The paper draws on findings from a series of school-based case studies conducted by teacher-researchers working collaboratively with university-based researchers in a two-year project on “Teaching literature in the multicultural classroom”. This study had the following objectives: • review a range of approaches to the reading and composition of literary texts in primary and secondary classrooms; • review a range of pedagogical (including questioning) strategies aimed at motivating students and enhancing the teaching and learning of literature in primary and secondary classrooms; • develop, trial and evaluate a range of strategies/interventions for achieving cultural and linguistic inclusiveness in the teaching and learning of literature. • …and addressed the following questions: 1. What discourses currently shape teacher understandings of “literature teaching” and “cultural and linguistic inclusiveness”? How do these discourses relate to each other and to the larger context of the national policy environment? 2. What features characterise the successful classroom practices/processes of a sample of teachers engaging students in activities aimed at fostering their ability to engage in the reading and composition of literary texts? 3. In particular, what aspects of pedagogy have been successful in developing a culturally and linguistically inclusive classroom for the teaching and learning of literature? (These aspects may include programme design, resourcing, activity design and formative assessment.) 4. In what ways can ICTs be integrated productively in a culturally and linguistically inclusive classroom for the teaching and learning of literature? The research was theoretically oriented in a number of ways: • In adopting an action research framework and adopting a collaborative model (Kemmis & McTaggart, 1988), it put the critically self-reflexive teacher practitioner at the heart of the project (see “Methods/methodology”). • It viewed the concept of “discourse” as a useful self-reflexive tool, and invited participating teachers to think of their own practices and values as discursively framed (Locke, 2004). • It problematised the concept of “literature” and “literary”, especially as components of L1 curriculums (Locke & May, 2004), arguing that in a number of ways cultural and linguistic minorities were disadvantaged by ways in which L1 curriculums “frame” literary study. • It adopted a critical multicultural lens in addressing issues related to culturally and linguistically responsive pedagogies (May, 2003; Sleeter & Grant, 2003). • It saw critical literacy as offering a pedagogical approach with the potential to empower and motivate students in culturally and linguistically diverse classrooms (Janks, 2009) because it enabled them to make connections between power, reading positions, representation and privilege.

This was a multi-locale project, with seven case studies framed within an action research paradigm and drawing on other research traditions such as self-study, ethnographic research and critical discourse analysis. For each case study, teacher-researcher formulated sets of project-related objectives for classes chosen for the study. These objectives in turn generated a number of collaboratively planned, relevant task/activity sequences as interventions. Baseline and intervention-related data included reflective profiles, questionnaires, interviews, observations and teacher reflections, student work samples, pre-and post-test results and assessment task products. These data were analysed collaboratively by teacher-researchers and university-based researchers. Critical discourse analyses was used as an analytical tool, particularly in the initial stages of the project, to identify the discourses framing teacher-researcher practice prior to the planning of interventions.

The proposed paper reports on findings from two high-school, teacher-researchers involved in the project who attempted a critical literacy approach with their students. Results from a series of interventions conducted in their classrooms suggested that: • Close reading means a number of things and teachers draw on a range of discourses in designing discussion prompts. • The cultural background of a student influences the way they read a text closely. • Students enjoy critical literacy approaches to literary (and textual) study • A number of critical literacy concepts are best taught in a situation where students are exposed to a range of texts dealing with a similar subject or topic: portray, representation, construction, version. • Students struggle to think, talk and write about the way in which language is used to position readers to read the world in particular ways. • A critical literacy approach to reading invites and empowers students to construct their own versions of literary texts.