International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education

ISSN: 0951-8398 (Print) 1366-5898 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tqse20

Researching the complex nature of identity and

learning: positioning, agency, and context in
learners’ identities

Jennifer Collett

To cite this article: Jennifer Collett (2019): Researching the complex nature of identity and
learning: positioning, agency, and context in learners’ identities, International Journal of Qualitative
Studies in Education, DOI: 10.1080/09518398.2019.1687955

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2019.1687955

View supplementary material

Published online: 18 Nov 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tqse20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF QUALITATIVE STUDIES IN EDUCATION
https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2019.1687955

Researching the complex nature of identity and learning:

positioning, agency, and context in learners’ identities
Jennifer Collett
Early Childhood Childhood Education, Lehman College, New York, NY, USA

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Identities are dynamic, constantly shifting processes of self-understand- Received 26 January 2018
ing mediated by local and institutional repertoires, behaviors, resources Accepted 22 October 2019
and enacted through one’s positioning in practice. This definition con-
KEYWORDS
siders identities as both ideas, as well as actions in terms of how the
Identity; learning;
learner becomes a participant in activities. A tension in studying identi- elementary school; agency;
ties is that the researcher must collect data that encompasses both positioning
observable actions and how the learner reflects on these actions.
Drawing upon positioning theory, this paper presents a methodological
approach to study this tension. More specifically, data from a study of
emergent bilinguals in elementary school is used to understand how
learners’ identities are shaped during the nascent years of school.

Language and identity play a critical role in the lives of young bilinguals. Research in the field
of Second Language Acquisition (SLA)1 has highlighted a connection between language and
power as students construct a sense of self in developing linguistic proficiencies across socio-
historical and sociopolitical contexts (Bahktin, 1981; Bourdieu, 1991; Kramsch, 2000; Norton,
2000; Pavlenko & Lantolf, 2000). While early scholarship primarily looked to secondary and
adult learning contexts as the site of investigation, research in elementary and primary school
settings illuminated how children construct identities as learners through participation in
school-based activities (Day, 2002; Hawkins, 2005; Monzo
& Rueda, 2009; Palmer, 2008; Rymes
& Pash, 2001; Toohey, 2000; Welch, 2015). Central in these studies are how young learners
from non-dominant2 communities construct identities through learning, which play a critical
role in academic participation.
Identity research is, for lack of a better word ‘messy’ (see Norton & Toohey, 2011), because
identities are complex, constantly shifting constructs shaped by societal norms. These
obstacles can be compounded when dealing with young children. Despite these challenges it
is critical to engage in conversations about epistemological and methodological approaches
to research identity and learning for this vulnerable population of students. In using key con-
structs from positioning theory (Harr
e, 2012), this paper offers a way to systematically research
the relationship between identity, learning, and language for children in elementary school.
Guided by the following research questions this paper seeks to understand the following:
How does the relationship between learning, language, and identity evolve for emergent
bilinguals3 in U.S. elementary school? How can qualitative research methods be used to

CONTACT Jennifer Collett jennifer.collett@lehman.cuny.edu Early Childhood Childhood Education, Lehman College,
Carman Hall, Room B07, 250 Bedford Park Blvd. West, Bronx, New York, NY 10468, USA
Supplemental data for this article can be accessed here.
ß 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 J. COLLETT

investigate this relationship? How can such methods be translated across contexts for learners
from other non-dominant communities? Findings from this paper can provide explanatory
theories and methodological approaches in researching identities for young students across
learning environments.

Research on identity and learning for emergent bilinguals

Research examining emergent bilinguals learning English as an additional language in elemen-
tary school has highlighted how peer interactions in classrooms, and students’ opportunities to
participate in distinct learning communities, shape students’ language choices (e.g., Macedo &
Bartolom
e, 2014; Martin-Beltr
an, 2010; Monzo
& Rueda, 2009). These language choices impact
students’ language use and an investment to learn language (Potowski, 2007). The language of
instruction holds currency in the classroom, impacting students’ proclivity to use one language
over another. Studies in U.S. dual language classrooms where children are learning two lan-
guages have indicated the institutional power English holds in these spaces; while students will
use the target language of instruction, evidence suggests English and English-dominant speakers
hold a level of linguistic collateral over language-minority students (Blanco-Iglesias, Broner, &
Tarone, 1995; Palmer, 2009).
Identities are constructed through interpersonal relationships (Esteban-Guitart & Moll 2014a,
2014b; Holland et al. 1998; Wortham, 2006). Thus, scholarship exploring the relationship between
identity and learning has highlighted learners’ interactions across content areas and language
groups in school-based activities (Collett, 2018a, 2018b, 2019; Macedo & Bartolom
e, 2014).
Approaches that include observation (Miles & Huberman, 1994) and interview techniques
(Seidman, 2013; Weiss, 1994), as well as discourse analysis (Gee 2005, 2011) and related methods
including conversation analysis, have been adapted to understand how students’ positioning in
small group and whole class interactions with peers of varying English language proficiencies
shape students’ identities (MacRuaire, 2011; Monzo
& Rueda, 2009; Volk & Angelova, 2007). For
example, Monzo
and Rueda (2009) found certain classroom structures inadvertently silenced
learners, where students deflected questions to be perceived as English proficient.
While interview protocols utilizing self-portraits and artifacts have been used to unearth stu-
dents’ reflections on learning interactions (Hawkins, 2005; Compton-Lily et al. 2017), there is
need to create methodological approaches that coordinate classroom observations with inter-
views to illuminate learners’ interpretations of these spaces. Research has shown that
the – context of the activity, learners’ access to agency, and linguistic positioning – all shape
young learners’ identities with language, and play a critical role in participation (Collett, 2018a;
Martin-Beltr
an, 2010). This paper develops this work by outlining a theoretical framing of iden-
tity, positioning, and agency, as well as an approach to investigate identity and learning for
emergent bilinguals in elementary school.

Theoretical framework
A sociocultural framework defines learning as a shift in participation across cultural practices
(Rogoff, 2003; Vygotsky, 1978). Rogoff (2003), as well as Lave and Wenger (1991) have argued
how this practice must be situated in specific communities, where tools, language being one of
them (Vygotsky, 1986), mediate participation.
Building upon this notion of learning, scholars in the field of education have examined
the critical link between learning and identity. Seminal ethnographies of students from non-
dominant communities identified the political nature of schooling, documenting how identities
are supported through learning (e.g., Carter, 2005; Davidson, 1996; Valenzuela, 1999). Grounded
in empirical data of primarily African American youth, Nasir (2010, 2012) and her colleagues
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF QUALITATIVE STUDIES IN EDUCATION 3

(Nasir, Snyder, Shah & Ross, 2012; Nasir & Cooks, 2009; Nasir & Hand 2006, 2008; Nasir & Saxe,
2003; Nasir & Shah, 2011) have made important theoretical contributions to underscore the rela-
tionship between learning and identity. Whereas, identities are linked to practice, co-constructed
through participation in cultural and social activities (Nasir & Hand, 2006) and mediated by rela-
tional, ideational, and material resources (Nasir & Cooks, 2009), which may include personal rela-
tionships, ideas, perceptions, as well as material objects.
While learners’ identities are constructed across interactions, Nasir’s work acknowledges the
institutional forces that inadvertently mediate local practices (Nasir, Snyder, Shah, & Ross, 2012;
Nasir & Shah, 2011). Institutional forces take shape in what she refers to as racial storylines, which
are “vehicles for both how individuals make sense of race and how they appropriate and deploy
race to position themselves and others in everyday activity” (Nasir, Snyder, Shah, & Ross, 2012, p.
289). Individuals’ construction of race is impacted by political, societal, and institutional forces
that reify conceptions of race.
Documenting the institutional factors and local practices mediating the relationship between
learning and identity is no easy feat. Nasir (2010) speaks to this challenge by contending how
data must capture learners’ observable actions – which she calls presented or stated identities –
and how learners reflect on these actions – referred to as authentic identities. Presented identities
are behaviors or repertoires mediated by learners’ participation in local school-based practices.
While, authentic, or reflective, identities are how learners are able to acknowledge and make
sense of these behaviors that are explicitly or inadvertently mediated by local and institutional
constructs. Nasir (2010) writes that research must provide opportunities for learners “to be
reflective about the level of authenticity that their stated identities hold for them” (p. 63). In
doing so, there is a call for research to define the constant tension at the crux of identity
research in education, namely the local and institutional constructs that co-exist as identities are
shaped through participation in school-based activities. Moreover, methodological approaches
must strategically find ways to triangulate data collection and analysis methods so the breadth
of learners’ identities are captured.
In this paper, I take up the relationship between learning and identity for emergent bilinguals
in elementary school. I explore this relationship by observing how learners are able to participate
in culturally-bound, local activities, and use language as the tool under investigation. These prac-
tices must be situated in what I refer to as linguistic storylines, which include learners’ experien-
ces learning language, the institutional forces that may impact this learning, and learners’
reflections on this process. Institutional forces can take shape at the local school-community and
societal level. For the purposes of this study, the languages include Spanish and English at the
local level, as well as the status and linguistic capital English held at the time of data collection,
and continues to hold in the United States. Moreover, identity research of young learners must
capture how identities are shaped through social, cultural, and institutional positionings in an
activity, which influences learners’ agency to participate in the stated activity, while simultan-
eously documenting learners’ perceptions of this relationship. This paper will offer one methodo-
logical approach to capture how identity construction unfolds for young learners in
elementary school.

Positioning identities through language

In researching the relationship between learning and identity the concept of positioning plays
an important role. In collaboration with multiple colleagues (Davies & Harr
e, 1999; Harr
e &
Moghaddam, 2003; Harr
e & van Langenhove 1999), Rom Harr
e (2012) developed the notion of
positioning theory to identify the social factors mediating behavior. Harr
e (2012) writes there
“are asymmetries in the resources for social action that are available to each individual in con-
crete circumstances” (p. 193). More specifically, the idea that one’s rights and duties mediate
4 J. COLLETT

action is used to explain how and why these ‘asymmetries in resources’ exist. Harr
e (2012)
explains the notion of positioning theory in the following way:
Positioning Theory is based on the principle that not everyone involved in a social episode has equal access
to rights and duties to perform particular kinds of meaningful actions at that moment and with those
people. In many interesting cases, the rights and duties determine who can use a certain discourse mode –
for example, issuing orders, giving grades, remembering past event. A cluster of short-term disputable
rights, obligations, and duties is called a “position.” (p. 193)

Moreover, one’s position determines the presented opportunities to access resources. In using
this framing, access and opportunity play a critical role in behavior, however, positioning theory
also accounts for a moral component. Meaning one’s ability to act, which may include a gestural,
physical and/or speech act, involves skill, but also how these abilities are mediated by implicit
and explicit norms. Thus, in a given interaction when an individual says or does something, that
individual implicitly and/or explicitly asks, ‘What can I do or say?’, but also ‘What am I allowed to
do or say?’ or ‘What should I do or say?’ In other words, positioning theory highlights that action
is mediated by responsibility, as well as access, privilege, and agency to act. Harr
e (2012) refers
to this process as act interpretation. Moreover, positions must acknowledge the social processes
of how rights and duties to act are assigned in a given interaction, and are therefore not pre-
established or pre-mediated.
Positioning theory is driven by three parts – positions, storylines, and act interpretation.
Similar to Nasir et al.’s (2012) notion of racial storylines, positioning theory explains the ‘schema’,
or societal constructs, used to assign rights in a given interaction. For example, in a classroom
interaction, the storylines in question include the societal norms affixed to each individual’s
behavior. Whereas, in a student-teacher interaction, more often than naught, the teacher has
more authority and power in the interaction. However, storylines also involve past conversations,
interactions, and outcomes of the individuals in question (Davies & Harr
e, 1999). These three
moving parts - positions, storylines, and act interpretation - are mediated by and mediate each
other meaning that changes in a position cause changes to pertinent storylines and how acts
are assigned and understood. Scholars using positioning theory in education research have cri-
tiqued the nuanced definitions of storylines (e.g., Anderson, 2009; Kayi-Aydar & Miller, 2018), and
therefore a goal of this paper will further develop this notion of storylines and how this idea can
be utilized to understand young learners’ identities.

Subject position, discourse, and identity

Discourse and identity play a role in positioning theory. Davies and Harr
e (1999) write, “positions
are identified in part by extracting the autobiographical aspects of a conversation in which it
becomes possible to find out how each conversant conceives of themselves and of the other
participants by seeing what position they take up and in what story, and how they are then
positioned” (p. 8). Moreover, an aspect of positioning theory, namely the notion of a ‘subject
position’ is where the individual has taken up a particular position as one’s own. In doing so, the
individual accesses a level of agency to identify relevant storylines, speech acts, or discursive
turns in a given interaction. To explain an aspect of subject position, Davies and Harr
e (1999) dif-
ferentiate between a speech act and speech action in a conversation. Whereas, the extent to
which a speech action can become a speech act is mediated by how interlocutors in a conversa-
tion acknowledge and respond to the speech action.

Positioning theory in education research

In their timely review on positioning theory in education research, Kayi-Aydar and Miller (2018)
identify how learners are positioned in nuanced ways across classroom interactions to structure
learning opportunities, spaces of marginalization, and the learners’ ability to gain access to
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF QUALITATIVE STUDIES IN EDUCATION 5

classroom talk. Pertinent to this paper, a focused body of work has investigated how positioning
theory can be used as a construct to understand the relationship between language proficiency,
identity, and learning for students learning an additional language across varied contexts (e.g.,
Anderson, 2009; Duff, 2002; Martin-Beltr
an, 2010; Wood, 2013). For example, Martin-Beltr
an
(2010) focused on three focal students in a fifth-grade classroom to analyze ‘moment-to-moment’
interactional spaces of how positioning was enacted at the personal, interpersonal and institu-
tional level to construct notions of language proficiency. Findings revealed how language profi-
ciency was a perceived and socially- constructed concept and thus dependent upon context and
interlocutors in question; this ultimately shaped students’ understandings of what it means to be
a proficient English speaker.
Within this body of work, key research has investigated both the affordances and limitations
in using positioning theory as a means to identify how identities are enacted, supported, and
restricted in the classroom. A general critique of using positioning theory is one where this
notion of storylines is somewhat obscure and ill-defined. In other words, there is not a consistent
definition or way to capture the tension between the local and institutional forces that shape
the storylines which ultimately play an important role to mediate behavior.
In analyzing small-group participatory discussions across fifth grade students, Anderson (2009)
explicates the need to develop epistemological approaches and modes of analysis to deconstruct
three critical components that exist at the micro-level, meso-level, and macro-level of social inter-
action mediating participation in the classroom; these interactions shape how students are
labeled. Kayi-Aydar and Miller (2018) echo Anderson’s (2009) concerns by calling attention to the
need for research to distinguish between the dynamic of micro-level positionings and macro-level
discourses that influence classroom behavior.
In using fundamental concepts from positioning theory and in reviewing findings from prior
studies investigating the relationship between identity and learning, this paper will address how
to account for the macro-level discourses and micro-level positionings in order to carry out iden-
tity development research for young learners. I argue that in order to research the complexities
of learners’ identities, a methodological approach must collect and analyze data pertaining to
four intersecting and dynamic components that influence, and are influenced by, each other.
These components include the learner’s: (1) positioning across interactions, (2) access to tools,
resources and/or artifacts, (3) access to agency and subject positions to act, and (4) reflections of
this dynamic.
In using observation and interview techniques across varied contexts, the researcher must
look outside the classroom across different social spaces and societal structures where subject
positioning may shift. It is through these multiple experiences across environments where learn-
ers become participants in discursive practices with varying levels of agency. Using such meth-
odological approaches will bring greater clarity to the ways in which institutional and local
forces may play a role in how identities are mediated in the classroom and across learn-
ing settings.

Researching identities and learning: methodological approaches

Responding to the National Research Council’s (NRC) report, Scientific Research in Education,
Maxwell (2004) writes, “to develop adequate explanations of educational phenomena, and to
understand the operation of educational interventions, we need to use methods that can investi-
gate the involvement of particular contexts in the processes that generate these phenomena
and outcomes” (p. 7). Translating Maxwell’s sentiment to the focus of this paper, in order to
understand the phenomena of identity development, methods must investigate how specific
contexts support the processes of identity development. Moreover, it is important to recognize
that identity research in education seeks to understand how the processes of identity
6 J. COLLETT

construction unfold across school-based contexts and how these processes can mediate learning.
The plural, processes, must be used when talking about identity research because identities are
dynamic and constructed through how learners are able to access resources across varied activ-
ities and settings. Thus, the phenomena under investigation is the coalescence of learning proc-
esses with identity processes in the classroom. A second element at the forefront of identity
research is how context plays a role in this process, and more specifically understanding how the
social, cultural, and societal contexts guide methodological approaches.
For the purposes of this paper, the notion of storylines in positioning theory accounts for the
multiple social and cultural contexts that are at play when studying how individuals are posi-
tioned and ascribed certain levels of agency to act and react across interactions. Keeping in
mind prior critiques of storylines (e.g., Anderson, 2009; Kayi-Aydar & Miller, 2018), methodological
approaches must try to understand how context plays a role in a classroom interaction. This will
ultimately shed light on how certain storylines may be mediating learners’ behavior to act, speak,
or take up a certain stance in a given interaction.

Understanding context
Data for this paper came from an 18-month qualitative study investigating the range of identities
21 focal participants, all of whom were identified as emergent bilinguals, were able to construct
while learning two languages in elementary school. This larger study sought to understand how
certain phenomena across school-based contexts supported young learners’ identity
development.

Institutional/societal context
When framing the institutional or societal contexts at play in identity research, the researcher
must understand how policies and legislation can act as a resource or obstacle. In the United
States, the larger societal context for this study, language learning and language instruction is
undoubtedly a political process. Since the study’s participants are from multilingual communities
where English may not be the home or dominant language, the politics associated with this pro-
cess are compounded. Thus, understanding the institutional factors driving the more dominant,
macro-level discourses mediating how English is learned in the U.S. is critical.
Over the past three decades, scholars studying U.S. contexts have analyzed how language
was used to achieve social, political and economic ends, where specific linguistic orientations
have supported movements of colonization and immigration (e.g., Crawford 1992; McCarty, 2004;
Skutnabb-Kangas & Cummins, 1992). In 1968 with the Bilingual Education Act (BEA), the educa-
tion of emergent bilinguals has been at the forefront of a national conversation. BEA identified
how emergent bilinguals enrolled in public schools held a linguistic deficiency in English, and
required additional academic support and services (Leibowitz, 1980). Since the 1970s, iterations
of BEA shifted how emergent bilinguals were classified and the school programs it supported.
Beginning in 2001, under the No Child Left Behind Act emergent bilinguals were labeled as lim-
ited English-speaking ability, which was later changed to limited English proficiency. A defining
characteristic of these federal laws recognized learners’ linguistic limitations, where the home
language was identified as a problem to be fixed (Ruiz, 1984).
In the United States, each state holds a level of jurisdiction in how to carry out federal laws.
In California where this study took place, Proposition 227 passed in 1998 mandating English-only
instruction in publicly-funded schools (Guti
errez, Baquedano-Lo
pez, & Asato, 2000). This legisla-
tion placed restrictions on how language could be used across classroom instruction. Parent
waivers were used to circumvent this English-only movement, where students could be enrolled
in one of several bilingual settings with a waiver (Baker, 2006). For this study, participants were
able to enroll in dual language programs with these waivers (Lindholm-Leary, 2001). In
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF QUALITATIVE STUDIES IN EDUCATION 7

September 2014, when data collection concluded, Proposition 227 was repealed with Proposition
58 by a wide margin shifting authority to the local school district to decide the most effective
learning environments for their population of emergent bilinguals.
This synthesis simply sets the stage for the macro-level discourses that were at play during
data collection and analysis, ultimately shaping the institutional context for this study. As find-
ings reveal these institutional forces were visible at the local school context. One of the most
explicit ways these forces guided local interactions were in how the study’s participants were
labeled, and how these labels governed teachers’ instructional decisions. Before focusing on the
classroom context where the majority of data collection and analysis occurred, the local school
community must be described to understand another layer of context shaping learners’ linguis-
tic storylines.

Local context
A set of criteria was used to purposefully select (Patton, 1990) the two school sites, School 1 and
School 2, that became individual case studies (Yin, 2014). The two schools were located in the
same school district where teachers followed a similar set of learning standards, assessment
measures, and curricula. The schools shared other important qualities including an established
Spanish-English dual language program4, as well as an overall school population where a third
identified as Latinx and a quarter classified as limited English proficient (LEP)5.
Despite similarities between the two schools, there were unique grade-level, linguistic attrib-
utes across participants’ local language practices6. In order to begin to gather descriptive data
that could represent these complexities, a short survey was conducted with all students enrolled
in the grade level and language program under investigation. In this survey students were asked
to identify the languages they spoke in the home and outside of school. Preliminary data ana-
lysis indicated at School 1 almost three quarters of the focal participants’ peers spoke only
English outside of school, whereas over three quarters of that same population of students at
School 2 stated they spoke some degree of Spanish and English outside of school.
To understand the cultural practices structuring the local community context, observations of
community-based meetings and functions occurred. Anecdotal notes (Owocki & Goodman, 2002)
were recorded in a notebook, and these fieldnotes were immediately translated into descriptive
narratives more often than not at a caf
e near the school (Emerson, Shaw & Fretz, 1995). As a
researcher who did not live in either community, it was important that I spent as much time as
possible in the local context. Thus, depending upon the school, I spent a considerable amount
of time at either a neighborhood Starbucks or a locally-owned donut shop translating anecdotal
notes into narratives. It was during this time where the socio-economic differences of each local
school-community became more visible (see Supplemental Appendix A).
In order to create a detailed description of the local context, I conducted semi-structured,
audio-recorded interviews with community members. Interviews occurred with administrators,
community liaisons, PTA presidents, teachers who had been part of the community for at least 5
years, and parent volunteers. In total, 43 community-based interviews were conducted in either
English or Spanish. This data was analyzed to understand the school context and provide local
interpretations to observations (Weiss, 1994).

Participants: focal students

The focal student participants were purposefully selected. Following protocol, students only par-
ticipated in the study with parent consent. All students were invited to participate in the study
who met the following criteria: (a) labeled as limited English proficient (LEP) with a home lan-
guage of Spanish, (b) enrolled in the dual language program, and (c) 4th grade students. Across
the two schools, 21 focal students volunteered to participate. During the second academic year,
8 J. COLLETT

several students who did not meet these criteria approached me and wanted to participate in
the interview process. With parent consent, I turned no child away, and used these interviews as
data to create a deeper understanding of the local school context.

Participant observations
Student observations captured how positioning occurred at the micro-level (Anderson, 2009).
Weekly observations were conducted. Over 200 hours were spent on each campus observing
and interacting with focal students. Observations (Atkinson & Hammersley, 1994) occurred across
two contexts: (1) academic classrooms, and (2) non-academic school spaces during lunch
and recess.
Classroom observations occurred across all content areas and the two instructional languages
of Spanish or English. Students had several teachers who taught extracurricular and content-
specific classes including English language development (ELD) 7, music, art, and occasionally sci-
ence and math. Descriptive field notes of classroom observations captured how language was
used to facilitate focal students’ participation across varied contexts (Emerson, Fretz, & Shaw,
2001; Emerson, Shaw, & Fretz, 1995). Lessons were audio-recorded twice a month to serve two
purposes. To capture discursive turns that could later be used in moment-to-moment analysis of
classroom conversation, as well as a source of validity to make certain descriptive fieldnotes
aligned with the audiotaped recordings (Maxwell, 2005).
Observations across non-academic activities provided data on how students self-organized.
Since audio-recording was not applicable to this setting due to noise in the cafeteria or students
moving across large physical spaces on the playground during recess, visual drawings were cre-
ated to capture how students self-grouped (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Discursive turns were
quantitatively measured to capture how certain students held the floor in a group conversation,
and fieldnotes captured the content and details of the activity.
It’s important to note how I moved between observer and participant-observer in a given epi-
sode (Atkinson & Hammersley, 1994; Emerson, Fretz, & Shaw, 2001). Independent of setting, I
would either stand apart from students to capture interactions or I became a participant-obser-
ver. At times, students invited me into the role of participant-observer. For example, during
recess a group of girls were debating the meaning of the word discredit and brought me into
the conversation in an attempt to resolve the debate. Other times, I took it upon myself to
become a participant-observer. At one school lunch seating arrangements would occasionally
provoke verbal fights among students, where I interjected to try and diffuse the situation. If I
took up the participant-observer role, anecdotal notes were later translated into descriptive field-
notes to document these interactions.

Participant interviews
Interviews are a means to understand the participant’s interpretations for observed behavior
(Seidman, 2013; Weiss, 1994). Beginning 6 months into data collection to provide time to build
relationships, I conducted semi-structured interviews with each focal student. Student interviews
served multiple purposes. The interviews were a means to gain understandings of the focal stu-
dent’s perspective on different events and social norms (Seidman, 2013), as well as to triangulate
data with observations, and thus used as a source of validity (Maxwell, 2005). However, the inter-
views also created a space for students to reflect on how aspects of subject positioning (Davies
& Harr
e, 1999) were carried out across interactions.
All participants engaged in three audio-recorded, semi-structured interviews8 which followed
a set of pre-determined guidelines and open-ended questions. Participants also engaged in spon-
taneous interviews, some of which were audio-recorded9. I saw these spontaneous interviews
more as conversations as opposed to following the more conventional characteristics of
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF QUALITATIVE STUDIES IN EDUCATION 9

qualitative interviewing (Seidman, 2013; Weiss, 1994). Spontaneous interviews often occurred if I
noticed a distinct shift in a student’s participation.

Coding methods
Coding occurred in two cycles (Saldan ~a, 2013) using the research software Dedoose (See
Supplemental Appendix B). During the first coding cycle, fourteen attribute codes were used to
organize the interviews, observations, and district documents. Saldan ~ a (2013) writes how attri-
bute coding “is intended as a coding grammar, a way of documenting descriptive “cover” infor-
mation about participants, the site, and other related components of the study” (p. 71). Since
identity research generates a great deal of data, attribute codes were a critical initial step and
used as a vehicle to organize and blind the data. Attribute coding occurred weekly during data
collection. Examples of attribute codes included: School 1, School 2, gender, linguistic classifica-
tion- intermediate, linguistic classification – reclassified, focal participant – pseudonym.10 Data was
then duplicated, if necessary, to make complete files for each of the 21 focal students.

Coding interviews
Each set of interviews is referred to as an interview phase because prior interviews were
recorded, transcribed, and analyzed to guide the writing of a new interview protocol. Some
scholars of qualitative interviewing methods oppose this approach, recommending that analysis
begin when all interviews are complete in order to control for personal biases (Seidman, 2006).
Given that this study sought to understand the relationship between learning and identity across
time and context, coding began after the first interview phase, which occurred 6 months into
the study. The process of completing focal students’ interviews through intermittent phases was
critical because initial findings from prior interviews informed the direction of subsequent inter-
view protocols. For example, data analysis illuminated the important context the cafeteria served
in building and supporting relationships, or what could be thought of as relational resources
supporting identity development (Nasir & Cooks, 2009). Therefore, during the second interview
phase students were asked to draw a picture of the lunch seating arrangement and reflect on
how this social context was constructed. As will be discussed in the case of Oscar, this visual rep-
resentation provided focal participants with an opportunity to reflect on how aspects of position-
ing were enacted in this space. In addition to student interviews, semi-structured interviews
were conducted with the focal students’ teachers and treated as secondary data points.
Interview questions asked teachers to reflect on the focal students’ social, emotional, and aca-
demic development, as well as certain classroom interactions and procedures with the goal of
providing additional data in regard to how storylines and positioning were co-constructed
between the teacher and students.
Structural Coding. Across the coding process, student interviews were categorized and
aligned to student observations, where a set of descriptive, structural, and thematic codes
(Guest, MacQueen, & Namey, 2012; Saldan ~a, 2013) were used to analyze data. As noted, identity
research generates a large quantity of data, and thus during phase two of the initial coding cycle
reductionist techniques of structural coding (Namey, Guest, Thairu, & Johnson, 2008; MacQueen
& Guest; 2008) were used. In qualitative research, structural codes are aligned to interview tech-
niques. Namey et al. (2008) writes how structural codes are created where “each discrete ques-
tion and its associated probes are assigned a code that is then applied or linked to the question
and subsequent response text in each data file” (p. 140). Thus, for this particular study eleven
structural codes (See Supplemental Appendix B, Table B-2) were developed to categorize and
segment the data around key constructs aligned to the interview questions. For example, the
interview question – Who are some of your closest friends? What do you have in common with
these friends? – became the structural code Social Networks/Relationships.
10 J. COLLETT

Structural coding began 6 months into data collection, when the first set of student interviews
was complete. This coding process indexed the students’ reflections on specific topics which then
could be aligned to student observational data. Returning to the example above, any observational
data where the focal student was interacting with previously stated friends in prior interviews was
also coded Social Networks/Relationships. It was during this coding process where audiotaped class-
room observations were reviewed and a sub-set transcribed for further analysis. Across multiple cod-
ing iterations during this initial cycle, a sub-set of 24 descriptive codes (Miles & Huberman, 1994;
Saldan ~a, 2013) were created to more explicitly highlight reoccurring themes represented in the data.
Thematic Coding. During the second coding cycle, fourteen additional descriptive codes (See
Supplemental Appendix B, Table B-3) were created and incorporated with prior codes. It was at
this time where I returned to one of overarching research questions guiding the study – How
does the relationship between learning, language, and identity evolve for emergent bilinguals in U.S.
elementary school? – which guided a process of what Saldan ~a (2013) refers to as “themeing the
data” defined as “an extended phrase or sentence that identifies what a unit of data is about or
what it means” (p. 175). At this juncture in data analysis, a unit of data extended to larger quan-
tities of data which may have been multiple excerpts across interview phases and/or extended
periods of classroom interaction. A process of axial coding, which is a way to categorize, as well
as reassemble or reorganize the data (Charmaz, 2006), illuminated four distinct categories or
themes across the data to include:

 Function: How did the learner perceive the functions of Spanish and English?
 Reflections: What are the learner’s reflections about each language?
 Future Goals: What are the learner’s language goals? How did the learner identify future lan-
guage use?
 Relationships: How does linguistic positioning, support and structure the learner’s relation-
ships with family, friends, and peers across contexts?

During this second coding cycle, analytic memos were continually generated. Memos were
focused on a particular focal student, the dynamics of an observation, and how data highlighting
the participant’s reflective stance aligned to observational data.
Gee (2018) writes, “grammar as a perspective-taking device is not a political point; it is an
empirical point about how language works” (p. 67). The final step in data analysis involved a pro-
cess of understanding how the focal student used language in order to share a perspective. This
process provided additional data highlighting aspects to their identities. To engage in a process
of discourse analysis (Gee 2005, 2011, 2018), all interviews were fully transcribed by myself or
outsourced to transcription services. Interview transcriptions were read thoroughly, aligned to
observations, and then certain excerpts were highlighted and more carefully analyzed for a more
detailed analysis of the idea or intonation unit, which is defined as “the main utterance unit in
speech” (Gee, 2018, p. 96). In such a unit, several aspects of language were analyzed including
grammar, intonation, word choice, discursive pauses and/or hesitations, as well as reoccurring
patterns in participants’ use of language. The degree to which, and the type of, transcription
conventions used in analysis varied across data source depending on the participants involved in
the stated interaction and the context of the activity under analysis. For the data highlighted in
the findings section of this paper, the following conventions were used:
[/] – non-final intonation contour
[//] – final intonation contour
[-] – short pause
[: :] – elongated sound
[.5] – pauses longer than a half of a second indicated numerically
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF QUALITATIVE STUDIES IN EDUCATION 11

[? ] – rising intonation

Researcher’s positionality
With all research, but identity research in particular, it is critical for the researcher to self-reflect
on personal identities, attributes, and situational factors that could potentially play a role in data
collection. I am a White, native English-speaker who began learning Spanish in high school,
developing the language over time by studying, traveling, and working as a literacy specialist in
the Dominican Republic. I do not identify as bilingual, but rather an English-speaker who has a
deep understanding of another language. Taking classes that focused on Whiteness, and the
inherit historical roots of how racial inequalities continue to mediate the socioeconomic structure
of the United States in the twenty-first century (Haney Lo
pez, 1996; Katznelson, 2005), were con-
versations that I was engaged in, and became a part of constructing my own racial identity as a
White, English-dominant researcher.
In terms of my racial, ethnic, and linguistic background, I was extremely cognizant of the dif-
ferences between myself, the focal students, and their families, as well as the similarities I held
with the majority of classroom teachers who were White females. At my research sites, the stu-
dents were clearly aware of these racial, ethnic, and linguistic differences, and therefore I began
the first interview phase telling students that I was interested in learning more about their feel-
ings and thoughts about school and learning language, and they were free to ask anything
about my experiences with school or learning language. During each interview phase that fol-
lowed, I reminded students that they were free to ask me about my experiences with school or
learning language.
To gain a presence at the research sites, I initially made weekly visits to each school for 6
months, introducing myself to students as a researcher who was learning how kids learn language
in elementary school. During this time, I did not collect any formal data, but was in the classroom
observing and taking up different tasks asked of me whether it was cleaning up after a science
project or reading with a small group of students who may have struggled to understand an
assignment. My goal was for students to gain a level of familiarity and trust with me being in
their space.
When data collection commenced, I moved between the role of observer and participant-
observer. After each day at a school site, I spent time ‘clearing up’ and ‘cleaning up’ my data. I
use the term ‘clearing up’ when transferring anecdotal notes to narrative-based field notes by
adding to fragmented sentences, words, or phrases I may have written to remind me of a key
event. ‘Cleaning up’ data occurred when I reread my field notes and highlighted any data in red
where I may have expressed an opinion, emotion, or bias. This data was removed and labeled as
reflective memos. Finally, I severed all relationships with students and teachers when data collec-
tion ended to create physical and emotional distance to fully immerse myself in the process of
data analysis.

The case of Oscar

Washington Elementary was a favored school in the district for varied reasons including high
academic achievement rates, a strong PTA generating a lucrative budget to fund extracurricular
and academic activities, and a stable teaching force. Despite multiple efforts to support linguistic
diversity and inclusion that included – an established dual language program, a student popula-
tion where two-fifths identified as Latinx and one quarter were identified as Spanish-dominant,
community celebrations to honor Mexican, Central and South American traditions – English was
the dominant language at Washington.
12 J. COLLETT

By the fourth grade, the grade focal students were enrolled when data collection began,
students self-grouped by language impacting the ethnic and racial divisions across students’
social networks. For some students, there was minimal contact with peers who did not share
a home language and/or ethnicity. When contact did occur, it was typically imposed on by
the teacher when using small group, collaborative learning structures.
Oscar attended Washington since kindergarten. In his fifth-grade classroom 6 of his 26 peers
were labeled limited English proficient (LEP) and 8 peers identified Spanish as the dominant lan-
guage spoken in the home. This discrepancy was attributed to two students who were reclassi-
fied out of LEP before the study began. Thus, Oscar was part of the non-dominant linguistic
group in the local context of his classroom. Important to note, Oscar was the only fifth grade,
male student, born in the United States with a LEP classification. While two of Oscar’s male class-
mates were from Spanish-speaking homes, one of his peers identified as a LEP learner recently
emigrated from Mexico, and the second peer, Arturo, was reclassified at the end of fourth grade.
Across academic settings Oscar’s observed behavior depicted him as a quiet and reserved stu-
dent, who would easily fade into the background of a given context.
Over time, data indicated the complexity to this observed behavior. Multiple factors including
his positioning across interactions, as well as his ability to access agency and resources to act in
these interactions masked the complexity of his identity as a learner and his identities with lan-
guage. In our second interview11 he alluded to his quiet nature in the following way.
353. Author: If you had to/if you had to pick like a couple of kids/who

354. would you say would be different from you//

355. Oscar: Mm:: (4.5)
355. Author: Because Oscar is a very special person//Who would you say is a little
357. different than you//

358. Oscar: Mm:: (8.5)

359. Author: Do you need to look at - the class//the people in your class//

Author is looking for a list of people in the class.

363. Oscar: It’s cuz - I don’t really talk to most of my class//
364. Author: What’s that?//
365. Oscar: I don’t really talk uh:: to most of my classmates//
366. Author: Yeah? why is that?//
367. Oscar: I don’t know//

368. Author: You don’t know//

369. Oscar: Most of the people I know sit at/Well I know all of them but - most of
370. the people I know sit in the back (1.5)//
371. Author: Oh::

372. Oscar: that – I – like - talk to all the time//

Across the initial interview phase, I learned the challenges young learners face in articulat-
ing personal characteristics. As a result subsequent interview protocols provided students
with opportunities to reflect on their perceptions of certain peers, and how they acknowl-
edged similarities or differences with these peers. In the above exchange, my intentions were
for Oscar to reflect on perceived differences, however, as noted in line 353–359, his hesita-
tions and pauses were not due to the fact that he was confused or insecure to answer the
question, but rather his uncertainty in identifying these perceived differences because as he
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF QUALITATIVE STUDIES IN EDUCATION 13

stated in turn 363, “I don’t really talk to most of my class.” He attributed his tendency to
rarely speak a result of his physical positioning in class as opposed to a personal attribute of
being quiet or shy.
Ms. Walker, Oscar’s fourth grade teacher, described him as a “dependent” and “passive”
learner, who engaged with school, but struggled to develop his English written literacies.
Despite these struggles she believed that Oscar tended to “migrate towards English” during
classroom activities. These beliefs also rang true for Mr. Mendez, Oscar’s fifth grade teacher.
Mirroring Ms. Walker’s sentiments, Mr. Mendez explained how he placed Oscar in the front of
the classroom because of his quiet tendencies and learning struggles. Among those students
who entered Washington as a kindergartener and were classified as LEP, Oscar was one of the
last students to become reclassified. The process of reclassification was complicated. For Oscar,
this process was compounded because of his teachers’ aforementioned reflections and concerns.
While Oscar had passed the needed district and state exams to become reclassified in the fifth
grade, passing exams were only two of three criteria to gain reclassification status. The third
required teacher’s signed consent that the student in question was performing on grade level
across content areas. While Mr. Mendez eventually signed the consent forms, he was apprehen-
sive believing that Oscar’s English written literacies did not meet fifth-grade standards when
comparing Oscar’s work to his peers.
Teachers’ reflections of Oscar’s academic and social performance played a role in how he was
physically positioned in the classroom. This was evident in Mr. Mendez’s decision to place him in
the front row of the classroom, where Oscar’s reflections indicated how this positioning played a
role in his communication patterns. Oscar was also academically positioned against peers in per-
haps more subtle ways as indicated by Mr. Mendez’s apprehension to sign the reclassification
papers because Oscar’s work did not mirror those of his fifth-grade, English-dominant peers.
These descriptive indicators play an important role in Oscar’s positioning across school activities,
which may have supported Oscar to display certain behaviors or exhibit particular characteristics.
As data will further suggest, this context played an important part in shaping Oscar’s opportuni-
ties to access agency to guide his learning.

Reflective identities related to language use

Across interview phases, it became increasingly transparent the important role family played in
Oscar’s life. Oscar was born in the U.S. with both parents emigrating from Mexico; his mother
worked as a waitress in a local restaurant and his father worked in construction. In our second
interview, Oscar identified as Mexican in explaining one of the things he had in common with a
peer who just emigrated from Mexico was “we’re from the same country”. Across all interview
phases, he identified a strong bond with his family. Oscar was quick to explain how he had three
brothers and one sister who did not attend Washington. His older brother graduated from high
school, his older sister was in middle school, and his two younger brothers would attend
Washington the following year. During the first interview phase, Oscar discussed his favorite
memories from school. The first memory was a direct connection to his family and Mexican iden-
tity as he reflected on an event from second grade.
44. Author: Tell me about that memory in second grade//
45. Oscar: Oh yeah/when we had to do a presentation/and um: and we had
46. to bring a fo:od from our country//And I did Mexico//

47. Author: What did you bring?

48. Oscar: Arroz con leche//It’s uh:: sweet rice with milk//It’s uh:: - it also has
49. um:: cinnamon//
14 J. COLLETT

The second memory was from fourth grade, “I enjoyed going camping with my dad. That was the first
field trip he came to.” In reflecting on learning language, he commented, “I just enjoy learning two
languages,” explaining that his bilingualism provided him with a skill set to “translate things to
my parents.”
In these initial reflections, Oscar’s relationships with immediate family members played an
important role in his identity. However, these reflections do not simply define the close bond
Oscar shared with his family but must also be analyzed at an indexical level. First, his use of the
term our country in line 46 identified a relationship Oscar held with Mexico. The slight hesitations
in line 48 indicate discursive pauses where Oscar was perhaps framing both the content of what
he was saying and the language in which he expressed this content. Finally, in line 48 translating
arroz con leche, a rather common dessert accessible in nearby bakeries and taquer
ıas, can infer
multiple meanings. One of these meanings alludes to Oscar’s linguistic habit, and perhaps need
he saw, in providing English translation, indicating an awareness of the linguistic boundaries pre-
sent at school. English translation was a common practice in the classroom, where teachers often
translated Spanish content into English to ensure understanding.
Across all interview phases, Oscar hesitated as he answered questions, at times with frequent
and long pauses. This behavior, along with a pattern of asking clarifying questions was an indica-
tor of his thoughtful responses; characteristics that were somewhat atypical among his peers.
These discursive practices are seen in the following exchange.
322. Author: Okay/so it sounds you um: talk mostly in English at school/and
323. mostly in Spanish at home//What language do you like to speak better//
324. Oscar: Like in – where//
325. Author: What language do you like to/what language do you prefer//

327. Oscar: En:glish?//

328. Author: English?//
329. Oscar: I’m not really sure/
330. Author: You’re not really sure//Why did you keep asking me where//

331. Does it depend?//

332. Oscar: Um: (2.)/Well certain places I talk English or Spanish/like at (2.)
333. school/or at my house//
334. Author: Okay//Okay//So it depends the place//

335. Oscar: Mm: - mm://

336. Author: What language you use?//
337. Oscar: Well - I mostly talk in English here//and home I talk both//

In this exchange Oscar’s reflective nature is illuminated as he shares that he does not have a lin-
guistic preference, his language use is mediated by context. In lines 322–325, a closed question
– What language do you prefer? What language do you like to speak better? – spearheaded
aspects of Oscar’s conscientious nature, and signaled how it was not linguistic preference, but
rather context that determined his language use. Oscar’s pauses in line 332, clarifying question
in turn 324, and reflective nature in turns 327, 329 and 332 where he first states English, but
then clarifies with a level of uncertainty in sharing, ‘I’m not really sure,’ indicate the complexities
of how he understood language use and how he identified with language at school. Reasons for
Oscar’s hesitations became increasingly clear when aligned to observational data.
Despite the fact that instruction in the dual language program occurred in both languages,
observations indicated how English dominated academic contexts. Mr. Mendez, a native Spanish
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF QUALITATIVE STUDIES IN EDUCATION 15

speaker, tried to encourage his students to speak in Spanish, reminding students frequently,
“Let’s do this in Spanish.” Despite efforts, Mr. Mendez would often translate or switch to English
during Spanish instruction to assure linguistic comprehension. For example, during a Science les-
son in mid-October Mr. Mendez reviewed the characteristics of metals with his students in the
following way.
Conduce electricidad, cobre? (Holding up a metal). S
ı, recuerdes de ayer. Lato
n (Holding up a different
metal) en ingl
es it means brass. Let’s talk in English. We checked the pure elements copper and aluminum.
We will now see if brass conducts electricity, will it conduct?

Later in the lesson, Mr. Mendez explained how certain metals conduct electricity with protons
and electrons. During this time, he again switched to English explaining, “I’m going to switch to
English, this is important.” In these discursive exchanges English dominated the space, and by
stating that he was going to switch to English because “this is important” Mr. Mendez placed
English as the tool to convey essential ideas.
Across data collection, it was critical to provide focal students with opportunities to reflect on
the linguistic practices and patterns that occurred among peers, teachers, and friends across con-
texts. These reflections provided data on learners’ perceptions of how language mediated learn-
ing, and illuminated aspects to how learners were constructing identities with language and
learning. Observations across time and school contexts, whether it was of a community meeting
or classroom interaction, indicated how English dominated spaces. The observation of Mr.
Mendez using language in a Spanish Science lesson was a common practice and one indication
of how English was a dominant tool to mediate participation in these spaces. However, it was
through Oscar’s reflection on language use where we see how he began to make sense of the
implicit linguistic tensions and boundaries present at his school. Thus, this data point – the inter-
view segment aligned to classroom observation - lends insight into Oscar’s interpretations of
how language was used as a tool in learning. Across interview phases, Oscar stated a preference
of using English in school as we see in the exchange above, however, careful analysis of the dis-
cursive patterns across data, and the indexical meanings embedded in Oscar’s reflections indicate
the tension he saw in how language functioned across these spaces.

Positioning across academic contexts

The quiet, dependent, and passive behaviors that were used by Oscar’s teachers to describe
aspects of his academic identity were not observed across all academic settings. English
Language Development (ELD) was a time of the day where Oscar was a vocal participant. ELD
was a daily, 30-minute class consisting of approximately 15 students at the same English profi-
ciency level. During ELD Oscar purposely chose to sit in the front, volunteering thoughts
and ideas.
In comparing data across two contexts - ELD versus his regular fifth grade classroom –
Oscar was physically positioned in distinct ways. ELD was a smaller class with students of
similar English proficiencies. Students shared a level of cultural and linguistic capital since the
majority of students were from Spanish-speaking homes where parents and/or the students
themselves were immigrants from primarily Mexico and Central American countries. In this
academic context, Oscar was given liberty of where to sit and who to work with in small
group assignments. In reflecting on his ELD class, Oscar believed certain students were
placed in this particular class, “So we can be mixed with some of the other classes.” While
Oscar did not acknowledge language per se as the motivating factor structuring ELD, it was
clear that he was able to access a level of agency to act on and share his ideas in class by
voluntarily participating in asking or answering questions during whole class and small group
instruction. Oscar’s more vocal proclivities were seldom observed across other academic and
social contexts.
16 J. COLLETT

In talking about class participation, Oscar became increasingly transparent about his linguistic
strengths. These sentiments are captured in the following exchange.
431. Author: Sometimes you don’t - raise your hand very often - in class//do you

432. notice that//

433. Oscar: Yeah//
434. Author: Why don’t you raise your hand//
435. Oscar: Um: (3.5), I don’t know.
436. Author: But, to:day/You know what I noticed today/when we were reading

437. Color de
438. Oscar: Mis Palabras
439. Author: De mis palabras//you were raising your hand a lot?
440. (Oscar smiles)//Did you notice that?//

441. Oscar: Uh-huh. (Nodding head in agreement)

442. Author: Why were you raising your hand so much today?//
443. Oscar: Mm: (1.5) cuz I like to read - out loud//
444. Author: Oh/cuz you like to read out loud//Okay//You were also raising your
445. hand - to answer some of the questions//

446. Oscar: Uh-huh//(Nodding head in agreement)

447. Author: Why were you//um://Do you like to read more in Spanish or
448. English when Mr. Mendez was asking everyone//
449. Oscar: Mm: (1.5), in Spanish//

450. Author: In Spanish//Why do you like to read in Spanish//

451. Oscar: Mm: (3.0), cuz I don’t struggle as much as with the words - in
452. English.

In our exchange, Oscar identifies Spanish as a linguistic strength compared to English. This discur-
sive format of a one-on-one conversation may have provided him an opportunity to access a level
of agency that was enacted in turn 438, when he finished my sentence and completed, Color de
Mis Palabras, the title of the book the class was reading that day. Perhaps, he interjected because
he knew where I was going in the conversation; or that I switched to Spanish to identify the
book, and since I’m a non-native Spanish speaker in completing my thought he was supporting
my Spanish. Despite the reason, this turn in our conversation illustrates a unique position that
Oscar took up in this interaction as he accessed a level of agency to complete my thought. It is
important to note that this position was seldom observed in Oscar’s interactions with others
across contexts. This exchange also exemplifies the importance of aligning observational with
interview data in identity research. Providing Oscar with a space to reflect on his actions from
that day and the ability to compare these actions to other academic settings delves deeper into
how Oscar’s positioning, acts, and storylines were accessed in distinct ways across contexts.
Over time, findings revealed levels of complexity to Oscar’s identity as a learner, and his iden-
tities with language. Oscar was, comparatively speaking, a stronger Spanish speaker but he was
a highly proficient English speaker, reader, and writer. However, the ways in which he was posi-
tioned during whole group classroom interactions did not allow him to regularly access agency
across social interactions to act, a level of agency that becomes increasingly more present across
interview phases.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF QUALITATIVE STUDIES IN EDUCATION 17

Across time Oscar maintained a belief that Spanish was a linguistic strength and was transpar-
ent about the difficulties of learning English. “Sometimes English is confusing like when you
write some words. Some words have silent letters and sometimes it confuses people.” Across
data collection while Oscar’s level of confidence was more readily observed, his positioning
across contexts determined how this confidence and conscientious nature was expressed.
During a classroom observation of writer’s workshop months before the school year ended,
the field note below captures Oscar’s participation and positioning where he was able to access
levels of agency.
Oscar was sitting alone at his desk. He was trying to finish his report about the lion tamarin. Oscar was on
task. He was working independently and alone, apart from his peers. I was adjacent to Oscar, crouched
down, so he could read me a paragraph in his writing. Susie, an English-dominant peer, approached the
two of us. Susie posed a question to me, ‘Ms. Author, how do you spell usually?’ I asked her to wait a
moment because I was reading with Oscar. Oscar seemed distracted by her question, looking at me and
repeating in Spanish, ‘usual?’ I looked at him and shook my head yes. He proceeds to write ‘usual’, waited a
moment and then added, ‘ly’ to what he had written. When I commented how it was correct, he smiled,
turned the paper so Susie was able to read the word he had written. Susie looked at the word and then
returned to her desk.

In this interaction we see how Oscar was able to access linguistic tools - his bilingual skills - to
identify the Spanish-English cognate, usual, to assert a level of agency and provide the correct
spelling of the word usually to Susie, an English-dominant peer. Oscar’s positioning in this inter-
action, namely a small group interaction where the English-dominant participant entered the
space that Oscar and I occupied, provided an opportunity for Oscar to take on a certain position,
which was a student who could and subsequently did provide his peer academic support.
Returning to Davies and Harr
e’s (1999) discussion of a speech action versus a speech act, here we
see a clear example of this phenomenon. In this interaction, I was a participant-observer and
thus held a position in the conversation, which changed the dynamic between Susie and Oscar
and shifted how positions, subject positions, acts, and subsequently storylines were taken up in
the interaction. Ultimately, here we see how Oscar accessed agency where his speech action
became a speech act in handing the paper where he had written usually to Susie.
At a cursory level, Oscar exhibited behaviors of a ‘dependent’ and ‘passive’ learner who
‘migrated towards English’. However, in aligning and analyzing the interview and observational
data, certain components of an interaction are illuminated with greater clarity. These compo-
nents include– access, agency, positions, linguistic turns and actions – to reveal aspects to
Oscar’s complex identities with language and learning, which ultimately complicate these initial
perceptions. Rather, Oscar exhibited self-understandings of a strong Spanish speaker, who held
pride in his Mexican identity, and was cognizant of the larger linguistic and social models that
placed restrictions on his language use at Washington. In the following section, data analysis of
observations and interviews from non-academic contexts further highlight the nuanced nature
positions and agency played in the cafeteria, and how speech acts were mediated in
this context.

Positioning across non-academic contexts

Across the study’s tenure, students’ identities were shaped through participation in non-
academic activities that occurred on the yard during recess and in the cafeteria during lunch.
Lunch is an important time of the day in elementary school because students are provided
increasing amounts of control over their actions as they self-select where to sit. This became
strikingly evident at Washington where students often asserted more agency to take up certain
positions, and subsequently storylines and acts/actions.
Generally, the boys from Mr. Mendez’s class sat at one end of a table in the same seating
arrangement. I charted students’ seating arrangement in my weekly field notes. During the
18 J. COLLETT

Spanish Spanish Spanish Oscar 1.English 2.English 3.English

Girl Girl Girl Boy Boy Boy
Spanish Spanish 8.Spanish 4.English 5.English 6.Spanish 7.English
Girl Girl Boy Boy Boy Boy Girl
Figure 1. Lunch seating arrangement.

second interview phase, I asked students to draw a picture of where they sat at lunch in relation
to their peers. I then used this picture to facilitate a conversation about students’ perceptions of
the social dynamics. Figure 1 is a depiction of Oscar’s drawing, which was the mirror image of
several sketches I recorded. Aside, from Oscar’s physical position in this context, his peers are
represented by gender and home language.
In many ways, this lunch seating arrangement reflects some of the macro-level social interac-
tions structuring the positioning between Oscar and the two other boys from Spanish-dominant
homes in his grade. Among the fifth-grade boys, Oscar was on the peripheral of one of the key
social networks in his grade, not to the extent of the boy seated in position 8, who recently emi-
grated from Mexico, but nonetheless, Oscar was on the peripheral. Arturo, seated in position 6,
also attended Washington since kindergarten and was classified as LEP; however, unlike Oscar,
Arturo was one of the first students to become reclassified and recognized by teachers and peers
to be a strong academic student and an active participant across activities. In many ways,
Arturo’s positioning at the lunch table was symbolic of how he was positioned in Washington’s
macro-level social dynamics.
Neither Oscar, nor Arturo, identified the other as a good friend, instead both boys identified
Jack to be one, seated in position 2. In analyzing field notes, Jack and Arturo were visibly close,
but Oscar and Jack were not. In school, Jack and Arturo sat in the back of the class, exchanging
looks, comments, and laughs. During non-academic activities, Jack and Arturo played together
during recess and sat near each other at lunch. Outside of school, Arturo and Jack were on the
same soccer team and Arturo shared that he went on a few ‘play dates’ to Jack’s house. In con-
trast, when Oscar was asked to share similarities between Jack and himself, or activities they
both enjoyed, he was at a loss of words. Regardless of Oscar’s inability to explain this friendship,
he identified Jack as a close friend multiple times across all interview phases.
Guided by his sketch of the lunch seating arrangement, Oscar and I discussed the social networks
among the boys in the following exchange.
489. Author: Why do you think/the kids al:ways sit in the same groups/
490. when you get to choose//

491. Oscar: I don’t know//

492. Author: Take a guess//Why do you think//
493. Oscar: Since the beginning of the year we:: kind of - decided everybody/
494. that would be our seats//Well with the boys only - that would be our/
495. like seats where we would always sit.

496. Author: Who was in charge/of saying who was going to sit where//
497. Oscar: Mm: - well we just all (1.5)/well it just came up//
498. Author: It just came up//
499. Oscar: Uh-huh//The first days we sat where we sat/and then we just sat the

500. next day and the next day/and then Jack uh:: [1.] well gave the
501. idea that we would sit there like it would be kind of permanent seats//
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF QUALITATIVE STUDIES IN EDUCATION 19

502. Author: Jack gave the idea of where to sit and gave permanent seats//
503. Do you like? sitting over here? (pointing to his location)//
504. Oscar: Well I prefer sitting next to Jack/but Arturo came//

505. Author: Oh//

506. Oscar: Or sometimes Aidan (boy seated in position ‘1.English boy’) sits
507. next to Jack/and then I sit here (pointing to location)//

Oscar begins to talk about how the seating arrangement may slightly vary each day.
516. Author: You know what I’ve noticed/sometimes the kids are talking and
517. it’s hard for you to talk with them//
518. Oscar: (Nodding his head) Sometimes/Yeah//
519. Author: Do you wish you were able to talk more?//

520. Oscar: Well/If I could sit next to Jack -/all the time/I would//
521. Author: But why don’t you//
522. Oscar: Cuz Arturo sometimes like - he comes here before me to the
523. cafeteria//

Oscar’s thoughtful and conscientious nature is again marked across multiple turns in this
conversation. In turns 493–498, Oscar begins to explain that the lunch seating arrangement
was a collective decision, but after a slight hesitation he clarifies “well, it just came up,” by
disclosing how Jack played a crucial position in constructing the dynamic. Jack held a power-
ful position at the school. Academically, he was at the top of the class. Socially, he often
served as team captain during kickball games selecting students for his team. Thus, Jack held
a great deal of agency to structure and dominate certain storylines and positions across non-
academic contexts.
From Oscar’s perspective, Jack was a mitigating factor in determining where students physic-
ally sat during lunch and while Jack did not directly control students’ language use in this group,
English was the only language used in this space because the majority of the participants were
from English-only or English-dominant homes. Thus, in this context, social and linguistic power
determined students’ positioning. Oscar identified himself as a participant in this activity because
he drew himself as part of the group, unlike the Spanish-dominant boy seated in position
8.Spanish boy, who was not a participant in the activity. However, Oscar’s positioning as a partici-
pant in this activity was restricted. Unlike the small group interaction between Susie and
Oscar during writer’s workshop, Oscar’s actions – whether this was a physical action or a speech
action – were rarely taken up in this context, placing restrictions on how or if these actions
became acts.
This conversation revealed aspects to the dominant social networks at Washington, mediating
certain storylines and positions across interactions. Jack symbolized the struggle Oscar faced in
assimilating into Washington’s larger social networks; a struggle that Arturo, another focal stu-
dent, did not face during the study’s tenure as seen in turns 504 and 522 where Oscar identifies
Arturo as a barrier to him permeating these social dynamics.
While Oscar may have appeared to be a quiet and reserved boy, there was a tension in
how he was being positioned in group dynamics and his desire to access a level of agency to
become a more active participant. During our last interview phase, I commented that he was
a calm boy, even when people seemed to bother him. He quickly responded in a succinct
manner, “That’s because I have it inside,” inferring that his cautious nature held signifi-
cant meaning.
20 J. COLLETT

Cultural practices, social

norms, and institutional
constructs

The multiplicity of learners’ identities

1. Positioning across
interactions

2. Access
4.
to tools,
Reflections
rresources,
of this
and/or
dynamic.
artifacts

3. Access to agency
and subject positions
to act.

Cultural practices, social

norms, and institutional
constructs

Figure 2. Language and learning identities: Processes and context.

Discussion
In highlighting Oscar’s school-based experiences across time, this paper argues that certain
methodological approaches should be used to research the identities of young emergent bilin-
guals. Specifically, data must document four components of learning and identity as represented
in Figure 2. These components include the learners’: positioning across interactions; access to
tools, resources and/or artifacts; access to agency and subject positions to act; and reflections of
this dynamic.
Across school-based activities learners are positioned in unique ways. This positioning impacts
learners’ access, as well as agency, to use certain tools, where learners must be provided space
to reflect on, and make sense of, this dynamic. In the case of Oscar, observations of whole class
instruction and small group interactions across academic and non-academic contexts indicated
nuanced differences in the: positions Oscar held across interactions; storylines dominating these
spaces; and power Oscar had to access levels of agency to act. This became more transparent
when comparing interactions across classrooms, the cafeteria, and playground. Across these var-
ied contexts, some storylines held more power, which facilitated participants’ ability to transform
their acts into observable actions.
Identities though are also mediated by the cultural practices, social norms, storylines of the
larger community and institutions in question. At Washington, the English-dominant linguistic
storylines monopolized the: macro-level discourses observed across classroom and community
observations, linguistic segregation among students in non-academic spaces, and institutional
structures of linguistic classification and testing. It is through these moving parts where learners’
identities are constructed, which is represented at the figure’s center. Aligning observation with
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF QUALITATIVE STUDIES IN EDUCATION 21

interview data across time and in varied contexts, and then using methods of analysis will reveal
the multiplicity of learners’ identities.
In Brown, Bloome, Morris, Power-Carter, and Willis (2017) review of the educational research
on classroom conversations focused on race, the authors argue how particular “logics-of-inquiry”
are co-constructed in the process of conducting research as the researcher employs “theoretical
frameworks, methodologies, and research designs” to define and study what counts as know-
ledge (p. 458). Highlighting the case of Oscar, this paper illuminates how a recursive logic-
of-inquiry defined by methods that are constantly refined across research design, data collection
and analysis is needed in order to gain deeper understandings of the processes of identity con-
struction and language learning.
Findings complicated Oscar’s presented identity (Nasir, 2010) as a quiet and passive learner
who faced academic struggles to become proficient in English, but nonetheless gravitated
towards the language. While initial classroom observations did reflect these characteristics, in
using varied approaches, data revealed a student who used his bilingualism in thoughtful and
proficient ways to support his academic growth. A student who was cautious and conscientious
about his work, taking longer than norm to finish assignments. A boy who tried to penetrate
larger social and linguistic dynamics that were present in his grade, but frustrated he was not
able to do so. In other words, using the aforementioned methodologies signaled important ten-
sions in Oscar’s identities with language and learning.
Brown et al. (2017) write “the logic-of-inquiry of a study is not neutral with regard to epistem-
ology, ontology, and ideology” (p. 458). This sentiment is of critical importance when carrying
out identity research for learners in elementary school. Findings indicate how multiple
approaches must be used to understand the bidirectional relationship language learning holds
with identity development. Interviews need to align with observations to provide a more com-
plete interpretation of learners’ behaviors. Multiple interview approaches should be used, and
observations need to document interactions outside the classroom context. By triangulating
interviews with observations across school-based activities, and in using multiple cycles of ana-
lysis, revealed the tensions in Oscar’s identities with learning and language as a fifth-grade,
emergent bilingual. It is through this process where different vantage points were illuminated.
These vantage points included: myself as the researcher, focal participants who assumed critical
roles in Oscar’s positioning, and Oscar. It is with these multiple vantage points where the
researcher is able to confront personal biases and in doing so examine and re-evaluate the logic-
of-inquiry defining the study (Brown et al., 2017; Chapman, 2007; Milner, 2006). In employing
such recursive or, what Brown et al. (2017) refer to as a “situated perspective” (p. 461), will
identity research heed important findings, and can be a process of self-understanding, self-
exploration, or self-empowerment for participants. It is through this process where findings
may be able to push against the marginalized ways that learners are labeled or positioned in
school, which has implications on social, emotional, and academic development.

Notes
1. See Norton and Toohey (2011) for a review of the work on identity and language in SLA scholarship.
2. I use the term non-dominant to acknowledge the barriers these students face, whether that includes
institutional and structural barriers from opportunities in the larger system of schooling. As a result, these
students may be stripped of power and access that their peers from dominant communities are afforded.
3. I use the term emergent bilingual for learners who are moving between bilingual and multilingual spaces in
their home and academic lives. Thus, the term emergent bilingual includes students enrolled in bilingual or
dual language programs, as well as students who home language(s) may be distinct from the primary
instructional language of school (Garc
ıa, 2009).
4. All instruction in a dual language program, or two-way immersion, occurs in two languages. The ultimate
goal is for learners to develop academic bilingualism (Lindholm-Leary, 2001).
22 J. COLLETT

5. In the United States, students with a limited English proficient (LEP) classification entered the school with a
home, or dominant language of something other than English. Each year, students are given a series of state-
mandated exams to identify whether they have the skills to be deemed a ‘proficient’ English speaker. If
students are unable to pass these exams, the LEP classification is upheld (Baker, 2006).
6. LEP classifications indicated that 25.3% of the students at School 1 and 54.9% of School 2’s student
population was classified as such. The school’s language programs explained part of this difference. Both
schools had an English-only program and a Spanish-English dual language program. However, there was also
Chinese Bilingual program in School 2, where the majority of enrolled students were from Cantonese-
speaking homes and carried the LEP labeled. This could also explain differences in each school’s racial-ethnic
demographics where a larger percentage of School 2’s population identified as Chinese when compared to
School 1, and a larger percentage of School 1 identified as Other White/Caucasian when compared to
School 2.
7. At the time of data collection, ELD was a state mandated time where students with a LEP classification
received 30 minutes of daily targeted English language instruction with peers at similar proficiency levels.
8. Interviews occurred during: (1) Spring of 4th grade, (2) Winter of 5th grade, (3) Spring of 5th grade.
9. Following protocol, each time I conducted a student interview I asked permission to audio-record. I used a
similar format for these more spontaneous interviews. At times, students did not want me to audio-record for
personal reasons or I believed it was inappropriate to audio-record given the context.
10. See Supplemental Appendix B for a list of the codes used during the first two coding cycles.
11. Numbers indicate sequential turns of where talk occurred in the interview.

Acknowledgement
Thank you to Na’ilah Suad Nasir for her guidance and mentoring with this research and manuscript, as well as the
two anonymous reviewers for their feedback on earlier drafts.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes on contributor
Jennifer Collett is an assistant professor of literacy education at Lehman College, City University of New York
(CUNY). She uses sociocultural theories of learning to examine the intersection of literacy and identity for emergent
bilinguals in elementary school.

ORCID
Jennifer Collett http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2754-9242

References
Anderson, K. T. (2009). Applying positioning theory to the analysis of classroom interactions: Mediating micro-iden-
tities, macro-kinds, and ideologies of knowing. Linguistics and Education, 20(4), 291–310.
Atkinson, P., & Hammersley, M. (1994). Ethnography and participant observation. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln
(Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 248–261). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Bahktin, M. (1981). The dialogical imagination: Four essays. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
Baker, C. (2006). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism. Ontario, Canada: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Blanco-Iglesias, S., Broner, J., & Tarone, E. (1995). Observations of language use in Spanish immersion classroom
interactions. In L. Eubank, L. Selinker, & M. Sharwood Smith (Eds.), The current state of interlanguage (pp.
241–254). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamin.
Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Brown, A. F., Bloome, D., Morris, J. E., Power-Carter, S., & Willis, A. I. (2017). Classroom conversations in the study of
race and the disruption of social and educational inequalities: A review of research. Review of Research in
Education, 41(1), 453–476. doi:10.3102/0091732X16687522
Carter, P. (2005). Keepin’ it real: School success beyond black and white. Oxford, UK: University Press.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF QUALITATIVE STUDIES IN EDUCATION 23

Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Chapman, T. (2007). Interrogating classroom relationships and events: Using portraiture and critical race theory in
education research. Educational Researcher, 36(3), 156–162. doi:10.3102/0013189X07301437
Collett, J. (2018a). Constructing identities: How two emergent bilingual students create linguistic agency in elemen-
tary school. Bilingual Research Journal, 41(2), 133–149. doi:10.1080/15235882.2018.1451410
Collett, J. (2018b). The power of relationships for English Learners: Friendships cultivating linguistic agency. In T.
Rishel & P. Miller (Eds.), Stress & coping of English learners (pp. 171–188). Charlotte, NC: Information Age
Publishing.
Collett, J. (2019). The Linguistic Garden: A case study of an emergent bilingual’s participation, positioning, and iden-
tity development in a dual language program. Journal of Language, Identity and Education, 18, 236–250. doi:10.
1080/15348458.2019.1623034
Compton-Lily, C., Papoi, K., Venegas, P., Hamman, L., & Schawbenbauer, B. (2017). “Intersectional Identity
Negotiation: The Case of Young Immigrant Children. Journal of Literacy Research, 49(1), 115–140. doi:10.1177/
1086296X16683421
Crawford, J. (1992). Hold your tongue: Bilingualism and the politics of “English Only”. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Davidson, A. (1996). Making and molding identities in schools: Student narratives on race, gender, and academic
engagement. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Davies, B., & Harre
, R. (1999). Positioning and personhood. In R. Harr
e & R. L. van Langenhove (Eds.), Positioning the-
ory (pp. 32–52). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers.
Day, E. M. (2002). Identity and the young English language learner. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Duff, P. A. (2002). The discursive co-construction of knowledge, identity, and difference: An ethnography of commu-
nication in the high school mainstream. Applied Linguistics, 23(3), 289–322. doi:10.1093/applin/23.3.289
Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. I., & Shaw, L. L. (2001). Participant observation and fieldnotes. In P. Atkinson, A. Coffey, S.
Delamont, J. Lofland, & L. Lofland (Eds.), Handbook of ethnography (pp. 356–357). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Emerson, R. M., Shaw, L. L., & Fretz, R. I. (1995). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago
Press.
Esteban-Guitart, M., & Moll, L. (2014a). Funds of identity: A new concept based on the funds of knowledge
approach. Culture & Psychology, 20, 31–48. doi:10.1177/1354067X13515934
Esteban-Guitart, M., & Moll, L. (2014b). Lived experience, funds of identity and education. Culture & Psychology, 20,
70–81. doi:10.1177/1354067x13515940
Garc
ıa, O. (2009). Emergent bilinguals and TESOL: What’s in a name? TESOL Quarterly, 43(2), 322–326. doi:10.1002/j.
1545-7249.2009.tb00172.x
Gee, J. (2005). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Gee, J. P. (2011). How to do discourse analysis. A toolkit. New York, NY: Routledge.
Gee, J. P. (2018). Introducing discourse analysis: From grammar to society. New York, NY: Routledge.
Guest, G., MacQueen, K. M., & Namey, E. E. (2012). Applied thematic analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Guti
errez, K., Baquedano-Lo
pez, P., & Asato, J. (2000). “English for the Children”: The new literacy of the old world
order, language policy and educational reform. Bilingual Research Journal, 24(1–2), 87–112. doi:10.1080/
15235882.2000.10162753
Haney Lo
pez, I. F. (1996). White by Law: The legal construction of race. New York, NY: New York University Press.
Harr
e, R. (2012). Positioning theory: Moral Dimensions Of Social-Cultural Psychology. In J. Valsiner (Ed.), The Oxford
handbook of culture and psychology (pp. 191–206). New York, NY: Oxford University.
Harr
e, R., & Moghaddam, F. (2003). The self and others: Positioning individuals and groups in personal, political, and
cultural contexts (pp. 219–234). Westport, CT: Praeger.
Harr
e, R., & van Langenhove, L. (1999). Positioning theory. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers.
Hawkins, M. R. (2005). Becoming a student: Identity work and academic literacies in early schooling. TESOL
Quarterly, 39(1), 59–82. doi:10.2307/3588452
Holland, D., Lachiotte, W., Skinner, D., & Cain, C. (1998). Identity and agency in cultural worlds. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Katznelson, I. (2005). When affirmative action was White: An untold history of racial inequality in twentieth-century
America. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Co.
Kayi-Aydar, H., & Miller, E. R. (2018). Positioning in classroom discourse studies: A state-of-the-art review. Classroom
Discourse, 9(2), 79. https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2018.1450275
Kramsch, C. (2000). Social discursive constructions of self in L2 learning. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory
and second language learning (pp. 133–154). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. doi:10.5070/L24219087
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Leibowitz, A. H. (1980). The Bilingual Education Act: A legislative analysis. Washington, DC: The National
Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education.
24 J. COLLETT

Lindholm-Leary, K. J. (2001). Dual language education. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Macedo, D., & Bartolom
e, L. I. (2014). Multiculturalism permitted in English only. International Multilingual Research
Journal, 8, 24–37. doi:10.1080/19313152.2014.852426
MacRuaire, G. (2011). They’re my words – I’ll talk how I like? Examining social class and linguistic practice among
primary-school children. Language and Education, 25(6), 535–559.
Martin-Beltr
an, M. (2010). Positioning proficiency: How students and teachers (de)construct language proficiency at
school. Linguistics and Education, 21 (4), 257–281. doi:10.1016/j.linged.2010.09.002
Maxwell, J. A. (2004). Causal explanation, qualitative research, and scientific inquiry in education. Educational
Researcher, 33(2), 3–11. doi:10.3102/0013189X033002003
Maxwell, J. A. (2005). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
McCarty, T. (2004). Language education policies in the U.S. In J. W. Tollefson & A. Tsui (Eds.), Medium of instruction
policies: Which agenda? Whose agenda? (pp. 71–93). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Milner, H. R. (2006). Culture, race and spirit: A reflective model for the study of African Americans. International
Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 19(3), 367–385.
Monzo
, L. D., & Rueda, R. (2009). Passing for English fluent: Latino immigrant children masking language profi-
ciency. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 40(1), 20–40. doi:10.1111/j.1548-1492.2009.01026.x
Namey, E., Guest, G., Thairu, L., & Johnson, L. (2008). Data reduction techniques for large qualitative data sets. In G.
Guest & K. M. MacQueen (Eds.), Handbook for team-based qualitative research (pp. 137–161). Lanham, MD:
AltaMira Press.
Nasir, N. (2010) Studying identity in learning contexts from a human sciences perspective. Yearbook of the National
Society for the Study of Education, 109(1), 53–65.
Nasir, N. (2012). Racialized identities: Race and achievement among African American youth. Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press.
Nasir, N., & Hand, V. (2006). Exploring sociocultural perspectives on race, culture and learning. Review of Educational
Research, 76 (4), 449–475. doi:10.3102/00346543076004449
Nasir, N., & Cooks, J. (2009). Becoming a hurdler: How learning setting affords identity. Anthropology & Education
Quarterly, 40(1), 41–61. doi:10.1111/j.1548-1492.2009.01027.x
Nasir, N., & Hand, V. (2008). From court to the classroom: Opportunities for engagement, learning, and identity in
basketball and classroom mathematics. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17(2), 143–179. doi:10.1080/
10508400801986082
Nasir, N., & Saxe, G. (2003). Ethnic and academic identities: A cultural practice perspective on emerging tensions
and their management in the lives of minority students. Educational Researcher, 32(5), 14–18. doi:10.3102/
0013189X032005014
Nasir, N., & Shah, N. (2011). On defense: African American males making sense of racialized narratives in mathemat-
ics education. Journal of African American Males in Education, 2(1), 25–45.
Nasir, N., Snyder, C., Shah, N., & Ross, K. (2012). Racial storylines and implications for learning. Human Development,
55(5–6), 285–301. doi:10.1159/000345318
Norton, B. (2000). Identity and language learning: Gender, ethnicity, and educational change. Essex, UK: Pearson
Education.
Norton, B., & Toohey, K. (2011). Identity, language learning, and social change. Language Teaching, 44(4), 412–446.
doi:10.1017/S0261444811000309
Owocki, G., & Goodman, Y. (2002). Kidwatching: Documenting children’s literacy development. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
Palmer, D. (2008). Building and destroying students’ ‘academic identities’: The power of discourse in a two-way
immersion classroom. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 21(6), 647–667.
Palmer, D. (2009). Middle-class English speakers in a two-way immersion bilingual classroom: “Everybody should be
listening to Jonathan right now … ”. TESOL Quarterly, 43(2), 177–202.
Patton, M. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (pp. 169–186). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Pavlenko, A., & Lantolf, J. (2000). Second language learning as participation and the (re)construction of selves. In
J. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 155–177). Oxford, UK: Oxford University
Press.
Potowski, K. (2007). Language and identity in a dual immersion school. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. New York, NY: Oxford University Press
Ruiz, R. (1984). Orientations in language-planning. Journal of the National Association for Bilingual Education, 8(2),
15–34. doi:10.1080/08855072.1984.10668464
Rymes, B., & Pash, D. (2001). Questioning identity: The case of one second language learner. Anthropology and
Education Quarterly, 32(3), 276–300. doi:10.1525/aeq.2001.32.3.276
Saldan ~a, J. (2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF QUALITATIVE STUDIES IN EDUCATION 25

Seidman, I. (2013). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and the sciences (4th
Edition). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Skutnabb-Kangas, T., & Cummins, J. (1992). Minority education: From shame to struggle. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual
Matters.
Toohey, K. (2000). Learning English at school: Identity, social relations and classroom practice. Clevedon, UK:
Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Valenzuela, A. (1999). Subtractive schooling: U.S.-Mexico Youth and the politics of caring. Albany, NY: State University
of New York Press.
Volk, D., & Angelova, M. (2007). Language ideology and the mediation of language choice in peer interactions in a
dual-language first grade. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 6(3), 177–199. doi:10.1080/
15348450701454205
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language (A. Kozulin, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Weiss, R. S. (1994). Learning from strangers. The art and methods of qualitative interviewing. New York, NY: The Free
Press.
Welch, I. (2015). Building interactional space in an ESL classroom to foster bilingual identity and linguistic reperto-
ries. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 14(2), 80–95. doi:10.1080/15348458.2015.1019784
Wood, M. B. (2013). Mathematical micro-identities: Moment-to-moment positioning and learning in a fourth-grade
classroom. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 44 (5), 775–808.
Wortham, S. (2006). Learning identity: The joint emergence of social identification and academic learning. New York,
NY: Cambridge University Press.
Yin, R. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.