can make their perspectives and potentials visible and their voices heard, as will be illustrated in these studies. How mixed methods may contribute to bridge the gap between research and practice, will be described. Finally, the aims for ‘effective schools’ research will be discussed against the backdrop of behaviour-genetic twin studies showing that individual variance among students is extremely difficult to diminish, on the one hand, and on the other hand research in social medicine which claims that low-income, low-educated patients are over-represented at health clinics, and that the lack of control of their lives these patients experience, may explain the high stress-levels these patients display. A call for trans-disciplinary approaches in reading research will end this presentation, as I feel that the aims for research, and the aims for schooling need to be critically examined, if equity is to be the overarching aim, and the interests of marginalized groups are to be recognized. The question, which students we want to educate and with what purpose, is a burning question in a society where market-economy thinking may interfere with educational research and policy.

Method

In the first quantitative study teacher questionnaires, student questionnaires, and standardized reading tests were used. From a sample encompassing 1092 grade three Stockholm classes, one group of overachieving classes (n=94), and one group of underachieving classes (n=94), in regard to socioeconomic and language factors, were formed by use of regression and twin-matching procedures. The instruments used, basically reflected a psycho-linguistic view of reading. In a follow-up study, using the same original sample, a quantitative examination of eight overachieving classes in a low-SES, multicultural district, was made. The same instruments as in the first study were used. In addition, six informants active during time of the data collection, were in-depth interviewed, and joint analyses were made based both on the statistical results and the interviews. The interview-guide was primarily influenced by research from within the socio-cultural framework. In the third, ongoing study, the children from one of the classes which were examined in the follow-up study, are being in-depth interviewed. The interview-guide draws on research from second-language learning, and from Future Time Perspective research. A socio-cultural view of learning is reflected. The analyses of the interviews will be content-based.

Expected Outcomes

The main conclusions, which form the main content in my paper, are that several theoretical perspectives on reading should be able to co-exist in studies on reading, and that large-scale statistical studies should be complemented by qualitative studies as well, for several reasons. I believe that critical perspectives are needed, and a psycho-linguistic framework, needs to be accompanied by other views on reading, in order to make such scrutiny possible. In addition, very little information, possible to apply in a classroom, came out from the large-scale statistical studies. The outcome of the first study indicated that a positive classroom climate, students’ extended voluntary reading, the use of authentic literature, and long teacher experience characterized the overachieving classes. However, no significant differences were found on teachers’ methods, aims, or procedures for assessment, even though teacher experience did show significant differences between the groups. My impression, as a former teacher with 20 years of experience, was that the instruments did not cover several of the most important factors teachers need to observe, to make classroom work enjoyable and ´effective´. What the results did show, however, was a very strong impact of socioeconomic background, and language, and a picture of residential segregation was conjured up. The follow-up study indicated that inclusion of all the children, irrespective of their language level, in the reading community that the classroom represented, was an important feature. The teachers’ were culturally sensitive in several ways. They started off in preschool, to build up curiosity and print awareness, and they let the children experience also other reader roles, than that of the decoder. There was a mix between strong framing and weak classification, which gradually introduced the children to the Swedish school codes, and let them develop ownership of those codes. Thus, the teachers avoided colour blindness. Very high demands, and high expectations characterized the teachers, thus resisting the deficit syndrome, and the individuals, were not where the problems with reading the teachers experienced, were located. Collaboration, including close relations between the home and school, was another feature the teachers described. Finally, the Fun Factor emerged as a characteristic. The joy of reading literature, rather then the technical aspects of reading was emphasized in this literature-based approach, that the teachers’ narratives illustrated. The third study aims to validate the results of the follow-up study, as well as to develop an understanding of the factors behind these young people’s positive educational trajectories. I would also like to emphasize that an emic perspective must be observed, to counteract classification and objectivation of groups of students, that might result in discrimatory discourses. The fact that these classes were achieving at very high levels, also calls for other methods than large-scale quantitative studies, to highlight such student performances, as the group of second-language learners include students with varied length of stay in Sweden. The results of large-scale studies, may in this way give rise to the deficit syndrome as a discourse, if they are not balanced by other studies. Finally, I find this fixation on achievement levels, that ´effective schools´ research has, very problematic, as the lowest level of performance, and not children’s potentials is the locus of attention. Further, what is “best” for the market economy, is not always “best” for our children.

References

Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. Axelsson, M. (2000). Framgång för alla. Från att inte kunna – till att inte kunna låta bli att läsa [Success for all. From not knowing how – to not being able not to read]. In Åhl. H. (2000 ) Svenskan i tiden – verklighet och visioner. Stockholm: HLS Förlag. Axelsson, M., Rosander, C. & Sellgren, M. (2005). Stärkta trådar – flerspråkiga barn utvecklar språk, literacitet och kunskap [Strengthened threads – multilingual children developing language, literacy and knowledge]. Stockholm: Språkforskningsinstitutet i Rinkeby. Atkinson, D. (2002). Toward a sociocognitive approach to second language acquisition. The Modern Language Journal, 86(iv), 525-545. Au, K., H, & Raphael, T., E. (2000). Equity and literacy in the next millenium. Reading Research Quarterly, 35(1), 177-188. Barton, D. & Hamilton, M. (1998). Local literacies. Reading and writing in one community. London and New York: Routledge. Barton, D. (1994). Literacy. An introduction to the ecology of written language. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Bernstein, B. (1971). Class, code and control: Theoretical studies towards a society of language (Vol. 3). London: Routledge & Paul Kegan. Byrne, B., Wadsworth, S., Corley, R., Samuelsson, S., Quain, P., DeFries, J. C., Willcutt, E., & Olson, R.K. (2005). Longitudinal twin study of early literacy development: Preschool and Kindergarten phases. Scientific Studies of Reading, 9(3), 219-235. Damber, U. (2007). Beating the odds not easy but possible: on 94 grade three classes in Stockholm, overachieving in reading. Paper presented at the 15th European Conference on Reading, Berlin, Germany, August 5-8. Damber, U. (2007). Which discriminants characterize effective/ineffective grade three classes and what can be learnt about effective instruction from those descriptions? Paper presented at the 12th biennal conference for research on learning and instruction, Budapest, Hungary, August 28-September, 1. Damber, U. (2007). Läsning – en fråga om mer än bara läsning? [Reading – a question of more than just reading?]. Swedish Council of the International Reading Association: Läsning, 32(2), 14-19. Gee, J. P. (2001). Reading as situated language. A sociocognitive perspective. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 44(8), 714-725. Cummins, J. (1996). Negotiating identities: Education for Empowerment in a Diverse Society. Ontario: California Association for Bilingual Education. Cummins, J. (2000). Language, Power and Pedagogy. Bilingual children in the crossfire. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters LTD. Cummins, J. (2007). Pedagogies for the poor? Realigning reading instruction for low-income students with scientifically based reading research. Educational Researcher, 36(9), 564-573. Erickan, K. & Roth, W-M. (2007). What good is polarizing research into qualitative and quantitative? Educational Researcher, 35(5), 14-23. Freebody, P., & Luke, A. (2003). Literacy as engaging with new forms of life: the 'four roles' model. In G. Bull & M. Anstey (Eds.), The Literacy Lexicon. 2nd edn. (pp. pp. 52-57.). Sydney: Prentice Hall. Gibbons, P. (2002). Scaffolding language scaffolding learning. Porthsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Gough, P. & Tunmer, W. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7, 6-10. Johnson, B. & Onwuegbuzie, A.J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational researcher, 22(7), 14-26. Kristenson, M. (2007). Personal contact 2007-12-10. Kubota, R. (2004). Critical multiculturalism and second language education. In B. Norton & K. Toohey (Eds.), Critical pedagogics and language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kuyumcu, E. (1999). Språkutveckling hos tvåspråkiga turkiska barn – en forskningsöversikt i nationellt och internationellt perspektiv [Language development in Turkish bilingual children – a research review in national and international perspectives]. I M. Axelsson (red.). Tvåspråkiga barn och skolframgång – Mångfalden som resurs. Stockholm: Rinkeby språkforskningsinstitut. Levin, H. M. (1995). Raising educational productivity. In M. Carnoy (Ed.), International Encyclopedia of Economics of Education (pp. 283-291). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Luke, A. (2004). ´Two takes on the critical´, in B. Norton and K. Toohey (Eds.) Critical pedagogies and language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pavlenko, A. (2002) ´Poststructuralist approaches to the study of social factors in second language learning and use´, in V. Cook (Ed.) Portraits of the L2 user. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Peetsma, T. T. D. (2000). Future Time Perspective as a Predictor of School Investment Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 44(2), 177-192. Pressley, M., B. (1998). Reading instruction that works: The case for balanced teaching. New York NY: Guilford Press. Samuelsson, S., Byrne, B., Quain, P., Wadsworth, S., Corley, R., Defries, J., C., et al. (2005). Environmental and genetic influences on pre-reading skills in Australia, Scandinavia, and the United States. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(4), 705-222. Sfard, A. (1998). On two methaphors for learning and the danger of just choosing one. Educational Researcher, 27(2), 4-13. Stanovich, K. (2000). Progress in understanding reading. Scientific foundations and new frontiers. New York: Guilford Press. Straw, S. B. (1990). The Actualization of Reading and Writing: Public Policy and Conceptualizations of Literacy. In S. P. Norris & L. M. Phillips (Eds.), Foundations of Literacy Policy in Canada. Calgary: Detselig Enterprises Ltd. Street, B.V. (1995). Social literacies. Critical approaches to literacy in development, ethnography and education. London: Longman Group Limited. Uljens, M. (2007). The hidden curriculum of PISA-The promotion of neo-liberal policy by educational assessment. In S.T. Hopmann, G. Brinek, & M. Retzl (Eds.), PISA according to PISA – Does PISA keep what it promises? Münster, Hamburg, Berlin, Wien, and London: LIT Verlag.

Author Information

Ulla Damber

Mid Sweden University

The Department for Education

Härnösand

186

Search the ECER Programme

Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
Search for authors and in the respective field.
For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.