INNOVATIONS IN ENGLISH

LANGUAGE ARTS
TEACHER EDUCATION
ADVANCES IN RESEARCH ON
TEACHING
Series Editor: Volumes 1
11: Jere Brophy
Volumes 12
27: Stefinee Pinnegar
Recent Volumes:

Volume 18: Emotion and School: Understanding How the Hidden

Curriculum Influences Relationships, Leadership, Teaching,
and Learning
Volume 19: From Teacher Thinking to Teachers and Teaching: The
Evolution of a Research Community
Volume 20: Innovations in Science Teacher Education in the
Asia Pacific
Volume 21: Research on Preparing Preservice Teachers to Work
Effectively with Emergent Bilinguals
Volume 22A: International Teacher Education: Promising Pedagogies
(Part A)
Volume 22B: International Teacher Education: Promising Pedagogies
(Part B)
Volume 22C: International Teacher Education: Promising Pedagogies
(Part C)
Volume 23: Narrative Conceptions of Knowledge: Towards
Understanding Teacher Attrition
Volume 24: Research on Preparing Inservice Teachers to Work
Effectively with Emergent Bilinguals
Volume 25: Exploring Pedagogies for Diverse Learners Online
Volume 26: Knowing, Becoming, Doing as Teacher Educators: Identity,
Intimate Scholarship, Inquiry
ADVANCES IN RESEARCH ON TEACHING VOLUME 27

INNOVATIONS IN ENGLISH
LANGUAGE ARTS
TEACHER EDUCATION
EDITED BY
HEIDI L. HALLMAN
University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, USA

United Kingdom
North America
Japan

India
Malaysia
China
Emerald Publishing Limited
Howard House, Wagon Lane, Bingley BD16 1WA, UK

First edition 2017

Copyright r 2017 Emerald Publishing Limited

Reprints and permissions service

Contact: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, transmitted in

any form or by any means electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or
otherwise without either the prior written permission of the publisher or a licence
permitting restricted copying issued in the UK by The Copyright Licensing Agency
and in the USA by The Copyright Clearance Center. Any opinions expressed in the
chapters are those of the authors. Whilst Emerald makes every effort to ensure the
quality and accuracy of its content, Emerald makes no representation implied or
otherwise, as to the chapters’ suitability and application and disclaims any warranties,
express or implied, to their use.

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

ISBN: 978-1-78714-051-6
ISSN: 1479-3687 (Series)

ISOQAR certified
Management System,
awarded to Emerald
for adherence to
Environmental
standard
ISO 14001:2004.

Certificate Number 1985

ISO 14001
CONTENTS

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS ix

FOREWORD TO INNOVATIONS IN ENGLISH

LANGUAGE ARTS TEACHER EDUCATION xiii

EDITOR’S INTRODUCTION TO INNOVATIONS IN

ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS TEACHER EDUCATION xvii

PART I
TOWARD A BROADER VISION OF ENGLISH
TEACHER EDUCATION

SECTION INTRODUCTION TO PART I

Heidi L. Hallman 3

FINDING FOOTHOLDS IN A CONSTRUCTION ZONE:

NAVIGATING THE DISCOURSES OF ENGLISH
LANGUAGE ARTS WITH PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS
IN THE 21ST CENTURY
Cori McKenzie, Michael Macaluso and Kati Macaluso 5

PREPARING ENGLISH TEACHERS FOR TODAY’S

CONTEXT: RESEARCHING EFFECTIVE PRACTICE
THROUGH METHODS COURSES
Donna L. Pasternak, Samantha Caughlan, 27
Heidi L. Hallman, Laura Renzi and Leslie Rush

ADVOCACY, HUMANITY, AND HOPE IN THE FACE

OF AN EDUCATION WORLD GONE WRONG
Shelbie Witte and Christian Z. Goering 41

v
vi CONTENTS

PART II
LENSES FOR PREPARING PROSPECTIVE TEACHERS TO
TEACH ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS

SECTION INTRODUCTION TO PART II

Heidi L. Hallman 63

RETHINKING IDENTITY AND ADOLESCENCE IN

THE TEACHING OF LITERATURE: IMPLICATIONS
FOR PRE-SERVICE TEACHER EDUCATION
Amanda Haertling Thein, Richard Beach and 65
Anthony Johnston

RE-POSITIONING YOUTH IN ENGLISH

TEACHER EDUCATION
Robert Petrone and Sophia Tatiana Sarigianides 89

BEYOND THE KNOWLEDGE ECONOMY: TEACHING

ENGLISH FOR ECONOMIC JUSTICE
Ross Collin 107

FROM RESEARCH TO PRACTICE: WRITING,

TECHNOLOGY, AND ENGLISH
TEACHER EDUCATION
Jen Scott Curwood, Jayne C. Lammers and 121
Alecia Marie Magnifico

PART III
SOCIAL JUSTICE ORIENTED ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS
TEACHER PREPARATION

SECTION INTRODUCTION TO PART III

Heidi L. Hallman 145

THE CRITICAL CENTRALITY OF SOCIAL JUSTICE IN

ENGLISH TEACHER EDUCATION
Deborah Bieler and Leslie David Burns 147
Contents vii

ADDRESSING LGBTQ-THEMED TEXTS AND

HETERONORMATIVITY IN ENGLISH EDUCATION
Melissa Schieble and Jody Polleck 165

TOWARD CLINICALLY RICH ENGLISH AND

LITERACY TEACHER PREPARATION: A TALE OF
TWO PROGRAMS
Peter Williamson and Marshall A. George 185

TELLING OUR STORIES: NAVIGATING SOCIAL

JUSTICE-ORIENTED TEACHING ON THE GROUND
Terri L. Rodriguez, Catherine (Kate) M. Bohn-Gettler, 203
Madeleine (Madey) H. Israelson,
Madeline (Maddy) A. O’Brien and Lauren Thoma

ABOUT THE AUTHORS 225

This page intentionally left blank
LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS

Richard Beach Department of Curriculum & Instruction,

University of Minnesota, Minneapolis,
MN, USA
Deborah Bieler Department of English, University of
Delaware, Newark, DE, USA
Catherine (Kate) Department of Education, College of
M. Bohn-Gettler St. Benedict & St. John’s University,
St Joseph, MN, USA
Leslie David Burns Department of Curriculum & Instruction,
University of Kentucky, Lexington,
KY, USA
Samantha Caughlan Independent Scholar, Lansing, MI, USA
Ross Collin Department of Teaching & Learning,
Virginia Commonwealth University,
Richmond, VA, USA
Jen Scott Curwood English Education & Media Studies,
University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
Todd DeStigter Department of English, University of
Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA
Marshall A. George School of Education, Hunter College,
City University of New York, New York,
NY, USA
Christian Z. Goering Department of Curriculum & Instruction,
University of Arkansas, Fayetteville,
AR, USA
Heidi L. Hallman Department of Curriculum & Teaching,
University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, USA

ix
x LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS

Madeleine (Madey) H. Department of Education, College of

Israelson St. Benedict & St. John’s University,
St Joseph, MN, USA
Anthony Johnston School of Education, University of
Saint Joseph, West Hartford, CT, USA
Jayne C. Lammers Department of Teaching & Curriculum,
University of Rochester, Rochester,
NY, USA
Kati Macaluso Institute for Educational Initiatives and the
Alliance for Catholic Education, University
of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN, USA
Michael Macaluso Institute for Educational Initiatives and the
Alliance for Catholic Education, University
of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN, USA
Alecia Marie Department of English, University of
Magnifico New Hampshire, Durham, NH, USA
Cori McKenzie Department of Teacher Education,
Michigan State University, East Lansing,
MI, USA
Madeline (Maddy) A. Department of Education, College of
O’Brien St. Benedict & St. John’s University,
St Joseph, MN, USA
Donna L. Pasternak Department of Curriculum & Instruction,
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee,
Milwaukee, WI, USA
Robert Petrone Department of English, Montana State
University, Bozeman, MT, USA
Jody Polleck Department of Curriculum & Teaching,
Hunter College, City University of
New York, New York, NY, USA
Laura Renzi Department of English, West Chester
University of Pennsylvania, West Chester,
PA, USA
List of Contributors xi

Terri L. Rodriguez Department of Education, College of

St. Benedict & St. John’s University,
St Joseph, MN, USA
Leslie Rush Department of Secondary Education,
University of Wyoming, Laramie,
WY, USA
Sophia Tatiana Department of English, Westfield State
Sarigianides University, Westfield, MA, USA
Melissa Schieble Department of Curriculum & Teaching,
Hunter College, City University of
New York, New York, NY, USA
Amanda Haertling Department of Teaching & Learning,
Thein University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA
Lauren Thoma Department of Education, College of
St. Benedict & St. John’s University,
St Joseph, MN, USA
Peter Williamson School of Education, Stanford University,
Stanford, CT, USA
Shelbie Witte School of Teaching & Curriculum
Leadership, Oklahoma State University,
Stillwater, OK, USA
This page intentionally left blank
FOREWORD TO INNOVATIONS IN
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS
TEACHER EDUCATION

Of the virtues received from our [predecessors] we can afford to lose none …. But
merely to preserve those is not enough. A task is laid upon each generation to enlarge
their application, to ennoble their conception, and, above all, to apply and adapt them
to the peculiar problems presented to it for solution.

Addams (1912/2002, p. 171)

I’ve been an English teacher for over 30 years, and at no time in my career
have I been less certain about what I do for a living. A glance at the texts
on my home bookshelves suggests as much: The Fire Next Time by James
Baldwin, the complete works of Shakespeare, a Spanish-English dictionary,
The Human Condition by Hannah Arendt, a biography of the civil rights
leader Ella Baker, Capital by Karl Marx, The Absolutely True Diary of a
Part-time Indian by Sherman Alexie. Were it not for the back copies of
English Education and RTE on a bottom shelf, anyone wandering into my
study could be forgiven for thinking that this is the collection of someone
who had switched undergraduate majors three or four times.
That I am usually untroubled by my uncertainty is due in part to evi-
dence that many English teacher educators share my sense of the eclectic
nature of our work. To summarize the, “Beliefs statement: What is English
education?” (2007) that emerged from the 2005 CEE Conference and
Policy Summit, our field encompasses “interdisciplinary inquiry” into the
teaching and learning of English, as well as the preparation and support of
teachers who “prepare learners to be creative, literate individuals; contribu-
tors to the cultural, social, and economic health of their communities; and
fully participating and critically aware citizens of our democracy in a com-
plex, diverse, and increasingly globalized world.” Though this description
of what we English educators do is accurate and as precise as it can reason-
ably be, it also indicates the expansiveness of our analytical and methodo-
logical horizons. Moreover, while implying an ethical rationale for what we
do, the statement also invites multiple interpretations of what, for instance,
a “creative, literate individual” is and how to help young people grow as
xiii
xiv FOREWORD

“critically aware citizens.” As a profession, then, it seems that we English

educators are in an ongoing position similar to that of a person who
ponders existential questions best considered at once: Who am I? What
should I do, and why?
The authors who have contributed to this book are deeply engaged in
innovative explorations of these questions, and this book is needed now
precisely because
to paraphrase the epigraph to this Foreword
it is
essential to ennoble, apply, and adapt the virtuous work previously accom-
plished in our field to our present situations. Because teaching and learning
is inevitably grounded in practice, any such adaptations, any renewed
understandings of our identities and aims as English educators, cannot
remain exclusively in the realm of abstract speculation; rather, these under-
standings will emerge as contingent responses to students as we encounter
them in particular places and times.
It is due to this “groundedness” of our work that
as Cori McKenzie,
Michael Macaluso, and Kati Macaluso suggest in Chapter 1
the question
of “what” we do is inseparable from the “why.” For my part, among the
many questions that contribute to my confusion as I work at this what/why
intersection is whether I should teach students reading and writing because
they offer personal enrichment and enjoyment of life or whether this view
is a bourgeois luxury, a self-indulgent evasion of my responsibility to help
students master the dominant discourses that often increase people’s access
to desirable careers. I wonder, too, whether the emphasis in my methods
classes on emerging technologies liberates students to create and exchange
ideas or whether these digital literacies are alienating and corrosive to con-
versations that would otherwise unfold in the physical presence of others.
But of all the questions I grapple with, the one that perhaps best repre-
sents a convergence of our professional desires to do some good in this
world is this: How can we English educators teach to promote social
justice? As Deborah Bieler and Leslie David Burns astutely point out in
this book, any attempt to answer that question must be provisional, and
because I think that’s true, I find myself continually unsettled by writers
who raise additional questions regarding what is possible or acceptable in
teaching for social justice, even if provisionally so. Reinhold Niebuhr, for-
instance, had little patience for “sociologists and educators” who believed
that inequities could be ameliorated by improving people through school-
ing and the cultivation of collective intelligence. Instead, Niebuhr (1932/
2013) argued that “when collective power … exploits weakness, it can never
be dislodged unless power is raised against it” (p. xii). This dismissal of
pursuing justice through an informed communitarianism is taken a step
Foreword xv

further by Slavoj Zizek, who insists that those who struggle for meaningful
freedom from structural violence must at times engage in “divine violence”

which is “divine” precisely because it results in justice (2008, p. 162).
As much as this posture of overt antagonism seems at odds with our
best intentions or unit plans, Jacques Ranciére goes so far as to say that
teachers’ role as “master explicators” is fundamentally incompatible with
democratizing politics. In Ranciére’s view, we educators get it wrong by
assuming an intellectual inequality between us and our students, and this
inevitably establishes a hierarchy of knowledge and status that perpetuates
and justifies social inequality. The sole alternative, Ranciére insists, is to
commit ourselves to the idea that “equality [is] not an end to attain, but a
point of departure, a supposition to maintain in every circumstance” (1991,
p. 138). To Ranciére, only from this radically egalitarian starting point can
an intermittent politics emerge as individuals verify their status as equal
subjects, and they do this by thinking and acting in ways that create dissen-
sus in the existing sociopolitical order (2004). As Ranciére sees it, this kind
of intellectual and political “emancipation” is something we simply can’t
teach (1991. p. 133). Why? Because the moment we begin to explain things
to others, we re-establish an intellectual hierarchy and its attendant
inequalities.
For my purposes here, these writers do not just disrupt the paradigms of
progressivism and critical pedagogy that we have relied upon to affirm
what Bieler and Burns call the “critical centrality” of social justice in
English education; rather, they also pose a direct challenge to what might
uncharitably be called our pretensions to political relevance. To the extent
that such challenges leave us unsettled, even confounded, they confirm the
need for a book that, as Heidi L. Hallman describes this one, “intends to
capture the spirit of disciplinary change.” This notion of “disciplinary
change” is, by my lights, worth underscoring, for it implies not alterations
to a relatively stable field of scholarship, but an acknowledgment that a
central feature of English education is
as de Man (1986) said of literary
theory
“the impossibility of its definition” (p. 3). Viewed in this way, to
become an English educator is to enter into an endless process of collective
self-critique and contested re-creation.
But if English education is characterized by a perpetual lack of agree-
ment regarding who we are, what we should do, and why, I think it’s
crucial that we understand such uncertainty not as a problem to be solved,
but as a condition to be celebrated. From this perspective, to cultivate
habits of disciplinary agility and intellectual humility is among our highest
obligations as we seek out and set forth a constantly expanding repertoire
xvi FOREWORD

of ways to think and talk about issues we have found to be worthy of our
attention. None of us is smart enough to do this on his or her own; no one
has the time or expertise to delve into all the sub-specialties that are rele-
vant to the preparation of ELA teachers. For this we must rely on each
other, and the value of such mutual dependency and trust is admirably illu-
strated in the chapters that follow.

Todd DeStigter
Department of English,
University of Illinois at Chicago,
Chicago, IL, USA

REFERENCES

Addams, J. (1912/2002). A modern Lear. In J. B. Elshtain (Ed.), The Jane Addams reader
(pp. 163
176). New York, NY: Basic Books.
Alsup, J., Alvine, L., Blau, S., Calder, R., DeBlase, G., DeStigter, T., … Yagelski, R. (2007).
Beliefs statement: What is English education? Conference on English Education.
Retrieved from http://www.ncte.org/cee/positions/whatisenglished
de Man, P. (1986). The resistance to theory. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Niebuhr, R. (1932/2013). Moral man and immoral society: A study in ethics and politics.
Louisville, KY: John Knox Press.
Ranciére, J. (1991). The ignorant schoolmaster: Five lessons in intellectual emancipation.
Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Ranciére, J. (2004). Dis-agreement: Politics and philosophy. Minneapolis, MN: University of
Minnesota Press.
Zizek, S. (2008). In defense of lost causes. New York, NY: Verso.
EDITOR’S INTRODUCTION TO
INNOVATIONS IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE
ARTS TEACHER EDUCATION

This is a book primarily for teacher educators who wish to contemplate

“innovations” in the field of English Language Arts teacher education.
Some scholars have called for a new English education (Kirkland, 2008,
2010), one that, in part, acknowledges the multiple languages and literacies
that students bring to the classroom. Others, including Swenson, Young,
McGrail, Rozema, and Whitlin (2006) have claimed that the field of
English teacher education has been altered by the prevalence of new
technologies, thereby urging a reconsideration of everything from what a
text is to how mainstream discourses collide with students’ home languages.
Changes in the discipline, including the definition of “literacy” itself as
moving away from a neutral skill-set and toward sociocultural, situated
understandings (Gee, 1996; Street, 2003), have produced a much more
expansive understanding of literacy and of what teachers of English lan-
guage arts do. This book intends to capture the spirit of disciplinary change
and do this with the goal of excitement, possibility, and hope.
The book also aims to engage with the history of the teaching of
English. Part II moves toward articulating innovative lenses for preparing
prospective teachers to teach English language arts. Squire (2003) notes
that the models of secondary English language arts curriculum discussed at
the 1966 Dartmouth Seminar, the skills model, the cultural heritage model,
and the personal experience model
sometimes called process model

have remained salient, even today. These models have not been without
criticisms. The skills model, stressing functional literacy, has been criticized
for focusing too much on the acquisition of “correct” grammar, vocabu-
lary, and spelling, and in so doing, has ignored other possible dimensions
of the English curriculum. The cultural heritage model, stressing the need
for a culturally unifying English curricular content and intending to fill a
void left by the skills model, does not ultimately fill this void for it takes
culture as a given. Instead of drawing on students’ backgrounds and experi-
ences to create a definition of culture, culture is viewed as something
xvii
xviii INTRODUCTION

outside of students’ own experiences. Yet, the personal experience model,

the model that Dixon most aligns himself with in his seminal text, Growth
through English (1967), is still very much alive in the English language arts.
Part II of the book, with its emphasis on viewing students’ lives as mean-
ingful components of curriculum, sustains what Dixon hoped to do for the
discipline: move from an attempt to define “‘What English is’
a question
that maintains the emphasis on nouns like skills and proficiencies, set books,
and heritage
to a definition by process, a description of the activities we
engage in through language” (Dixon, 2003, p. 7, italics in original). Part II
is rich with the possibility of process.
An emphasis on process and experience is carried into the final section
of the book, Part III, which focuses on social justice and partnership-
oriented approaches to English language arts teacher education. As
Kirkland (2008, 2010) notes, the new English Education is committed to
diversity, technology, and hybridity, and is both a reaction to and an inter-
action with the current state of language in our world. In urban areas espe-
cially, a changing student demographic affects schooling because of
linguistic and cultural pluralism and the predominance of technology in
communication and literacy practices. Part III of the book aims to look
more deeply at how relationships might be fostered between teacher educa-
tion and the partners
the schools, communities, teachers, and students

that are so critical to the future of English teacher education.
The final section of the book contains the heart and soul of English
teacher education today; that is, it urges prospective English teachers to
embrace and understand the new English education and to undergo a meta-
phorical passage from an alignment with the standardized, white, schooled
literacy to a pluralistic understanding and acceptance of what literacy is and
can be. Within our postmodern educational setting, we must educate
teachers to grapple with unsettling ideas, as described by Kirkland, “in
which authority is de-centered, notions of truth are questioned and ques-
tionable, grand narratives are deconstructed, knowledge is functional, and
Englishes are plural” (2010, p. 232). Prospective teachers must become, as
Kirkland invites, brave enough to follow the seemingly radical literacy
expressions of their trailblazing students (2008, p. 74). But, in complicating
how prospective teachers see literacy, Part III stresses that the relational
spaces of teacher-student, official-unofficial language, singular authority-
pluralistic power, server-served must also be complicated. These hierarchical
relationships are the “grand narratives” that must be deconstructed. Part III
leaves us with the hope that, as teachers, teacher educators, and researchers
in English language arts education, this can be realized.
Introduction xix

REFERENCES

Dixon, J. (1967). Growth through English. Champaign, IL: National Council of Teachers
of English.
Dixon, J. (2003). Historical considerations: An international perspective. In J. Flood,
D. Lapp, J. R. Squire, & J. Jensen (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching the English
language arts (pp. 18
23). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Gee, J. P. (1996). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses (2nd ed.). Philadelphia,
PA: Falmer Press.
Kirkland, D. (2008). “The rose that grew from concrete”: Postmodern blackness and new
English education. English Journal, 97(5), 69
75.
Kirkland, D. (2010). Englishes in urban contexts: Politics, pluralism, and possibilities. English
Education, 42(3), 293
306.
Squire, J. R. (2003). The history of the profession. In J. Flood, D. Lapp, J. R. Squire, &
J. Jensen (Eds.), Handbook of research on the teaching the English language arts
(pp. 3
17). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Swenson, J., Young, C. A., McGrail, E., Rozema, R., & Whitin, P. (2006). Extending the con-
versation: New technologies, new literacies, and English education. English Education,
38(4), 351
369.
Street, B. (2003). What’s ‘new’ in the new literacy studies? Current Issues in Comparative and
International Education, 5(2), 77
91.
This page intentionally left blank
 PART I
TOWARD A BROADER VISION OF
ENGLISH TEACHER EDUCATION
This page intentionally left blank
SECTION INTRODUCTION TO
PART I

Heidi L. Hallman

Part I of the book highlights the changing landscape of English language

arts teacher education. In the chapter “Finding Footholds in a
Construction Zone: Navigating the Discourses of English Language Arts
with Pre-Service Teachers in the 21st Century,” Cori McKenzie, Michael
Macaluso, and Kati Macaluso help us recognize the discursive construction
of English language arts as a school subject. The authors follow Brass’s
(2014) assertion that the field of English language arts has expanded and
shifted primarily due to the influence of two trends: the rise of literacy as a
field of study and the proliferation of critical fields of education. In this
opening chapter, the authors provide us with insight about how we might
embark on helping prospective teachers of English understand these shifts.
Through an activity focused on mapping the intersections of definitions
and trends in English language arts teacher education, McKenzie,
Macaluso, and Macaluso emphasize the constructed nature of English as a
school subject. The next chapter, the chapter “Preparing English Teachers
for Today’s Context: Researching Effective Practice through Methods
Courses,” by Donna L. Pasternak, Samantha Caughlan, Heidi L. Hallman,
Laura Renzi, and Leslie Rush, seeks to position the changing terrain of
English language arts within the current context of methods courses that
focus on the teaching of English. In this chapter, the authors highlight how
five new areas of emphasis in English language arts methods courses have
emerged throughout the past 20 years. In so doing, they give voice to what
a reimagined methods course might be that will prepare prospective
English teachers for today’s classrooms. Finally, in the chapter “Advocacy,
Humanity, and Hope in the Face of an Education World Gone Wrong,”
Shelbie Witte and Christian Z. Goering acknowledge the political
landscape of teacher education in the current era. Through referencing the
current context in which teachers must operate within and beyond their
3
4 SECTION INTRODUCTION TO PART I

U.S.-based classrooms, Witte and Goering balance “reality” with “hope.”

By examining different approaches that the authors have used with pro-
spective teachers, this chapter, through multiple vignettes, creates a deeper
understanding of both the realities that prospective teachers face and the
ways in which they can efficaciously face these realities and help reclaim
the profession of teaching.

REFERENCE

Brass, J. (2014). Reconstituting teacher education: Literacy, critical theories, and English. In
J. Brass & A. Webb (Eds.), Reclaiming English language arts methods courses: Critical
issues and challenges for teacher educators in top-down times (pp. 1
21). New York,
NY: Routledge.
FINDING FOOTHOLDS IN A
CONSTRUCTION ZONE:
NAVIGATING THE DISCOURSES
OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS
WITH PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN
THE 21ST CENTURY

Cori McKenzie, Michael Macaluso and

Kati Macaluso

ABSTRACT

The varying traditions, goals, paradigms, and discourses associated with

English language arts (ELA) underscore the degree to which there is not
one school subject English, but many “Englishes.” In a neoliberal con-
text, where movements like standardization and accountability stake
claims about what ELA should be and do in the world, teachers, espe-
cially beginning teachers, can struggle to navigate the tensions engen-
dered by these many and contradictory “Englishes.” This chapter attends
to this struggle and delineates a process by which English Educators
might illustrate the field’s vast and ever-changing terrain and support

Innovations in English Language Arts Teacher Education

Advances in Research on Teaching, Volume 27, 5
26
Copyright r 2017 by Emerald Publishing Limited
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved
ISSN: 1479-3687/doi:10.1108/S1479-368720170000027001
5
6 CORI MCKENZIE ET AL.

beginning teachers as they locate themselves in ELA. In delineating

this process, we argue that in order to see and navigate the field in a
neoliberal era, ELA teachers should treat the field as a discursive
construction, constantly re-constructed by the dynamic play of social,
political, and economic discourses. We argue that in treating the field as a
discursive construction and exploring and locating themselves within the
terrain, ELA teachers, rather than feeling powerless in the face of neolib-
eral forces, can leverage these different discursive forces, and gain footing
in their classrooms, schools, and extracurricular communities to navigate
the coexistence of many “Englishes” and argue for their pedagogical
choices.
Keywords: English language arts discourses; English teacher
education; school subject of English

INTRODUCTION: MICHAEL’S REFLECTION

The first time I taught a secondary English Language Arts (ELA) methods
course, I found it difficult to discuss the what and how of this school subject
without considering the purposes that give shape to it. In the opening weeks of
our year-long course, my pre-service teachers and I read Gere’s (1992) “Why
Teach English?” which delineates six often-conflicting purposes that have
shaped the teaching of English over the last 115 years: to improve morality,
to prepare good workers, to create an elite, to produce good citizens, to foster
personal growth, and to offset inequity. I thought this outline of purposes
might serve as a source of justification or inspiration for pre-service teachers’
own pedagogical and curricular decision-making, grounding them in a particu-
lar paradigm or paradigms of ELA.
At the end of the year, my pre-service teachers drafted teaching philoso-
phies intended to reflect their grounding in a particular paradigm of ELA.
My hope was that these articulations might help them to be mindful of their
ideological commitments as they transitioned into their year-long internship
placements and, eventually, their full-time teaching careers. I remember one
student’s
Anthony’s
most vividly. He chose to focus on “critical lan-
guage awareness,” referring to language as “the playground for the soul”
and “the purest expression of our humanity.” He hoped that his English
classroom might be a place where his students could see that “Language is
Finding Footholds in a Construction Zone 7

the place where our identities are created and constructed.” Importantly,
Anthony also recognized that his future students may come from many dif-
ferent backgrounds, and he wanted to honor students’ diverse language
practices, saying,

Language is power. This fact is often forgotten in our schools, where teachers wield words
like a weapon, granting and revoking their students the right to speak on little more than
whims. What happens to a young Mexican-American girl who moves to America and is
told by her teacher that if she speaks Spanish in her classroom she will be given
after-school detention? Or an African American boy who is told by his White teachers that
ain’t isn’t a word, and that ‘It’s pronounced ask not aks?’ A part of her dies; a part of him
simply ceases to be.

Anthony’s version of ELA, as he saw it, was to foster inclusion and plurality,
especially with regard to students’ heritage languages and language practices.
He even wrote about the possibilities of having students share examples of or
complete assignments in their heritage language so that they might see their
own backgrounds and identities for what they were: assets. Anthony’s teach-
ing philosophy inspired me, and I found myself excited for both him and his
future students as he set out to do this important work.
I remember Anthony’s teaching philosophy for a second reason, as well

a reason that didn’t materialize until I received a written reflection from
Anthony a year later as he was completing his full-time, pre-service internship
at a local high school. This reflection completely departed from his original
teaching philosophy:

My mentor and the school in which I am placed frame the teaching of English in more eco-
nomical terms, less abstract terms. By that, I mean there is a big push at the school to pre-
pare the students, specifically the juniors, for eventually taking the ACT test. English,
therefore, is seen more as a means to an end, but we do know what’s best for our students.
After all, a command of academic English will help them get into college, and they have
been taught English for hundreds of years. It’s a core subject. It’s their mother tongue for
goodness sake!

It seemed that Anthony had completely lost his footing in his own imagined
paradigm for teaching ELA, and this new vision of the ELA classroom
seemed more than just a “fitting in” with the school culture or standardized
tests; it seemed an endorsement of an entirely different purpose for ELA.
I was frustrated not with Anthony, but with myself, as a teacher educator, for
not having done more to help beginning teachers like Anthony find their foot-
ing in a disciplinary terrain that is constantly morphing as teachers move
across contexts.
8 CORI MCKENZIE ET AL.

MANY PARADIGMS OF ELA AND WHAT THEY MAY

MEAN FOR ENGLISH TEACHER PREPARATION
There are many ways to read Michael’s reflection. One way might be to
dwell on Anthony’s imagining of a paradigm in excess of the ones Gere
(1992) outlined in her delineation of the historical purposes for teaching
English language arts. This angle resonates with the claims of scholars like
Brass (2014) who have noted the ever-expanding and shifting boundaries of
ELA in the wake of contemporary trends in research and policy, including
the rise of “literacy” as a field of study, the proliferation of “critical” fields
of education and the growing emphasis on standardization and account-
ability. In other words, ELA as a school subject is not a single, stable,
monolithic entity but rather one that
as a discursive construction
is
rife with possibility. As modalities, languages, and identities give way to
increasing plurality, what might be possible in the ELA classroom is open
to myriad possibilities and visionary imagining
not unlike the sort of
visionary imagining Anthony did in the first iteration of his teaching philo-
sophy in Mike’s methods course.
Of course, the ever-shifting and expanding boundaries of English lan-
guage arts can also lend an unwieldiness to the teaching of this school
subject. Brass (2014), for example, has noted that the proliferation
of discourses that push and pull on what ELA can and should be makes it
difficult for “teacher educators, teachers and graduate students to stay
abreast of the field’s proliferating theories, languages, practices and subject
positions” (p. 125). The unwieldiness of the school subject English can also
contribute to what scholars (Luke, 2004; Sperling & DiPardo, 2008) have
referred to as an “incoherence” that spills over into teachers’ curricula
and pedagogy. Incoherence carries with it a negative connotation, similar
to the observations of Brauer and Clark (2008) who note that the
“competing mandates” that influence the field of English Language Arts
make it difficult for teachers to approach their work with a sense of
purpose.
Importantly, this incoherence may be especially difficult for beginning
teachers to navigate. Much work in teacher education has shown that the
impact of university teacher education programs is “washed out” by new
teachers’ experiences in schools (Zeichner & Tabachnick, 1981) and that
new teachers struggle to navigate the competing influences of university
education programs and public schools, a phenomenon Feiman-Nemser
and Buchmann (1983) refer to as the “two-worlds pitfall.” Scholars in the
field of English Education have echoed this work, arguing that new ELA
Finding Footholds in a Construction Zone 9

teachers find themselves pulled by a number of “competing centers of grav-

ity” (Smagorinsky, Rhym, & Moore, 2013) that produce “a kaleidoscope
of perspectives on effective instruction” that are often in conflict (p. 147).
The existence of these competing perspectives means that new teachers
must build their pedagogy on “multiple and even, at least theoretically,
competing or incompatible paradigms” (Bickmore, Smagorinsky, &
O’Donnell-Allen, 2005, p. 24). The “many ELAs,” then, can result in a dis-
jointedness across school, administrators’, and teachers’ visions that looks
like the disjointedness Mike observed in Anthony’s juxtaposed reflections.
One of many competing mandates that give rise to potential disjointed-
ness is the mandate of standardization and accountability, which scholars
(Brass, 2015) have posited might threaten to curb conceptions of what ELA
can be and do. As part of a neoliberal discourse that mobilizes economic
values, prioritizes technical-instrumentalism, and cultivates an audit culture,
the standardization and accountability movement threatens to undermine
the more aesthetic, ethical, personal, and critical dimensions of English
teaching (Patterson, 2000) and can be considered one of the forces that con-
verges to perpetuate conservative notions of teaching and learning in ELA
classrooms (Smagorinsky, 2010). Indeed, as Smagorinsky, Jakubiak, and
Moore (2008) note, when many goals collide, it is often the “goals of the
most powerful people and groups” that “predominate” (p. 443). It makes
sense, then, that a number of ELA scholars have noted the impact that a
focus on standards and accountability has on teachers’ abilities to enact
competing perspectives of teaching and learning in the English classroom.
Fecho, Price, and Read (2004), for example, begin their study by noting how
difficult it is for pre-service ELA teachers to imagine facilitating an inquiry-
based classroom in an age of standardization while Skerrett (2009) uses a
case study to show how standardization of curriculum discourages a white
beginning ELA teacher from moving toward “more sustained multicultural
and antiracist educational practices” (p. 298).
The work of Smagorinsky (2010), Fecho et al. (2004) and Skerrett (2009)
suggests that when teachers and classrooms are pulled by competing visions
of ELA, it decreases the chance that teachers will enact radical or progres-
sive visions of ELA that are built on concepts like critical English (Morrell,
2005), Youth Participatory Action Research (Mirra, Filipiak, & Garcia,
2015), culturally sustaining pedagogies (Paris, 2012), translanguaging
(Canagarajah, 2011), and inquiry-based instruction (Fecho, 2004). Thus,
when teachers struggle to navigate competing paradigms of ELA, it not only
jeopardizes their ability to approach their teaching with purpose and coher-
ence, it also makes it unlikely that they will enact progressive pedagogies.
10 CORI MCKENZIE ET AL.

A number of scholars have considered how teacher education programs

might help students navigate a disjointed field beset by accountability and
standardization mandates. Some scholars (Anagnostopoulos, Smith, &
Basmadjian, 2007; Meyer & Sawyer, 2006; Zuidema, 2012) study the intern
or student-teaching experience, focusing on how the relationship between
university and school might become more aligned so that new teachers do
not feel the strong pull of multiple paradigms of ELA. Other scholars have
considered how the methods class might help students navigate the collision
between competing visions of ELA. Smagorinsky et al. (2008) suggest that
teacher educators prepare pre-service teachers by “explicitly helping them
to identify the notions of good teaching at play in their work settings and
outline the theoretical underpinnings and practical consequences of each”
(p. 453). Smagorinsky et al. (2013) echo this sentiment, calling on teacher
preparation programs to invite pre-service teachers to explore artifacts
written from multiple perspectives and analyze the underlying assumptions
and possible consequences of each perspective.
Like Smagorinsky et al. (2008) and Smagorinsky et al. (2013), we are
interested in exploring what teacher education classes can do to help pre-
pare pre-service teachers like Anthony for the collision of paradigms that
they will experience in their internship classroom. To this end, we look at
one activity from an introductory unit in Kati and Cori’s ELA methods
course
a matrix-building exercise
designed to help pre-service teachers
recognize the competing paradigms of English and orient their pedagogical
and curricular commitments in relation to ELA’s multiple and shifting
paradigms. We then share our analysis of different ways that pre-service
teachers made use of the underlying concepts behind this matrix-building
exercise to negotiate relationships and decisions while out in the field.

FINDING FOOTING IN THE DISCURSIVELY

CONSTRUCTED TERRAIN OF ENGLISH
LANGUAGE ARTS
We conceive of the different paradigms of ELA as discursively constructed,
as part and parcel to the multiple discourses that give rise to what different
stakeholders and traditions posit as the purpose(s) of the ELA classroom.
ELA, in other words, is always in the process of being shaped by varying
and competing discourses, or systematic ways of being, thinking, doing,
feeling, and speaking. Discourses create possibilities for thought, generate
Finding Footholds in a Construction Zone 11

rules about knowledge and ways of knowing, and shape individuals’ experi-
ences and subjectivities. Therefore, different stakeholders may advance
their own discursively constructed paradigm(s) of English as unquestioned
sources of truth or authority
We argue, however, that, as a discursive
construction, the school subject English is constantly made and re-made by
the dynamic play of social, ethical, political, and economic discourses.
Furthermore, we argue that ELA teachers can better navigate the field and
their ongoing negotiations with multiple, and even competing stakeholders,
by recognizing ELA’s discursive constructedness. This recognition, we feel,
invites teachers to consider where they stand in relation to these multiple
discourses, and
rather than conceiving of any one discourse as single,
monologic, and authoritative (Bakhtin, 1981)
leaves open the possibility
for teachers to leverage different discourse(s) without losing their footing in
the ELA paradigm(s) to which they feel most committed.
Scholars in the field have used a variety of metaphors to represent the
act of navigating the multiple purposes for and perspectives on ELA.
Hallman (2015), for example, refers to this navigation act as “shape-
shifting,” while Smagorinsky, Lakly, and Johnson (2002) refer to the move-
ment toward and away from school-sanctioned perspectives on ELA a
“waltz” (p. 211). For our part, we borrow the concept of “footing” from
Goffman (1974, 1981). Footing, quite simply, is “the stance or alignment”
(Wine, 2008, p. 2) that individuals take up in any context or social situation
and describes how individuals negotiate relationships, events, or interac-
tions. One key aspect of footing, as the term implies, is its maneuverability;
individuals can momentarily shift their footing in word or in deed to pro-
ject a certain stance about themselves, about others, or about some event
or relationship. Goffman describes this shifting as “the capacity of a dex-
terous speaker to jump back and forth, keeping different circles in play”
(1981, p. 156). We imagine the “different circles” to be the different para-
digms of English language arts, and we imagine the dexterous teacher to be
the one capable of drawing from multiple discourses while still maintaining
her footing (or simply “one foot”) in her own paradigm(s).
If a dexterous teacher is one that can shift their footing and keep a vari-
ety of circles in play, then when a beginning teacher like Anthony forgets
or rejects his prior beliefs about ELA, it suggests that he has moved himself
far from his earlier stance and it is no longer “a circle in play” (p. 156). We
posit that one way to grow into a dexterous teacher is to encourage pre-
service and intern teachers to notice and identify the different paradigms at
play in their schools and classrooms. Such work may help students keep at
least one foot in their own paradigms of ELA, even as they are pushed and
12 CORI MCKENZIE ET AL.

pulled by the clash of other perspectives on the purpose of ELA. Working

from this assumption, we argue that our pre-service teachers’ uptake of a
matrix-building exercise underscores the value of helping teachers see the
discursively constructed nature of ELA and locate their own commitments
within and among the school subject’s discursively constructed paradigms.
In the rest of this chapter, we explain the matrix-building activity, along
with our rationale behind it. We then offer a series of portraits that capture
the ways pre-service teachers made use of explicit talk about ELA’s discur-
sively constructed paradigms to maintain their footing while out in
the field.

MAPPING THE DISCURSIVELY CONSTRUCTED

TERRAIN IN AN ENGLISH METHODS COURSE
The matrix-building activity that we discuss in this chapter took place in a
middle and high school ELA methods course at a large Midwestern uni-
versity in the United States during the 2014
2015 academic year.
Students attended this methods course during year four of a five-year tea-
cher education program, and it was the first ELA-specific methods course
these students encountered in their program of study. It served largely as
a foundational course in anticipation of pre-service teachers’ enrollment
in a year-long internship in their fifth and final year, where, in a local
middle or high school, pre-service teachers taught under the mentorship
of a full-time classroom teacher and the supervision of a university
field instructor.
Michael, Kati, and Cori taught multiple sections of this fourth-year
introductory English language arts methods course, Kati and Cori two
years after Michael taught Anthony in his methods course. Cori also
followed six of these fourth-year pre-service teachers into their fifth-year
internship, where she served as their field instructor. As their field instruc-
tor, Cori enjoyed opportunities to observe beginning teachers’ instruction
and witness them reflect on their planning, teaching, and interactions with
students, fellow teachers, and administrators.
Our interest in helping students to navigate the many paradigms of ELA
emerged shortly after Mike realized that his student Anthony had drastically
shifted his beliefs about the purpose of ELA over the course of his internship
year. In casual conversations, the three of us grappled with Anthony’s tran-
sition and wondered how a methods course might help pre-service teachers
Finding Footholds in a Construction Zone 13

to be dexterous in their internship year. Kati and Cori carried this concern
with them as they planned and designed their English methods course for
the 2014
2015 school year. Having learned from Michael’s case of
Anthony, Kati and Cori felt they needed to begin their methods course with
a mapping exercise that called pre-service teachers’ attention the discursively
constructed nature of ELA. Throughout the first several weeks of the course,
students read an array of articles and book chapters exposing them to the
multiple discourses that have given form to the disciplinary content and
purpose(s) underlying English language arts. As a class, they entered into
these readings with an interest in surfacing authors’ implicit and explicit
understandings of the aims of English. In light of the more current neolib-
eral discourse of testing, accountability, and standardization that has not
only narrowed educational purposes, but also originated from sources other
than teachers themselves (Brass, 2015), Kati and Cori were adamant that
pre-service teachers do more than map themselves onto some static snapshot
of the disciplinary terrain; all three of us felt strongly that pre-service
teachers needed to participate in the field’s made-ness and construct that
terrain themselves, in conversation with other voices from the field (see the
appendix for one version of the matrix the class co-constructed).
The result was a matrix that pre-service teachers constructed first in
small groups and then collectively as a class, using the table features of
Google Docs to complete a graphic organizer with dimensions that shifted
throughout our year-long methods experience together. Though the organi-
zation of the matrix was very much in-flux throughout the introductory
unit, our pre-service teachers decided that the left-most column would be
organized around what they called the “paradigms” of English language
arts. Moving across the various columns of the matrix, pre-service teachers
sought to unpack the ways of knowing, saying, doing, feeling, and believing
that give rise to these paradigms, and to associate those ways of knowing,
saying, doing, feeling, and believing with other scholarly, policy, and/or
practitioner voices in the field of English language arts.
Students’ naming and elaboration of the paradigms reflected multiple
discourses. In the matrix our pre-service teachers constructed, we could see
evidence of the “college and career ready” purpose of education (a para-
digm they named “prepare for the future”), as well as more critical and
culturally sustaining discourses (evident in the “sustain multiple cultures”
paradigm, “promote critical consciousness” paradigm, and the “cultivate
identity formation” paradigm). We also sensed the impact of New Literacies
Studies in the “seek and create meaning using multiple literacies” paradigm,
and what Applebee (1974) might call the “traditions” of English language
14 CORI MCKENZIE ET AL.

arts, with pre-service teachers labeling two of their paradigms “promote

shared cultural heritage” and “promote aesthetic appreciation.”

DEXTEROUS TEACHING: FINDING AND

MAINTAINING FOOTING OUT IN THE FIELD
In this portion of the chapter, we provide portraits of four interns who took
up the language of the matrix in one way or another during their internship
year. The data used to write these portraits comes from coursework our pre-
service teachers completed throughout the methods course and from inter-
views conducted with these pre-service teachers (now intern-level teachers)
about their alignment with particular paradigms, their school’s, administra-
tors’, and mentor teacher’s alignment with particular paradigms, as well as
specific instances when these paradigms have come into contact. We triangu-
lated this interview data with Cori’s observations of the interns out in the
field in her role as field instructor. The four teachers whose experiences we
sketch below
Jeff, Jaz, Amy, and Samantha
volunteered to talk with
Cori about the ways they used
or did not use
the matrix language while
planning, teaching, and/or reflecting on their work as interns. Because
students volunteered to be interviewed, we do not treat their experiences as
generalizable data, and we make no claims about the effects of this matrix-
building activity; instead, we offer these four portraits as a way to gesture
toward possible ways that the activity could be taken up by intern teachers
and the ways in which the matrix activity may encourage a level of dexterity
that allows students to shift
but not totally lose
their footing in
the field.

Jeff

Jeff is a white man in his mid-20s who was placed in a British literature
classroom at a rural high school. Most of his students were white.
Throughout our methods class, Jeff showed a great deal of interest in hip-
hop pedagogies (he performs in a local hip-hop group), digital literacies,
and the way literature, especially American literature, might be used to
engage students in questions about race, oppression, and privilege. As an
intern teacher, Jeff continued to grapple with these interests and explicitly
Finding Footholds in a Construction Zone 15

aligned himself with the paradigms of supporting multiple literacies and, to

some degree, cultivating critical consciousness.
Jeff’s concern for supporting multiple literacies was evident in his
efforts to bring hip-hop and digital literacies into his classroom. During a
unit on Renaissance poetry, for example, Jeff paired Kanye West’s
Homecoming with a Renaissance poem and asked students to compare
and contrast the way that West engages with the urban space of Chicago
and the poet describes rural spaces. During the same unit, Jeff borrowed a
technique from the popular Rap Genius website and asked students to
collectively annotate poetry and hip-hop songs using the comment feature
on Google Docs. Finally, in this same unit, he had his students to com-
plete a “renaissance remix project,” which required students to sing, rap,
and/or recite a renaissance poem with well-chosen background music.
The work Jeff did to bring hip-hop and digital literacies into his unit on
renaissance poetry was made easier by the fact that his mentor teacher
had explicitly challenged Jeff to find ways to unite students’ out of school
literacy practices with the academic literacy practices of the British litera-
ture classroom.
Jeff acknowledged that his commitment to fostering critical conscious-
ness was more difficult to enact. One reason it was more difficult was
because Jeff realized that talking about systems of oppression and privilege
would require him to critique
and encourage his students to critique

the canonical British literature curriculum of his mentor’s classroom.
Because he believed that critiquing the curriculum may cause tension with
his mentor teacher, Jeff looked for small moments when he could engage
students in conversations around how language and literature perpetuate
power structures, but he did not create a full lesson or unit around this
vision of ELA because he did not want to be “confrontational” with his
mentor teacher. We read Jeff’s decision to pursue a focus on sustaining
multiple literacies and to suspend, for now, his focus on teaching for criti-
cal consciousness as a sacrifice that Jeff has made in order to cultivate a
strong relationship with his mentor teacher while still maintaining his foot-
ing in his own vision for his ELA classroom. Although we are disappointed
that Jeff’s concern for critical consciousness was momentarily set aside,
Jeff’s ability to reflect on why he did not pursue this vision of ELA suggests
that the goal of promoting critical consciousness never been far from Jeff’s
mind. We are hopeful, then, that Jeff’s awareness of his decision not to pur-
sue this goal and the fact that he attempted to find small ways to enact the
goal means that when he has his own classroom, he will do more to foster
critical consciousness.
16 CORI MCKENZIE ET AL.

Jaz

Jaz is an African American woman in her mid-20s who taught a variety of

high school English classes at her suburban placement. The majority of
Jaz’s students are white, though she did have a few African American,
Latin@ and African students in her classes. In our fourth-year methods
class, Jaz brought a variety of interests and concerns to the table. She
showed a great interest in diversifying what counts as a text and opening
the English curriculum to video games, film, animated series, hip-hop,
etc., and she was
and continues to be
deeply committed to thinking
about systems of oppression and privilege. It makes sense, then, that
when she reflected on her field placement, she noted that at one time
or another she has aligned herself with nearly all of the paradigms, includ-
ing culturally sustaining pedagogies, college and career readiness,
and fostering critical consciousness, depending on what she is teaching.
Importantly, she noted that she does not necessarily use the language
of the paradigms to describe her goals or the goals that other stakeholders
bring to her classrooms; instead, as she explained, she “feels the air”
around the different stakeholders she interacts with in order to see if
her approach to ELA will be aligned with or at odds with their
perspectives.
One salient example of this occurred over winter break when Jaz built a
unit around digital storytelling for her creative writing class. Jaz wanted to
create a unit that asked students to select a social justice issue important to
them, write a story that dramatizes the issue, turn the story into a digital
text (a film, vine, etc.), and then upload the text to a website where it could
be shared with an authentic audience. As she imagined it, the unit would
work toward two goals: supporting multiple literacies (in this case, digital
literacies) and promoting critical consciousness. When she brought her unit
to her mentor teacher, however, she noticed he was hesitant about having
students write stories rooted in a social justice issue. One of his concerns
was that the art of storytelling might get lost in the process. He was also
worried about how Jaz would efficiently teach students how to digitize and
publish the stories. Jaz was disappointed after her conversation, but she
returned to her unit with a new understanding of her mentor teacher’s com-
mitments and beliefs about the purposes of ELA. This perspective allowed
her, she says, to decide what in the unit she was willing to sacrifice in order
to make space for more of a focus on the storytelling practices her mentor
teacher prioritized. In her interview, Jaz explained that she imagines that
there is a circle around the kinds of lesson and unit plans that fit with her
Finding Footholds in a Construction Zone 17

mentor teacher’s vision of ELA. The conversation she had over winter
break gave Jaz a sense of “the circle she needed to be in” (a metaphor that
matches Goffman’s about shifting footing) and helped her to decide what
she could cut and keep in order to better align her unit in the circle.
In the end, Jaz sacrificed by cutting the requirement that students’ stor-
ies be built around an issue of social justice. This allowed her to make time
to more explicitly teach some of the storytelling strategies that her mentor
teacher wanted students to practice. She did not, however, abandon her
focus on digital approaches to storytelling, which meant that she made
time in the unit for students to experiment with and learn about different
ways to make digital stories. Although Jaz was able to enact her commit-
ment to sustaining multiple literacies, the fact that she felt she had to set
aside her commitment to fostering social justice reflects the tendency for
intern teachers to acquiesce to the more conservative perspectives of tradi-
tional classroom settings (Smagorinsky et al., 2013). Furthermore, we
would like to emphasize that there is something particularly insidious about
the fact that as an African American woman teaching in a nearly all-white
school, Jaz felt that she had to “shave off” her unit’s focus on social justice.
Thus, although the matrix language may have offered a way for Jaz to
make sense of the compromising that she did during her internship year,
her experience highlights the fact that the matrix activity is certainly not a
protection against troubling compromises.

Amy

Amy is a white woman in her early 20s who taught senior British literature
classes at a STEM-focused military high school located in a large city.
Amy’s students were predominantly Latin@ and African American. Amy’s
university allows students to apply to teach in this particular city, and
Amy’s decision to apply to this urban program reflects the commitments
and interests that surfaced during the methods class she took with us,
including a concern for culturally sustaining pedagogies, community- and
placed-based education, translingualism, and social justice. As an intern,
Amy aligned herself with ELA paradigms focused on sustaining multiple
cultures, promoting critical consciousness, and sharing cultural knowledge
(but not just the knowledge of the dominant culture). Her placement school
and district, however, are much more aligned with the college and career
readiness paradigm. Amy explained that her district’s way of ranking
schools accounts for four-year college acceptance rate, and that means that
18 CORI MCKENZIE ET AL.

the focus on college readiness trickles down from the district level to school
level administrators and finally down to her and other teachers who teach
twelfth grade students. For example, she felt that she had to leave time in
her lesson and unit plans to teach students how to write personal essays for
college applications and to practice the kinds of writing skills students must
perform on college entrance exams. Amy’s beliefs about ELA are also at
odds with the curriculum she must teach, which revolves exclusively around
canonical texts of British literature including texts like Beowulf and
Macbeth.
Because the focus on college and career readiness and the British litera-
ture curriculum were at odds with Amy’s beliefs about ELA, she had to
make careful compromises in her internship classroom. Sometimes this
meant that she had to put her beliefs on the “back burner” for the time
being; other times, she has found ways to be “thrifty and creative” in order
to bring her own vision of ELA into the classroom. For example, early on
in the internship year, Amy attempted to foster critical consciousness by
asking students to analyze Lady Macbeth through a feminist lens. Later in
the year she attempted to support multiple languages by asking students to
translate a canonical text into a home or community language that they
speak. Some students engaged in the task by writing the text in Spanish or
AAL while others remixed the text into modern academic prose or what
Amy called “tech language.” Finally, as a way to enact her commitment to
culturally sustaining and community-based education, Amy used the
required college entrance essay assignment in order to encourage students
to explore their cultural and community backgrounds. As Amy noted, she
often saw opportunities to combine multiple paradigms, and she took
advantage of these opportunities to simultaneously enact the college and
career readiness paradigm and the more progressive paradigms she brought
to her classroom.
While we are frustrated that Amy had to occasionally put her beliefs
“on the backburner,” we are heartened by the “thrifty and creative” ways
she has managed to compromise without losing her footing in the para-
digms she values. Like Jeff and Jaz, Amy’s teaching suggests that explicit
attention to the paradigms of ELA may help interns make sense of the
tension between their own vision of ELA and the way administrators at the
school and district level understand the purpose of ELA. Although Amy
may not always be able to bring her vision to fruition, her ability to make
space for her vision of ELA in the mandated curriculum shows that she has
not lost her footing.
Finding Footholds in a Construction Zone 19

Samantha

Samantha is a white woman in her early twenties who taught American

literature in a large high school in an urban area. Most of Samantha’s
students were African American. Like Amy, Samantha’s interest in teach-
ing in an urban school reflects many of the commitments she brought to
our methods class the previous year, including a concern for linguistic
equality, social justice, and systems of power and oppression. As an intern,
Samantha aligned herself with the paradigms of meaning-making, off-
setting inequality, sustaining multiple cultures, and supporting identity for-
mation. The district where Samantha completed her internship, however,
was much more focused on college and career readiness. Samantha
explained that at her internship placement, the focus on college and career
readiness often manifested itself in a focus on testing and the use of a
“banking” method of teaching. Importantly, Samantha’s experience also
differs from Amy’s in that the focus on college readiness is less explicitly
tied to district-level mandates; instead, Samantha notes that the focus on
testing and the use of the banking method seems to come not only from
building administrators but also from fellow teachers and from students.
At some points during her internship, Samantha responded to this collision
between her vision for ELA and the school’s vision of ELA by finding creative
ways to bring her vision to life. For example, when the curriculum called for
students to read Walt Whitman’s “I Hear America Singing,” Samantha used
the poem as an opportunity to have students critically analyze its assumptions
about race, work, and ideology. She paired the poem with Langston Hughes’s
“I, too, Sing America,” Pedro Pietri’s “Obituary of a Puerto Rican,” and ee
cummings’s “next to of course god america i” and asked students to use the
language of literary analysis to perform a critical read of Whitman in juxtapo-
sition with these other poems. She explained that on the one hand, she was
trying to support critical consciousness and to offset inequality, but because
they were talking about canonical poems and because the activity required
students to use the language of literary analysis, she was also supporting the
paradigm of college readiness.
At other times, however, Samantha responded to the paradigms present
in her placement by re-envisioning the paradigms. During her interview,
Samantha explained that her understanding of what each of the paradigms
means shifted dramatically during the internship year. She said that while
she went into the classroom hoping to sustain multiple cultures, she was
unsure of what it meant to enact this paradigm as a white teacher of
20 CORI MCKENZIE ET AL.

primarily African American students. She also re-evaluated her under-

standing of the paradigms, noting that the year before, the methods class
“kind of hated on the preparing for the future” paradigm, but after work-
ing in a school where students themselves seek an education that will sup-
port social mobility, she is more inclined to align herself with that
paradigm. She says that even though she might intellectually question this
paradigm and its components
including the Common Core State
Standards that are tied to this paradigm
students seem to want their
diplomas more than they want to critically analyze Walt Whitman’s “I hear
America Singing.” Thus, although Samantha shows evidence of “thrifty
and creative” approaches to enacting her vision of ELA, her internship
experience has also encouraged her to reexamine her beliefs about ELA.

DISCUSSION
As we reflect on these portraits, we are reminded of Anthony’s story that
opens this chapter. Under the pressure of his school and school staff,
Anthony felt the need to forsake his own vision of English and assimilate
into the prescribed model of his school community. In his reflection, he
not only departed from his original philosophy, he actually backtracked
on some of his commitments and even countered some of his steadfast
beliefs. In this sense, we felt Anthony had lost his footing and lacked the
language he needed to “keep different circles in play” and advocate for
his own curricular and pedagogical decisions. In some ways, the experi-
ences Jeff, Jaz, Amy, and Samantha are similar to Anthony’s experience
as an intern; after all, all five interns found themselves in the middle of a
collision of paradigms that made it difficult for them to enact their vision
of ELA in their internship classrooms. However, the interviews with Jeff,
Jaz, Amy, and Samantha suggest that these four interns never quite lost
sight of the paradigms that best reflect their values and beliefs about
teaching, learning, and equity. Even when these commitments were not
valued, they often incorporated their vision of ELA into their instruction
in “thrifty and creative” ways, maintaining and consciously shifting their
footing. Furthermore, unlike Anthony, the intern teachers interviewed did
not eschew their earlier understanding of the purpose of ELA; they may
not have been able to fully enact this vision, but each of them continued
Finding Footholds in a Construction Zone 21

to feel aligned with the progressive visions of ELA that they had culti-
vated during their teacher education program.
The portraits of Jeff, Jaz, Amy, and Samantha remind us that teaching
is an ongoing negotiation between and among multiple stakeholders. The
portraits also suggest that there may be value in engaging pre-service tea-
chers in explicit analysis of the constructed nature of ELA and the many
paradigms that shape the field; after all, we see in Jeff, Jaz, Amy, and
Samantha an ability to use the language of the paradigms to recognize
the commitments of other stakeholders and to place these commitments
in dialogue with their own. Equipped with the language of the paradigms
and a recognition that English language arts is always being constructed
by multiple stakeholders within and across multiple contexts, Jeff, Jaz,
Amy, and Samantha never fully lost their footing.
Our experience with the matrix-building activity suggests that ELA tea-
cher educators may do well to help pre-service teachers view the field of
ELA as a dynamic discursive construction that teachers navigate each day.
As Smagorinsky et al. (2013) note, engaging pre-service teachers “might
not change school practice one bit” and it is “surely not enough,” but it
may help teachers “consider the consequences” of different approaches to
conceptualizing ELA (p. 180). Scaffolding pre-service teachers toward this
kind of work could take a variety of forms, but we suspect that it would
likely require pre-service teachers to engage in the following work: analyze
research, practitioner pieces, and pedagogical artifacts in order to examine
their underlying ideological and epistemological assumptions; name or
categorize the different paradigms in the field; and locate themselves on
this ever-shifting map.
Finally, we would like to emphasize that these portraits suggest that at
the core of working with the paradigms of ELA is the assumption that pre-
service teachers are agentive and will participate in the field of English lan-
guage arts, drawing on its richness and plurality to find spaces to create,
combine, or revise paradigms so that the field of English language arts may
continue to be “under construction” and not a stable set of traditions,
dated beliefs, or prescribed mandates that need to be enacted and imposed
(which may be how Anthony interpreted his situation). Thus, we advocate
that this paradigm work to be taken up beyond teacher education class-
rooms, with mentor teachers and department chairs and members, so that
teachers, and especially beginning teachers, may find ways to navigate the
discursive terrain of English Language Arts throughout their careers.
22 CORI MCKENZIE ET AL.

REFERENCES

Anagnostopoulos, D., Smith, E. R., & Basmadjian, K. G. (2007). Bridging the university

school divide horizontal expertise and the “Two-Worlds Pitfall”. Journal of Teacher
Education, 58(2), 138
152.
Applebee, A. N. (1974). Tradition and reform in the teaching of English: A history. Urbana, IL:
National Council of Teachers of English.
Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays. Austin, TX: University of
Texas Press.
Bickmore, S. T., Smagorinsky, P., & O’Donnell-Allen, C. (2005). Tensions between traditions:
The role of contexts in learning to teach. English Education, 38(1), 23
52.
Brass, J. (2014). English, literacy and neoliberal policies: Mapping a contested moment in the
United States. English Teaching, 13(1), 112
133.
Brass, J. (2015). Standards-based governance of English teaching: Past, present, and future?
English Teaching Practice and Critique, 13(3), 241
259.
Brauer, L., & Clark, C. T. (2008). The trouble is English: Reframing English studies in second-
ary schools. English Education, 40(4), 293
313.
Canagarajah, S. (2011). Codemeshing in academic writing: Identifying teachable strategies of
translanguaging. The Modern Language Journal, 95(3), 401
417.
Fecho, B. (2004). “Is this English?”: Race, language, and culture in the classroom. New York,
NY: Teachers College Press.
Fecho, B., Price, K., & Read, C. (2004). From Tununak to Beaufort: Taking a critical inquiry
stance as a first year teacher. English Education, 36(4), 263
288.
Feiman-Nemser, S., & Buchmann, M. (1983). Pitfalls of experience in teacher preparation.
Occasional Paper No. 65.
Gere, A. R. (1992). Why teach English? In A. R. Gere (Ed.), Language and reflection: An inte-
grated approach to teaching English (pp. 1
25). New York, NY: Macmillan.
Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Hallman, H. L. (2015). Teacher as ‘Shape-shifter’: Exploring the intersection of new times and
the teaching of English language arts. Changing English, 22(3), 282
293.
Luke, A. (2004). At last: The trouble with English. Research in the Teaching of English,
39(1), 85
95.
Meyer, T., & Sawyer, M. (2006). Cultivating an inquiry stance in English education:
Rethinking the student teaching seminar. English education, 39(1), 46
71.
Mirra, N., Filipiak, D., & Garcia, A. (2015). Revolutionizing inquiry in urban English class-
rooms: Pursuing voice and justice through youth participatory action research. English
Journal, 105(2), 49
57.
Morrell, E. (2005). Critical English education. English Education, 37(4), 312
321.
Paris, D. (2012). Culturally sustaining pedagogy a needed change in stance, terminology, and
practice. Educational Researcher, 41(3), 93
97.
Patterson, A. (2000). English in Australia: Its emergence and transformations. In R. Peel,
A. Patterson, & J. Gerlach (Eds.), Questions of English: Ethics, aesthetics, rhetorics, and
the formation of the subject in England, Australia, and the United States (pp. 235
253).
New York, NY: Routledge.
Skerrett, A. (2009). Biographical orientations to secondary English teaching within a mosaic
context of diversity. English Education, 41(3), 281
303.
Finding Footholds in a Construction Zone 23

Smagorinsky, P. (2010). The culture of learning to teach: The self-perpetuating cycle of conser-
vative schooling. Teacher Education Quarterly, 37(2), 19
31.
Smagorinsky, P., Jakubiak, C., & Moore, C. (2008). Student teaching in the contact zone
learning to teach Amid multiple interests in a vocational English class. Journal of
Teacher Education, 59(5), 442
454.
Smagorinsky, P., Lakly, A., & Johnson, T. S. (2002). Acquiescence, accommodation, and resis-
tance in learning to teach within a prescribed curriculum. English Education, 34(3),
187
213.
Smagorinsky, P., Rhym, D., & Moore, C. P. (2013). Competing centers of gravity: A
beginning English teacher’s socialization process within conflictual settings. English
Education, 45(2), 147
183.
Sperling, M., & Dipardo, A. (2008). English education research and classroom practice:
New directions for new times. Review of research in education, 32(1), 62
108.
Wine, L. (2008). Towards a deeper understanding of framing, footing and alignment. Working
Papers in TESOL & Applied Linguistics, 8(2), 1
3.
Zeichner, K. M., & Tabachnick, B. R. (1981). Are the effects of university teacher education.
Journal of Teacher Education, 32(3), 7
11.
Zuidema, L. A. (2012). Making space for informal inquiry: Inquiry as stance in an online
induction network. Journal of Teacher Education, 63(2), 132
146.
 24
APPENDIX

Appendix. The matrix: A co-constructed map of the paradigms of English Language Arts.

Purposes/ Assumptions Affordances Costs Illustration/ Teacher/ Objective Relevant

Paradigms about Example Student Authors
of ELA Knowledge Dynamic

Sustain Constructivist Utilize cultural Does time allow Cultural Self- Teacher Promote Smagorinsky,
multiple capital of all for nuanced Exploration facilitated; empathy, Paris,
cultures students, exploration into Activities student oriented combat Kirkland,
empower culture? sight (multimodal inequity, Morrell
students, create for conflict, autobiographies); flatten
global thinking differing Inclusion of classroom/
perspectives on “Multicultural”, cultural
“culture”; does Literature in hierarchy
this category Instruction;
account for Celebrate
exploring languages other
unfamiliar than

CORI MCKENZIE ET AL.

cultures? standardized,
edited English
Promote Run risk of Build “Shared” Canonical Directed by the Building Smagorinsky,
shared being community and heritage focuses literature teacher; This is cultural capital Burke
cultural transmissive connections on dominant largely about in the
heritage based on views; this may building a classroom;
cultural just preserve an common Promoting
likeness, elite culture knowledge base Unity;
“inclusion” Encouraging
collaboration
 Finding Footholds in a Construction Zone
Promote Constructivist Critically Not test- Multicultural Heavily Engaged and Morrell;
critical oppose oriented, not works, reading question skeptical Burke,
consciousness oppression, etc. focused on texts through oriented; citizens that chapter 1
to offset practical skills social
critical discussion question
inequity lenses (e.g., between teacher structures of
Feminist and students; power that
criticism, The teacher impede
Marxist, etc.) may be social equality
empowering
students with
theoretical
knowledge to
question
structures
of power
Seek and Constructivist (1) Communicate (1) This Replace print- (1) Assessing Honor diverse Burke,
create more effectively paradigm may based texts with students’ funds ways of p. 1
11;
meaning in a globalized favor more multimedia texts, of knowledge making Morrell;
using world where resourced like video games; and using those meaning in an Hicks
multiple new literacies populations expand genres funds as a increasingly
literacies abound. who have access and audience to “launching of” multimodal
(2) Broadens to multimedia. include more than points in world
the context of (2) Teachers/ the teacher the classroom
learning by students may be
valuing other overwhelmed by
things common proliferation
texts. (3) It of literacies
makes
knowledge more
flexible
and accessible

25
 Appendix. (Continued )

26
Purposes/ Assumptions Affordances Costs Illustration/ Teacher/ Objective Relevant
Paradigms about Example Student Authors
of ELA Knowledge Dynamic

Prepare for Transmissive (1) Financial Might limit (1) Preparing Largely teacher A prosperous Common core
the future: stability in this students by students for the and life for
$$$$/college/ life (2) Social confining them mentality of standards- students
work mobility to a particular standardized directed (Academically;
track tests. (2) common financially)
core. (3) AP
classes
Cultivate Constructivist Asks question, Teacher has the Use morally Student Prepare Alsup,
identity “Who am I potential to ambiguous texts, dominated students for Morrell,
formation (becoming)?”: influence such as Monster, dynamic: a lot civic Beach, Hicks
fosters civic, students in class of exploratory engagement,
moral, and understanding discussions discussion, the 21st
ethical growth of identity reflective/ century
based on what expressive workplace and
they teach and writing, and life in general
how they self-selected

CORI MCKENZIE ET AL.

teach it projects
Promote Constructivist happiness, Snobbery, not For example, the Teacher-based Finding Alsup
aesthetic but runs risk enjoyment, practical, not Raven; (“This is pleasure in
appreciation of being feelings critical, tends overemphasis on beautiful. I am language (see:
overly toward aesthetics; lots of an arbiter Affordances,
transmissive Canonical reading out of taste.”) C10)
emphasis loud, probably
PREPARING ENGLISH TEACHERS
FOR TODAY’S CONTEXT:
RESEARCHING EFFECTIVE
PRACTICE THROUGH METHODS
COURSES

Donna L. Pasternak, Samantha Caughlan,

Heidi L. Hallman, Laura Renzi and Leslie Rush

ABSTRACT

Many situations that affect the teaching of English have been unevenly
examined in the scholarship. Asking the question, “What research in
English teacher education will address the demands of preparing English
language arts teachers for 21st century contexts?,” the authors provide
recommendations to the field that will make our work more relevant and
propose areas for further study based on current situations in English
education in the United States that will move the field forward. The
chapter suggests topics for further research centered on the English lan-
guage arts-specific methods (pedagogy) course that includes exploring
the tensions between literacy and English studies, integrating technology,

Innovations in English Language Arts Teacher Education

Advances in Research on Teaching, Volume 27, 27
39
Copyright r 2017 by Emerald Publishing Limited
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved
ISSN: 1479-3687/doi:10.1108/S1479-368720170000027002
27
28 DONNA L. PASTERNAK ET AL.

moving theory into practice, the effects of high-stakes testing and assess-
ments, and supporting more diverse student populations.
Keywords: English education; English education methods
courses; pedagogy

While it is common to hear concern expressed for K12 students’ acquisition

of 21st century skills, it is less common to hear how the preparation of
teachers has changed, or is changing, to prepare English teachers to teach
21st century skills. Throughout this chapter, we outline change in English
teacher preparation through exploring “new areas of emphasis” in the
context of English language arts (ELA) methods courses. We explore how
ELA methods courses, in particular, might take up these new areas of
emphasis as a way of preparing English teachers today. The chapter raises
questions about how five new areas of emphasis expand the boundaries of
the school subject of ELA and then considers what consequences might
arise from this shift. We then pose suggestions of how research on the ELA
methods courses, with a particular attention to these new areas of empha-
sis, could assist the field in determining what future English teachers need
to know and be able to implement in practice. Throughout our inquiry, we
think about ELA methods courses as key sites of learning for prospective
English teachers.

METHODS COURSES IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS

In a literature review that appraised the research related to ELA methods
courses (Pasternak, Caughlan, Hallman, Renzi, & Rush, 2014) we found
that there is little consensus across the field regarding what constitutes a
“methods” course in the United States. Sometimes referred to as the
“didactics” or “pedagogy” course in other countries, the subject-specific
methods course is where prospective teachers learn how to teach the school
subject of ELA. Often situated within the larger context of teacher certifica-
tion programs within institutions of higher education, the methods course
often exists as one or more courses within a teacher education program.
Preparing English Teachers for Today’s Context 29

Research on methods courses does not often address whether teacher

education is impacted by the inclusion of subject-area-specific methods
within teacher education programs (Clift & Brady, 2005; but see Boyd,
Grossman, Lankford, Loeb, & Wyckoff, 2009, for a rare exception). We
see this as the result of tension between two divergent perspectives regard-
ing teacher preparation; one perspective situates learning to teach as a
process of acquiring general rules and routines for organizing learning
experiences (Hunter & Russell, 1981), while the other perspective suggests
that it is a specific discipline itself that dictates which methods are effective
(Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2005; Schön, 1987). These two perspec-
tives both include coursework in the subject area and placement for student
teaching in a subject-area classroom. Yet, in the first perspective, general
methods courses are considered sufficient preparation, while in the second
perspective, one or more subject-area-specific methods courses are required
by the state or program.
These perspectives are also complicated by scholars’ views on the rela-
tionship between secondary school subjects and each subject’s adjacent dis-
cipline. In viewing school subjects as distinct from their disciplines, some
critical theorists (e.g., Popkewitz, 2009) focus on the role of schooling in
normalizing behavior by transforming contentious disciplinary content into
unambiguous knowledge, while other critical theorists (e.g., Bernstein,
1996) use this premise as a way to focus on the agency (or lack thereof) of
participants (teachers and students) within classrooms and schools. The
school subject, then, is transformed into a means for accomplishing the
goals of schooling, rather than a space for promoting disciplinary knowl-
edge (Popkewitz, 1998, 2008). Other scholars (e.g., Gee, 1996; Langer,
2011; Moje, 2008) express the perspective that school subjects reflect the
epistemologies and discourses of the disciplines, and knowledge of which is
required to enter those discourse communities as literate members. Even if
schools have turned disciplines into school subjects, these scholars assert
that teachers should strive to teach disciplinary ways of knowing, of identi-
fying and solving problems, of spoken and written genres, and relationships
with the real world in the pursuit of student engagement and more equal
life chances. Finally, scholarship that discusses pedagogical content knowl-
edge (Ball, Thames, & Phelps, 2008; Grossman, 1990; Shulman, 1987) cre-
ates a space for the teacher as possessing disciplinary expertise that the
layperson outside the content area and/or field does not. The methods
course, then, is where the prospective teacher develops knowledge of con-
tent for teaching. The methods course also sits as the site where prospective
teachers learn to understand students’ development in relationship to
30 DONNA L. PASTERNAK ET AL.

the school subject. As Brass (2014) notes, through this perspective, there
really are no “general” methods.
With this collective scholarship in mind, we define the subject-specific
methods course for the purpose of this chapter and our research, more
generally, as primarily focusing on the representation and teaching of ELA
content. A methods course often also involves inquiry into the beliefs or
opinions of participants regarding concepts of ELA at the secondary level,
the planning of lessons or courses of study, and classroom management
related to content-specific methods. We do not regard courses providing
background in English content for teacher candidates as methods courses if
the focus is not on how to teach that content.

IDENTIFYING “NEW AREAS OF EMPHASIS” WITHIN

ELA METHODS COURSES
The most salient themes in research published about ELA methods courses
since 1995 (the year of publication of Smagorinsky & Whiting’s study of
English teacher education methods courses) include the study of effective
methods of teaching specific ELA content, the examination of English
teacher identity, and the articulation of how methods courses exist within a
programmatic context (Pasternak et al., 2014). Moreover, the great major-
ity of studies published about the methods course since this time does not
focus on a national or regional scope. Small-scale studies situated within
ELA methods courses have been the standard way the field has learned
about evolving trends within methods courses (Brass & Webb, 2014). For
example, Brass and Webb’s (2014) book presents portraits of how methods
courses in ELA have evolved. While such studies assist the field in gaining
portraits of facets of the field, they may limit the understanding of the field
as a whole.
As a way to highlight core areas of change in methods courses, writ
large, we conducted a literature review to ascertain the current state of
scholarship related to teaching ELA methods since 1995 (Pasternak et al.,
2014). In doing this work, we looked first to the main journals publishing
research in the United States on English education and teacher education

Research in the Teaching of English (RTE), English Education (EE),
Journal of Teacher Education (JTE), and Teaching and Teacher Education
(TATE)
to gain an overview of topics (ibid.). In our identification of
Preparing English Teachers for Today’s Context 31

articles, all research studies on English education, English teacher educa-

tion, and methods courses were included. In all, only 83 research articles
were found in the major research journals that matched the search criteria;
25 related specifically to English methods courses. In undertaking our
review, we focused on English teacher education rather than the broader
field of teacher education, and this choice had implications for how we
identified the prevalence of particular topic areas, which were sub-areas of
concern that aligned with the main topics being studied since 1995 as indi-
cated above: effective methods of teaching specific ELA content, the exami-
nation of English teacher identity, and the articulation of how methods
courses exist within a programmatic context. The five new areas of empha-
sis that we saw as influential to the field of English teacher education may
have been broadened in some ways through a wider search lens of teacher
education. Yet, we felt that these topic areas must be examined in relation-
ship to English teacher education. Just as Smagorinsky and Whiting (1995)
defined their study to be one of English teacher education, we also viewed
our interest as residing specifically in English teacher education. We were
also influenced in our work by a series of position papers developed by the
Conference on English Education (CEE) (CEE position statements, 2014),
the English teacher education community of the National Council of
Teachers of English (NCTE), and NCTE position statements (NCTE posi-
tion statements, 2015). In response to these resources and our experience
with salient policy and legislation, we identified five new areas of emphasis
for ELA methods courses that addressed changes apparent to the needs of
the ELA classroom since Smagorinsky and Whiting’s (1995) study:

(1) Literacy and content-area literacy

(2) New technologies and new literacies in English education meth-
ods courses
(3) The integration of field experiences with coursework
(4) The preparation of teachers for students with diverse racial, cultural,
and linguistic backgrounds
(5) K12 content standards and associated assessments.

In examining how methods courses operationalize new concepts and

practices related to these areas of emphasis, we stress the need for a balance
between conceptual knowledge about (or awareness of) new ideas, as well
as an exploration of the application of knowledge in teaching practices.
Now, we turn to describing the five new areas of emphasis.
32 DONNA L. PASTERNAK ET AL.

Literacy and Content-Area Literacy

English teacher educators have increasingly found themselves responsible

for improving the knowledge base and ability of novice teachers to teach
literacy. Prior to 1995, the teaching of reading strategies was largely rele-
gated to teachers certified to teach at the early childhood and elementary
levels (Wilson, 2011). Few prospective content-area middle/high school
teachers, English or otherwise, were taught how to teach reading outside
that one rare content-area reading course required by a few programs in
the 1980s and 1990s and there was a presumption on the part of many
teacher educators that most students were independent readers by the time
they reached seventh grade (Wilson, 2011). Because the more recent
acknowledgment that reading needs to be taught in the upper grades, the
teaching of reading has been an expectation of many English teachers
(Wilson, 2011), English teacher education has had to increase attention to
teaching disciplinary literacy. Some might consider these classes to be ELA
methods courses, while others may call them content-area reading, and/or
disciplinary literacy courses.
A move to a disciplinary view of literacy (Moje, 2008) bears great pro-
mise for English teacher education. As of yet, however, the few studies on
preparing teachers for literacy instruction in the ELA methods course indi-
cate that there is a need for balance between the instructional models pre-
sented and the constraints that teachers face in schools (Moje, 2008). It is
quite possible that explicit teaching of both conceptual and practical infor-
mation about literacy instruction is necessary for pre-service teachers in
order for them to use these methods in their student teaching and in their
teaching careers (Grossman, Smagorinsky, & Valencia, 1999). Future
research on the preparation of English teachers to teach literacy might
focus on how ELA educators could best provide these conceptual and prac-
tical tools. Additionally, ELA, as a field, must continue to provide a clear
understanding of what is disciplinary literacy, thereby differentiating the
process of reading and writing in English studies from the processes of
reading and writing in other fields.

New Technologies and New Literacies in English Education Methods Courses

Despite the wide range of studies that examine specific practices that
employ technology in the ELA classroom as a way to educate K12
students, few studies (Pope & Golub, 2000) have examined the impact of
Preparing English Teachers for Today’s Context 33

technology on ELA methods courses and on program organization, on

novice English teachers’ beliefs and practices, and on student learning.
Young and Bush (2004) propose a critical approach and pedagogical
framework to maximize the benefits of technology to teach writing and
literacy. They observed,
To integrate technologies in a classroom without an understanding of context risks
using technologies ineffectively or inappropriately, thus wasting opportunities for new
learning experiences and, potentially, vast amounts of money spent on underutilized
technological resources. (Young & Bush, 2004, p. 7)

Therefore, Young and Bush (2004) proposes a critical framework as a

way to discern whether or not technology is being integrated into lessons
with “thoughtful and informed use” (p. 9). They ask teachers to keep the
pedagogical implications of the technology in the forefront as they consider
its impact on instruction, skills, content and literacy.
In considering research in English education, it would be helpful to
know if practices involving technology support pre-service and in-service
teachers to be more effective English teachers and/or what the impact is
financially on a school district that invests in technology. Furthermore,
with the surge in online teaching and learning at institutions of higher edu-
cation, study is needed to determine the effectiveness of teaching middle/
secondary school English online
practices that are already occurring in
school districts across the country
and how moving K12 instruction
online may impact the preparation of English teachers in the future.
Studies that examine online English teacher effectiveness and preparation
at the grade school level would be timely.

The Integration of Field Experiences with Coursework

Various researchers have noted that teachers teach as they were taught,
although this is not a simple reproduction (Smagorinsky & Barnes, 2014). In
the United States, field experiences are intended to mediate the reproductive
relationship between university and K12 schooling, especially when sup-
ported by methods coursework (Garner & Rosen, 2009). Understanding the
explicit connections between the methods course and field experiences is
needed. In English education, there are studies of field experiences in diverse
settings (DeStigter, 1998), service-learning in English education (Hallman &
Burdick, 2011; Kinloch & Smagorinsky, 2014), and studies in building
partnerships with teachers and local school districts (Cercone, 2009;
34 DONNA L. PASTERNAK ET AL.

Smith & Anagnostopoulos, 2008; Zigo & Derrico, 2009); however, it is diffi-
cult to know what pedagogical shifts pre-service teachers undergo as a result
of structured assignments in ELA methods courses while engaging in field
placements. There is very little research to be found on this topic.
Smagorinsky, Lakly, and Johnson (2002), though, have noted how novice
teachers negotiate that terrain between program and placement, thereby
highlighting how beginning teachers negotiate the work they do in course-
work with the work they do in their field sites.
Researching the pedagogical shifts that beginning teachers experience as
a result of specific methods course assignments would make a solid contri-
bution to English education. Study of the theory/practice connection may
require more direct involvement between university and K12 teachers and
administrators, thereby broadening the research findings to examine in-
service teachers as well.

The Preparation of Teachers for Students with Diverse Racial, Cultural, and
Linguistic Backgrounds

The field of ELA has generally treated the teaching of English language
learners (ELLs) as a new strand of culturally responsive teaching (Gay,
2000) or culturally relevant pedagogy (Ladson-Billings, 1994); yet, teaching
ELLs requires understanding of not only cultural diversity, but linguistic
diversity. Research (e.g., de Oliveria & Shoffner, 2016) is just starting to
emerge about how future English teachers must understand the linguistic
and cognitive dimensions of language learning. If ELA methods courses
continue to move toward the inclusion of methods to teach ELLs, the field
of English teacher education would benefit from further guidance about
what aspects of language learning pre-service English teachers might most
need to effectively teach students whose first language is not English. For
example, recent research (Gort & Glenn, 2010) suggests that a focus on
ELLs does not necessarily “replace” existing content; rather, it reorients
the methods course to address new, relevant issues in the teaching of ELA.
Yet, the knowledge and strategies beginning teachers need to effectively
teach ELLs may extend beyond the scope of the single methods course or
of the ELA methods course instructor.
Though content fields, such as ELA, have been encouraged to address the
teaching of English language learners, Moore, Bean, Birdyshaw, and Rycik
(1999) found that few middle and secondary programs prepare to address
the needs of ELLs throughout the curriculum. de Oliveira and Shoffner
Preparing English Teachers for Today’s Context 35

(2009, 2016) have posited that the teaching of ELLs as addressed with future
content-area teachers (e.g., ELA teachers) has generally resided under the
umbrella of “teaching diverse students.” Yet, as classrooms in the United
States become more culturally and linguistically diverse, perhaps it is too
general to characterize ELLs under such broad a category. de Oliveira and
Shoffner (2016) have been among the first to explicitly discuss the need to
prepare ELA teachers to be teachers of ELLs, thereby urging prospective
English teachers to gain a deeper understanding of linguistic diversity.

K12 Content Standards and Associated Assessments

In spite of the use of standards and assessment to organize English curricu-

lum in public schools throughout the United States since the 1990s, there is
almost no research on how English teacher educators prepare teacher can-
didates for this reality. Current college-aged students in English teacher
education programs today are the first generation to be schooled in a high-
stakes testing environment (Brown, 2010), an environment in which the
teaching of English has often been reduced to test preparation. Researchers
might explore the teaching beliefs and practices of novice English teachers,
teachers who have been part of the high-stakes testing environment
throughout their own educational experiences. If English teacher education
is to address the realities of the K12 classrooms that teacher candidates are
entering, more research is needed about the preparation of pre-service tea-
chers to use standards and assessments in ways that will enable them to
engage their own students meaningfully in the core concepts of ELA.
Although new teachers are expected to know how to use data to guide
instruction, they must understand how different kinds of assessment data
are used for differing purposes: to inform stakeholders, to inform the next
lesson/moment, or to inform teacher evaluation.

EMBRACING “AWARENESS” AND “APPLICATION”

As the field of English teacher education envisions an updated image in
the 21st century, we must also address what we see as pre-service teachers’
awareness of issues versus their application of practice as a way to respond
to issues. Sometimes, a dichotomy of awareness and application exists in
teacher education. Throughout our work, we have seen that a differentiation
36 DONNA L. PASTERNAK ET AL.

between awareness and application has helped us articulate how English

teacher educators have viewed their responsibility
and sometimes
capacity
for addressing “new areas of emphasis.” The term awareness
has positive intentions and is related to the need for prospective teachers
to possess an in-depth understanding of teaching, learning, and context.
While we see that awareness of what we label “new areas of emphasis” is
important for teacher candidates as a way to be current with the field, we
believe that these emerging educators need time and space to put new
knowledge into practice. Application connotes the translation of knowledge
into practice and, in teacher education, is often firmly rooted in the field
component of programs.
At times, we have witnessed that ELA methods courses may be willing
to help pre-service teachers become aware of new areas of emphasis; yet,
when considering the application of this new knowledge, courses and
programs sometimes fall short (Caughlan, Pasternak, Hallman, Renzi, &
Rush, in press). We see the differentiation between awareness and applica-
tion as corresponding with commonly held distinguishing differences in
teacher professional development between teacher knowledge and beliefs
and teacher practice (Borko, 2004; Borko, Jacobs, & Koellner, 2010).

BECOMING PUBLIC SCHOLARS AND MOVING THE

FIELD OF ELA INTO THE FUTURE
Perhaps the most important issue to be addressed by ELA researchers is
that we need to be part of the larger conversation regarding the quality of
teacher education, a conversation repeatedly usurped by entrepreneurial
forces that do not have our expertise in education studies. It is important
that the findings of our research be communicated to a larger audience.
This means that in addition to finding publication venues for our research
in academic, scholarly journals, we must find ways of making that research
accessible to policymakers, teachers, school district leaders, parents, and
other stakeholders in education. Through social media, newspaper editor-
ials, public conversations, service on state licensure and certification work
groups, participation in activist teacher groups, etc., it is our responsibility
to help those who express concerns about teacher education to understand
the complexities of teaching and teacher preparation in an era of rising
inequality and expectations. Public scholarship in this area would make
our concerns more visible and accessible.
Preparing English Teachers for Today’s Context 37

There is much work to be done by ELA teacher educators and research-

ers to address the demands of educating pre-K12 students. In the United
States, the field of English teacher education needs to consider the issues
involved in preparing English teachers as we design, establish, and conduct
research into current situations that affect the teaching of English. We need
to contextualize our scholarship and come to consensus by defining our
terms, particularly as they relate to teacher effectiveness and student
achievement. By exploring the tension between literacy and English studies,
and technology’s impact on both, we can understand the effect of technol-
ogy on our discipline. Supporting pre-service teachers to work effectively
with the changing demographics of pre-K12 English students can move us
to understand the yesterday, today, and tomorrow in the teaching of
English and dedicate ourselves to “doing tomorrow in today’s classrooms”
(Morrell, 2015). Morrell (2015) emphasizes that we cannot extricate the
political enterprise from the teaching of English today; therefore, as ELA
teacher educators, we must account for state and national standards when
planning instruction. Such goals can exist alongside the aims of developing
powerful readers and writers, teaching for social justice, and enacting criti-
cal media pedagogy, for these remain the tenets of “teaching tomorrow” in
today’s classroom. This foundation of ELA is especially important when
we recognize that we are now teaching a more diverse group of pre-K12
students than we have previously, which includes ELLs.
As the boundaries of ELA methods courses change, teacher educators
and pre-service teachers alike must understand the ways in which this is
occurring. Understanding how new areas of emphasis might be addressed
and included in methods courses will expand what we have traditionally
considered our discipline, urging us to re-think how we prepare future
teachers of ELA.

REFERENCES

Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What
makes it special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389
407.
Bernstein, B. (1996). Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity: Theory, research, critique.
London: Taylor and Francis.
Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain.
Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3
15.
Borko, H., Jacobs, J., & Koellner, K. (2010). Contemporary approaches to teacher profes-
sional development. In P. Peterson, E. Baker, & B. McGaw (Eds.), International ency-
clopedia of education (Vol. 7, pp. 548
556). Oxford: Elsevier.
38 DONNA L. PASTERNAK ET AL.

Boyd, D., Grossman, P., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2009). Teacher preparation
and student achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31(4), 416–440.
doi:10.3102/0162373709353129
Brass, J. (2014). Reconstituting teacher education: Literacy, critical theories, and English. In
J. Brass & A. Webb (Eds.), Reclaiming English language arts methods courses: Critical
issues and challenges for teacher educators in top-down times (pp. 1
210). New York,
NY: Routledge.
Brass, J., & Webb, A. (2014). Reclaiming English language arts methods courses: Critical issues
for teacher educators in top-down times. New York, NY: Routledge.
Brown, C. P. (2010). Children of reform: The impact of high-stakes education reform on pre-
service teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 61, 477
491.
Caughlan, S., Pasternak, D., Hallman, H. L., Renzi, L., & Rush, L. (in press). How English
language arts teachers are prepared for 21st century classrooms: Results of a National
Survey. English Education.
CEE. (2014). CEE position statements. National Council of Teachers of English Website.
Cercone, J. (2009). We’re smarter together: Building professional social networks in English
education. English Education, 41(3), 199
206.
Clift, R. T., & Brady, P. (2005). Research on methods courses and field experiences. In
M. Cochran-Smith & K. M. Zeichner (Eds.), Studying teacher education (pp. 309
424).
Washington, DC: AERA.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Bransford, J. (2005). Preparing teachers for a changing world: What
teachers should learn and be able to do. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
De Oliveira, L., & Shoffner, M. (2009). Addressing the needs of English language learners in
an English education methods course. English Education, 42(1), 91
111.
De Oliveira, L., & Shoffner, M. (2016). Teaching English language arts to English language
learners: Preparing pre-service and in-service teachers. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
DeStigter, T. (1998). A good gang: Thinking small with pre-service teachers in a Chicago
barrio. English Education, 31(1), 65
87.
Garner, G., & Rosen, C. (2009). Strengthening partnerships and boosting conceptual connec-
tions in preservice field experiences. Teaching Education, 20, 329
342.
Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. New York, NY:
Teachers College Press.
Gee, J. P. (1996). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses (2nd ed.). London:
Taylor and Francis.
Gort, M., & Glenn, W. J. (2010). Navigating tensions in the process of change: An English
educator’s dilemma management in the revision and implementation of a diversity-
infused methods course. Research in the Teaching of English, 45, 59
86.
Grossman, P. L. (1990). The making of a teacher: Teacher knowledge and teacher education.
New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Grossman, P. L., Smagorinsky, P., & Valencia, S. (1999). Appropriating tools for teaching
English: A theoretical framework for research on learning to teach. American Journal of
Education, 108(1), 1
29.
Hallman, H. L., & Burdick, M. N. (2011). Service learning and the preparation of English
teachers. English Education, 43(4), 341
368. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.
com.www2.lib.ku.edu/docview/874324979?accountid=14556
Hunter, M., & Russell, D. (1981). Planning for effective instruction: Lesson design. In increasing
your teaching effectiveness. Palo Alto, CA: The Learning Institute.
Preparing English Teachers for Today’s Context 39

Kinloch, V., & Smagorinsky, P. (2014). Service-learning in literacy education: Possibilities for
teaching and learning. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). The Dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African American chil-
dren. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Langer, J. (2011). Envisioning knowledge: Building literacy in the academic disciplines.
New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Moje, E. (2008). Foregrounding the disciplines in secondary literacy teaching and learning: A
call for change. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 52, 96
107.
Moore, D., Bean, T. W., Birdyshaw, D., & Rycik, J. (1999). Adolescent literacy: A position
statement. Journal of Adolescent &Adult Literacy, 43, 97
112.
Morrell, E. (2015). The 2014 NCTE presidential address: Powerful English at NCTE yester-
day, today, and tomorrow: Toward the next movement. Research in the Teaching of
English, 49(3), 307
327.
NCTE. (2015). NCTE’s position statements on key issues. National Council of Teachers of
English Website. Retrieved from http://www.ncte.org/positions
Pasternak, D. L., Caughlan, S., Hallman, H., Renzi, L., & Rush, L. (2014). Teaching English
language arts methods in the United States: A review of the research. Review of
Education, 2(2), 146
185.
Pope, C., & Golub, J. (2000). Preparing tomorrow’s English language arts teachers today:
Principles and practices for infusing technology. Contemporary Issues in Technology and
Teacher Education, 1(1), 89
97.
Popkewitz, T. (1998). Struggling for the soul: The politics of schooling and the construction of
the teacher. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Popkewitz, T. (1998, 2008). Struggling for the soul: The politics of schooling and the construc-
tion of the teacher. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Popkewitz, T. S. (2009). Curriculum study, curriculum history, and curriculum theory: The
reason of reason. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 41(3), 301
319. doi:10.1080/
00220270902777021
Schön, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and
learning in the professions. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard
Educational Review, 57, 1
22.
Smagorinsky, P., & Barnes, M. E. (2014). Revisiting and revising the apprenticeship of obser-
vation. Teacher Education Quarterly, 41(4), 1
23.
Smagorinsky, P., Lakly, A., & Johnson, T. S. (2002). Acquiescence, accommodation, and resis-
tance in learning to teach within a prescribed curriculum. English Education,
34, 187
213.
Smagorinsky, P., & Whiting, M. E. (1995). How English teachers get taught: Methods of teach-
ing the methods class. Urbana, IL: NCTE.
Smith, E. R., & Anagnostopoulos, D. (2008). Developing pedagogical content knowledge for
literature-based discussions in a cross-institutional network. English Education, 41,
39–65.
Wilson, A. A. (2011). A social semiotics framework for conceptualizing content area literacies.
Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 54, 435
444.
Young, C. A., & Bush, J. (2004). Teaching the English language arts with technology: A criti-
cal approach and pedagogical framework. Contemporary Issues in Technology and
Teacher Education, 4(1), 1
22.
Zigo, D., & Derrico, R. D. (2009). Co-learning agreements in research and teaching: Another
approach to collaboration in teacher education. English Education, 41, 135
157.
This page intentionally left blank
ADVOCACY, HUMANITY, AND
HOPE IN THE FACE OF AN
EDUCATION WORLD GONE
WRONG

Shelbie Witte and Christian Z. Goering

ABSTRACT

If given the choice, would we, as teacher educators, enter the profession
again? Would we embark on a career that is faced with an antagonistic
national context that has permeated nearly every aspect of a teacher’s
existence
from the media to the teachers’ lounge, from the lack of
support from parents to the lack of respect from students, from the
misguided policies and accountability demands to the blanket, uncreative
curriculum? How can we, as teacher educators who are doubting our own
place in the field, reasonably expect to make a difference in the careers
of our graduates? This chapter explores how and why the preparation of
English Language Arts teachers must focus on three tenets in the present
context for education: Advocacy, Humanity, and Hope. By examining
different approaches that both authors have used with teacher candidates
through multiple vignettes, we will create a deeper understanding of both
the realities our new teachers face and the ways in which they can

Innovations in English Language Arts Teacher Education

Advances in Research on Teaching, Volume 27, 41
60
Copyright r 2017 by Emerald Publishing Limited
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved
ISSN: 1479-3687/doi:10.1108/S1479-368720170000027003
41
42 SHELBIE WITTE AND CHRISTIAN Z. GOERING

efficaciously face those realities and help reclaim the profession of teach-
ing. Our work will be grounded in a blended framework of critical peda-
gogy and progressivism and thus examine these vignettes through that
collective lens.
Keywords: Teacher education; English language arts; political
landscape; advocacy; legislation; accountability

I (Shelbie) opened my email early in the winter semester to find an email

from one of our English Language Arts teacher candidates, Morgan (pseu-
donym), asking about adolescent defeatism. Impressed by her use of the
term, knowing we hadn’t discussed it in the teacher preparation program,
I did a bit of research and replied back:

Hi Morgan,
It’s great to hear from you. I’m familiar with the term defeatism, but I did some search-
ing to get a better grasp on what you are dealing with in your classroom. I’ve referred
to it as disengagement or ambivalence. However, there are some materials online that
mention Vince Lombardi using it specifically in speeches/writing where he characterized
defeatism with the Green Bay Packers who lacked the motivation to work hard and
had already assumed they would lose even before they had played. They had a debilitat-
ing case of what Lombardi called defeatism … beaten down by failure and not expect-
ing anything but the worst. Is this what you mean? Is this what you are seeing with
your students? Let’s come up with a plan to work on it together.
Let me know!
Dr. W

Dr. W,
The Lombardi reference you gave is where I first heard about it too. I will also keep
looking for information about it and let you know how it goes. Sidenote: I think I’m
also dealing with instructor and administration defeatism and hope I find a solution
before I get sucked in and make a blog about it that results in my ultimate demise. But
I feel I need to write about it. Will you read it if I write about it?
Thank you for your help,
Morgan

I assured Morgan that I was willing to read, listen, and when she needed,
collaborate on some strategies that would help motivate her students. But
I was stumped with how to help with the teacher and administrator
Advocacy, Humanity, and Hope 43

defeatism she was facing. Morgan, in her very short email, identified the
very large elephant that had been in every room of every conversation
about education either of us has experienced for the past several years

educational defeatism (Dahrendorf, 1967; Eyster, 1966; Possony, 1942;
Solnit, 2010; Tennant, 2006).
Has school, a potentially unifying and positive force in any democracy,
become a place where defeatism is common? Unfortunately, we think so
and argue that education writ large is infected by the dystopian narrative
of failing schools, inept teachers, and unreachable students (Berliner &
Biddle, 1995; Goering et al, 2015; Witte & Goodson, 2010). On the news
(Jones, 2012), in the newspaper (Elliott, 2013), out of the mouths of legisla-
tors (often puppeted by corporate influences) (Gordon, Smyth, & Diehl,
2008), and in every aspect of popular culture (Rousmaniere, 1999), we are
confronted with a negative, antagonistic national context decrying that tea-
chers aren’t professionals and that students aren’t receiving the education
they deserve in the 21st century. Educators (and now teacher educators)
are measured by the success of PK-12 students on bogus snapshot test
scores (Ravitch, 2010) and entire state education systems and teachers are
now graded on arbitrary value-added measurements that have been shown
to be unscientific and ineffective (Harris & Herrington, 2015). Some of the
very best teachers we personally know are leaving the profession or are
weighing the repercussions of leaving (Writers who care blog citation,
Huffington Post citation). We can’t recall a time when the landscape has
been worse for education.
How’d we get here? How has education changed so rapidly that it’s
barely recognizable to those of us seasoned enough to see the last 15 years
or so? Maybe it’s the public’s fear of paying taxes or big government’s
influence or a general will to let market forces dictate all that happens in
this country. Let’s be clear, though, the forces are not unique to America.
The global education reform movement is creating these shifts everywhere.
What’s the point of it? Where will it end? None of these questions have
straightforward or easy answers but the one we’re most concerned with at
present is how in the world does someone become a teacher and thrive in
such a context? And why?
When Wilhelm and Novak (2011) published Teaching Literacy for Love
and Wisdom, we were both struck by the title because it seemed out of place
with other happenings in education. Smack dab in the middle of the wake
left by Waiting for Superman, Race to the Top, and the Common
Core State Standards fiascos, a book titled with words such as “love” and
“wisdom” relating to the classroom was something of an oddity, albeit
44 SHELBIE WITTE AND CHRISTIAN Z. GOERING

a refreshing one. At a time when the rest of the country was busy attempt-
ing to numerically represent a teacher’s impact
a truly insane concept
from our view
along came a book that really spoke to the heart and
humanity of what it means to teach English and literacy. Fast forward to
2017 and some of our dearest colleagues in teacher preparation have pub-
licly or privately announced that they would not, if given the chance, enter
teaching or teacher education in today’s climate for education. Any number
of articles in the popular media suggest that teaching isn’t a profession
sought out by many at this point
there could be a new genre of writing
called “Why I’m Quitting My Teaching Job.” In reality, what seemed like a
lot of misguided, misinformed, and misleading rhetoric from 2000 to 2010
(think No Child Left Behind, Race to the Top) has now shaped education
policy in almost each of the 50 states, thereby making the act of teaching
qualitatively different than it was a few short years ago. What’s more, all
of this negativity and defeatism about education is pushing the very people
we need in the profession far away from it.
As former middle school and high school English teachers who now
devote our careers to preparing future teachers, we find ourselves standing
at a crossroads. Would we, as teacher educators, re-enter the profession of
teaching if given the opportunity to transcend time and see the educational
context of today? Chris, who was accepted to attend law school during the
semester he student taught, remembers thinking that he didn’t want his job
to be an everyday argument, so he chose education. How little did he know
that argument has become a large part of what we do. Shelbie, who enthu-
siastically role-played teacher and school even before she could talk, never
dreamt of doing anything else. Teaching was a profession to aspire to and
dream to be.
We stand perplexed. How do we continue to be hopeful and enthusiastic
about the teaching landscape with our teacher candidates when we, our-
selves, are struggling to find ways to navigate the rocky and dangerous
environment of education and higher education? It’s difficult
though not
impossible
to throw someone a life raft from a sinking ship.
What we’ve determined to be the best course of action, at least for our
approach, is to provide teacher candidates with advocacy tools and techni-
ques as well as an honest perspective about the challenges they face. For
our approach, we have taken what we have gleaned from decades of experi-
ence (successes and missteps) as classroom teachers and teacher educators
to share what we know about self-advocacy, student advocacy, and profes-
sional advocacy with our teacher candidates so that they may be better
equipped to deal with the realities of the profession they have chosen.
Advocacy, Humanity, and Hope 45

In order for our teacher candidates to find the hope and humanity in future
occupations, we have made the conscious decision to help them become
strategically political (Huebner, 1975) in order to survive in an education
world gone wrong.

SELF-ADVOCACY AND MENTORSHIP

Morgan sent her first blog just a day later. She was clearly grappling with
the issue and I (Shelbie) found myself feeling as much frustration as she.
Excerpts follow:
January 11th
Education: free, open to exploration, journey to find knowledge, sup-
portive culture of awareness and academics. The Real World: Not so much. After
I completed my methods work load at the university, I entered into the final phase of
my degree seeking journey: internship. I find myself in my internship full of new knowl-
edge on how different the school environment is on the other side of the equation as
a teacher rather than a student. The following is my experience as it went at
[X High School].
As I unpacked my things I began to learn what was lying beneath the paint of the real
classroom. I learned of the internal defeat felt and brought on by constant underhanded
and unseemly individuals coming from the outside. In my new role, known as the real
world, I found hesitation, lack of inspiration, internal defeat brought on by constant
underhanded individuals visiting the neighborhood and putting a stop to any
impulse … any pulse. I felt cheated.

I sit, observing a high school 10th grade regular level class during my first week of my
internship and see how they would rather harness incompetence and what is worse, find
it pleasurable. Also on my plate earlier in the day was a 9th grade International
Baccalaureate level class, with every advantage, on its way to becoming fully developed
with the same attitude I observed in the 10th grade class. The 9th graders showed signs
creeping into their culture: defiance, lack of effort, amusement from evidence of failure.
And what’s worse, I have found that the educators here are admittedly out of ideas and
motivation. The stress of being an ineffective educator is great and that stress can dwin-
dle their passion and love of questions and finding the answers. No more do they seek
answers to problems because they believe there are none, especially for this one, and
what’s worse, they do not bother to ask.

As a university teacher preparation program, we were failing Morgan.

Not only had we failed to prepare her for the potential climate of the
school in which she was placed as a teacher candidate, but we had also
failed to share with her with the strategies for dealing with some of the
most critical and difficult issues she would face. We believed that Morgan’s
previous classroom observations and pre-internship placements had been
46 SHELBIE WITTE AND CHRISTIAN Z. GOERING

diversified and offered her the opportunities to learn these strategies. Field
placements in urban, suburban, and rural settings ensured, we thought,
Morgan had opportunities to interact with students from a variety of back-
grounds and saw examples of challenges in a variety of forms. In each
instance, we also believed that she was surrounded by mentor teachers who
were thinking aloud about their own teaching challenges and showing her
how to grapple with the complexities of leading a classroom of students
with varying degrees of willingness to be present and engaged.
Instead, our program had placed Morgan in a series of school placements
with overtly positive school administrators, teachers, students, and contexts
with progressive approaches and attitudes. What we didn’t realize was that
in each of these instances, the teachers and principals we had made exam-
ples of in our placement process made the very hard work of teaching and
engaging students look much too easy. Morgan, and our other future
teachers, had been shielded from the day-to-day struggles that all teachers
and schools face with their students. We had unknowingly provided a shiny,
Willy-Wonkian placement experience that had clearly caused harm.
Morgan was in unfamiliar territory. She was in a need of mentoring and
was desperately trying to advocate for herself. The hope she felt as an
entering teacher candidate was quickly dissipating. When teacher candi-
dates are placed in schools, their mentors are often assigned, such as the
cooperating teacher and university supervisor, while occasionally mentors
emerge, such as mid-career or career teachers making efforts to connect
with young teachers through like-minded conversations and offers of
support. Both the cooperating teacher and university supervisor were, as
Morgan stated, “infected by defeatism” and she had yet to have an
“organic” mentor emerge from the faculty. And in the absence of either a
positive mentor or strategies to deal with the issues at hand, Morgan had
chosen to write her way through it by reflecting in a blog. As a teacher
preparation program, we could do better.

What We Learned

We needed to do our homework. The research on importance of mentor-

ship with preservice and early career teachers is extensive (Cherubini, 2008;
Darling-Hammond, 2010; Ganser, 2002; Hargreaves & Fullan, 2000;
Ingersoll & Kralik, 2004; Moir, Barlin, Gless, & Miles, 2009; Nimmo &
Park, 2009). While many school districts have mentoring programs in place
for early career teachers, there are many who are left to seek out mentoring
Advocacy, Humanity, and Hope 47

organically in their own ways. Preparing our teacher candidates for either
scenario (and all the scenarios in between) was our new goal. Morgan’s
situation had made it abundantly clear, while we discuss with teacher can-
didates what a mentoring program might entail, rarely do we have conver-
sations about how to best advocate for and utilize the mentor/mentee
relationship.
Identifying effective colleagues to serve as mentors is critical to influen-
cing early career teachers to stay in the profession (Campbell & Brummett,
2007; Inman & Marlow, 2004; Wood, 2005) but it isn’t a sure bet. While
most would agree that mentors are an important part of the equation of
teacher preparation, Chris’ experiences recently questioned just how much
influence mentors should have. The Master of Arts in Teaching program at
the University of Arkansas, from 1997 to 2015, required students to be in
schools for 33 weeks as teacher candidates. While extended placement time
in the classroom has been supported in some of the literature as recipro-
cally beneficial to both the teacher candidate and the teacher/students/
classroom, the program faculty considered the alternative and reached a
frightening conclusion: classroom mentors were having an overwhelming
influence on the preparation of new teachers. If one follows the logic that
the current status of schools is broken, to spend all of one’s time learning
to teach in such a context is a liability, with interns beholden to mentors
who are, no matter how reluctant, part of that system. Chris’ program
underwent a significant revision and while there are 16 full weeks of student
teaching versus the previous 33, students are pulled back into longer and
more purposeful teacher education classes.
We believe classroom-based mentors can and should play a role in the
preparation of teachers but so should the faculty members at each institu-
tion. Being socialized into a problematic context will not create the change
we need nor the teachers who will transcend the current education context.
In realizing that our teacher candidates and early career teachers are mana-
ging the day-to-day aspects of the classroom such as classroom manage-
ment, learning new instructional materials, lesson planning, and classroom
organization but also engaging in the human side of education by commu-
nicating effectively, solving problems, and working collaboratively with a
variety of community members that includes other teachers and stake-
holders such as parents and guardians, we suggest that faculty members
must serve in active and strategic mentoring roles as well. Teacher candi-
dates are cautious to voice their concerns about these issues for fear of
being seen as weak or incompetent by the administration and thus losing
an opportunity for employment in the school or district. Any learning
48 SHELBIE WITTE AND CHRISTIAN Z. GOERING

situation void of the ability to take risks is deprived one of the most impor-
tant elements of acquiring new skills and knowledge. This is where we see
our roles expanding of late.
As in Morgan’s case, as prepared as she felt leaving her coursework to
become a teacher, the realities of the classroom offered her challenges she
felt she was not prepared to navigate. Of the survival skills necessary to
meet the demands of a classroom, Nahal (2010) found that first year
teachers, while full of love for the profession and an eagerness to change
student lives, often lack the ability to work through the realities of the
classroom, the untenable workload of grading and planning, or the unrea-
listic expectations of time and commitment required to be successful. We
must make visible for our teacher interns the very real aspects of teaching
and the ways to advocate for fair and equitable treatment for themselves
in order to be an advocate for others. Teachers early in their careers,
beyond a love for teaching, need guidance in navigating the disparity
between what is taught in teacher education and what is practical in the
real classroom. Finding the right ear to hear these concerns is the first
step. Mentor Teachers can fill that role but if we take the changes to
Chris’ program into consideration, we must account for the fact that find-
ing these teachers will become increasingly difficult and problematic
(Goering, 2013).

ADVOCATING FOR STUDENTS

I (Chris) faced a similar experience with one of my teacher candidates, Jose
(pseudonym). He had been blogging throughout his time in the program,
but I was only following somewhat closely until early in the spring, when
I was drawn to Jose’s entry.
I’ve been reading Robert Greene’s The 33 Strategies of War, recommended to me by
one of my mentors here at [X High School]. You might think, are our schools at war?
As a teacher, I feel like I am at war, sometimes against my students, but more often
than not, I feel like I am at war FOR my students. They need my help in so many
ways. I have found myself playing the role of their advocate on so many occasions.

One of the most important roles we play in preparing our future teachers
to become political advocates is guiding teacher candidates to understand
when, why, and how to best advocate for their students. Many studies exist
to support the need for advocacy training for new teachers (Brighton, 1999;
Gordon & Maxey, 2000; Greenlee & Dedeugd, 2002; Huling-Austin, 1992;
Advocacy, Humanity, and Hope 49

Manley, Siudzinski, & Varah, 1989; Moir, Gless & Baron, 1999; Odell &
Huling, 2000; Stansbury & Zimmerman, 2000). For decades, our field has
published to illustrate the best ways that teachers can identify student inter-
ests needs (Burton, 1973; Purves & Beach, 1972), differentiate the curricu-
lum to meet those needs (Richardson, 1996; Tomlinson, 2001, 2014), and
communicate with stakeholders about the theory and practice that support
the advocated position (Brookfield, 1995; Korthagen & Kessels, 1999). We
immerse our teacher candidates in the literature of student advocacy, model
how to discover students’ interests and needs in order to design curriculum,
and offer opportunities for our teacher candidates to reach beyond the
traditional curriculum to design engaging and relevant lessons for future
use in the classroom. Had we done enough?
Jose continues:

This past week, it became clear that the curriculum was not working and that it was
time for a change. It was time for me to teach my own unit, so after discussion with my
cooperating teacher, I started in my 11th grade on level English class, my most challen-
ging class. The class, as a whole, avoids completing any assignments in class and select
students prefer to take assignments outside of the class to complete rather than be
caught doing work inside and they even visit my room during other periods to turn
work in. Greene suggests that finding a common goal within the class is one way to
combat the problems we were facing, so this past week on Tuesday, I threw the tradi-
tional curriculum in the trash, very much like To Sir, With Love, and explained that
I would give them this class time to make up any work (ALL students needed this). My
instincts told me that this would give me a clean slate with this class to begin a new
direction (also a foundation of completed grades to boost student morale.) Fifteen
minutes before the bell, I instructed students to gather their things and asked them to
have a conversation with me. I explained my frustration and new direction as follows:
‘I have been struggling planning instruction for you because I do not understand what
you want to achieve or what you want from this class. I have found myself frustrated
because I do not know how to make the literature useful in your life so it becomes
useless. In the position I am in I am required to plan instruction around certain texts
and teaching points. This I have to do. In order to help myself and you I want to ask
all of you what you want to get out of this class? What do you want to learn? OR What
do you want to do after high school?’

Jose remembered what we had spoken about many times in his teacher
education courses and that is if you want to know if things are working in
your classes, ask your students, preferably before, during, and after instruc-
tion thus to avoid a Sidney Portier moment like the one described. While
we applaud Jose’s approach, we were perplexed that Jose had waited until
this point to find out what his students needed from the class and from
him. There are many fundamental things that we cover in our Methods
50 SHELBIE WITTE AND CHRISTIAN Z. GOERING

courses that seem to be immediately forgotten once the “stage fright” of

the real classroom appears.
Jose’s students responded to his query with a variety of answers from “I
want to be a pediatrician” to “I want to help run my father’s store.”
Within just one class, students had a range of needs with plans to attend
college, technical college, and work for the family business, making it diffi-
cult to find the common themes to pull from the pre-planned curriculum of
The Crucible. Jose was finding it hard to tie The Crucible to the 21st century
and his students were having difficulty finding themselves or their future
selves within the pages of the novel. Jose needed help finding a balance.
Finney (2007) found that it is critical to assist early career teachers in
recognizing when they are being asked to compromise their needs or the
needs of their students and how to respond to such compromises. It can
be quite intimidating for any teacher to push against the status quo, espe-
cially when it is at odds with the best interest and needs of students and
schooling in general. For early career teachers to make that push can be
fraught with peril. State and district standardized curriculum and pacing
guides often dictate what is taught, and more often how it is taught, in
the English Language Arts classroom. We’ve seen these guides be used
appropriately but more often than not, we have seen them being used
void of consideration of the particular individual student goals, needs,
and challenges that are obvious to the classroom teacher. Compromise
can be a productive way forward, especially when considering the unsav-
ory alternatives.
We would like to tell you that Jose’s a-ha moment was transformational
and that the classroom, his students, and his cooperating teacher were
forever changed by this shift in focus. Unfortunately, that isn’t the case.
Despite Jose’s revised approach to use the students’ goals as a way to
select a combination of fiction and nonfiction texts, videos, and other
informational texts to be the foundation of a series of purposeful life
skills projects that would encompass the reading, writing, speaking, listen-
ing, and viewing standards, he was met with significant resistance. He
was called to a meeting with the curriculum coordinator and principal
the following week, where it was made clear that the district pacing guide
be strictly followed, without exception. When questioned about the
research that supported his change, Jose froze, and was not able to advo-
cate for his students with the principal. While Jose had the courage to
make the significant curricular shift, he needed practice and confidence,
both in teaching and in having similar policy and curricular conversa-
tions, to be successful.
Advocacy, Humanity, and Hope 51

What We Learned

Unfortunately, this was not an isolated incident. We continued to hear of

challenges to teacher autonomy; yet, we realize that autonomy and support
must play a role in new teachers’ agency. There is a rush to school encul-
turation (Feiman-Nesmer, 2003) of our teacher candidates that quickly
diminishes their ability to use their new perspectives and agency to make
important curricular changes they feel are necessary.
We needed to do a better job of helping Jose and all of our students
articulate their professional decision-making. In an effort to help our tea-
cher candidates advocate for their students through the curricular decisions
they make, we developed a “What Research and Policy Says” project to
use in our Methods course in order to help our teacher candidates develop
a grounded argument for their decision-making while also recognizing that
people in decision-making positions of power are sometimes disinclined to
believe or support change. Research isn’t necessarily valued in the develop-
ment of policy and it is far from a monolithic concept. We’ve all seen
plenty of “research” which was little more than think tanks with shiny
PDF’s and paid representatives selling half-baked, yet fully funded ideas
marauding around as research. However, had Jose had an articulate argu-
ment at the ready when he was questioned, would he have been able to find
a compromise for his new curricular approach?
To begin building confidence in articulating arguments, each of our tea-
cher candidates is presented with a choice of scenarios in which they have
been “asked” by a different stakeholder (parents/guardians/administrators/
community members/representatives) to respond to concerns regarding
issues relevant in English class. The age-old questions most of us have
faced
why aren’t you teaching grammar (out of context)
is presented
from these unique perspectives. Answering that for an administrator who,
perhaps, was originally an English teacher is a far different challenge than
answering the state senator who has the same concern and experience in
school
grammar worksheets worked for her, after all. For Chris, taking
up these various questions relevant to the profession (using adolescent
literature, etc.) in conversations are formative experiences in preparation
for critical conversations with stakeholders. Volunteer parents, administra-
tors, community members, and secondary students are invited to attend the
Methods course to serve as facilitators and respondents to the teacher
candidates’ research and policy positions, offering opportunities to dialo-
gue through curricular positions. For Shelbie, these questions and curricu-
lar decisions are defended in a poster and presentation. The teacher
52 SHELBIE WITTE AND CHRISTIAN Z. GOERING

candidates prepare posters that highlight clear theoretical and empirical

evidence of the curricular approach to share at a college-wide poster session
attended by faculty, students, and school district partners. Knowledge is
power and the teacher candidates are empowered to orally defend their
stance to decision-makers.

Advocacy for the Profession

As early as 1857, teachers unions began to form in response to the emer-

ging inequities in education. In the United States, the National Education
Association, the Chicago Teachers Federation, and the American Teachers
Association blazed the trail, with the Chicago Teachers Federation leading
the first strike in 1902, when a teacher is dismissed for refusing to allow a
disruptive student back into her classroom (Mader, 2012). Similar mis-
givings about the direction of education led to the formation our own pro-
fessional organization, the National Council of Teachers of English in
1911. Decades of misguided educational policy since has led content-area
membership organizations like NCTE and others to lead their membership
in advocacy work at the national and state levels. Advocacy Days at the
U.S. Capitol compliment educational policy initiatives driven by the mem-
bership of these organizations, typically focusing in on upcoming legisla-
tion or existing legislation and funding allocations. Advocacy at a variety
of levels isn’t something most preservice teachers consider when entering
the profession. They should. We’ve started asking advisees whether or not
they are ready to not only teach but also to advocate for students, the
English language arts, and overall profession of teaching. We usually hear
something to the effect of “I’m not political” from our students, an
example that Goering & Thomas capture in their response:
At its core, this argument about the need for teacher advocacy is a rejecting of the tra-
ditional and current expectation that teachers avoid being political. Two problems exist
with the “no politics” argument. First, denying a professional her voice is itself a politi-
cal act, and second, not advocating for ones profession is also a political act. In short,
teachers cannot avoid being political; therefore, we argue that to be advocates is the
better option to being politically passive to those voices outside the profession.
(2016, p. 12)

In standards recently created by English teachers, the National Board

for Professional Teaching Standards, now requires that Board Certified
teachers meet a standard of advocacy for all three (National Board
for Professional Teaching Standards, 2014, p. 95), noting the goal of
Advocacy, Humanity, and Hope 53

“deliberate, ongoing effort to elicit active, broad-based support for the

effective teaching of language arts.”
That said, this expectation of advocacy for the profession is sometimes
difficult to breakdown into smaller, digestible chunks. We invite teacher
candidates to join professional organizations that support the English
Language Arts, encourage attendance at conferences, and facilitate and
utilize the resources provided by the organizations. Engendering conver-
sations and assignments in our courses that position new teachers in posi-
tions of advocacy, whether that be through the What Research Says
assignment, communicating with legislators and other representatives, or
inviting teacher interns to become critical consumers of media through
analyzing school movies (Dalton, 1995; Goering et al., 2015; Trier, 2001;
Witte, 2016).

Grassroots Efforts

In a policy context in which the evidence of an issue is largely and some-

times blatantly ignored, what can teachers possibly do to stand up for
doing what is best for their students, especially as new members of the
profession? We turned to the ways in which advocacy could be under-
stood in a smaller scale. How each individual teacher takes up the respon-
sibility for advocating for the profession is unique. We set an expectation
that they must, in fact, do “stuff” in an effort to take back the narrative
from the corporate deformers. Telling public stories about the successes,
innovations, and challenges present in one’s school is a way forward.
Most of us have seen teachers write blogs and take to social media
in healthy and productive ways, helping to humanize the act of teaching
for different audiences. As simple as it is, encouraging students to invite
others into their classrooms
parents, administrators, legislators,
media
can have a profound impact on the local perception of teachers
and teaching.
We’ve also seen successful subversive uses of social media and advocacy.
In one state, a group of concerned teachers took to Twitter during a legisla-
tive session about education and created a hashtag campaign to make sure
a certain bill was defeated. To everyone’s surprise, it worked. Legislators
started re-tweeting the concerns that were brought up and before long,
what looked like a sure thing for the education reformers was pushed back.
Most teachers assumed nom de plumes and communicated through various
“off campus” means. We aren’t suggesting a widespread adoption of this
54 SHELBIE WITTE AND CHRISTIAN Z. GOERING

technique but include it here as an example of the lengths some teachers

are going to in order to advocate for their profession. If the powerful
and entrenched influences that have created this problematic context of
education are going to be pushed back, it may very well have to be in
creative ways.

State Advocacy Day

One method of guiding preservice teachers to understand the legislative

process was to participate in an organized Advocacy Day. In conjunction
with the Florida Council of Teachers of English, English Education tea-
cher preparation programs in the state participated in Advocacy Day at
the Florida capitol. During the legislative session of the event, Florida
legislators were considering increased state-mandated standardized assess-
ments, required value-added evaluations for all classroom teachers (with
increased pressures on teachers in English and mathematics), and the
abolishment of stipends for National Board Certification for teachers in
Florida.
“What does this mean to me?” was the common response when students
learned about the legislation in committee and up for votes within the
house and state. We realized very quickly that we needed practicing class-
room teachers to visit our classes, to make visible the ways in which these
potential policies would impact the students in the schools across the street.
We put together an advocacy teachers’ panel, in advance of the State
Advocacy Day, to allow preservice teachers the opportunity to ask hard
questions and to develop confidence in speaking with others about their
arguments for and/or against legislation.
For example, one local teacher brought in a handout of teacher success
stories from her school to highlight the difference that the National Board
of Professional Teaching Standards certification had made in the teacher
professional development in her school. Over the course of 3 years, a team
of 10 teachers had worked as a cohort with local university faculty to com-
plete the process, with 100% success within the three years. She also pre-
sented correlational data to support her argument that the students at her
school that worked with a NBPTS certified teacher were more likely to
pass the FCAT than those that did not. Another local middle school
language arts teacher brought with her to the advocacy teacher panel
a handout with the value-added formula to illustrate for the preservice
Advocacy, Humanity, and Hope 55

teachers that hard-working teachers with real students could not be boiled
down into one number:

X
L X
Q
yti ¼ X i β þ yt
r; iγt
r þ Zqi θq þ ei
r¼1 q¼1
Partial value-added model formula:
Credit : Florida Department of Education:

We discussed the different components of the value-added model and

discussed the many variables that were outside of teacher control in the
formula.
Additionally, another classroom teacher asked our preservice teachers to
think of one teacher-driven success story to share with anyone who might
be interested in education. After writing these stories, the preservice
teachers were asked to condense these stories into two-minute stories.
These “elevator speeches” would be used as ice breakers or when legislators
only had a short amount of time to meet with us on our visit.

HUMANITY AND HOPE THROUGH ADVOCACY

In an exchange that both captures the challenge we collectively face and
commitment to the way forward we must secure, then veteran English tea-
cher Scott Sullivan responds to a question about advice for those interested
in joining the profession or mentoring new teachers:
Scott mentioned that a pervasive attitude of his friends outside education was exempli-
fied in the question, “How can I protect my son or daughter from their teachers?”
I gasped.
He continued, “good teachers aren’t born, and I wouldn’t encourage softer members of
our culture to go into this field. Acting in the role of [mentor teacher] to future teachers,
like all aspects of education, isn’t a simple concept with an easy, show-me-a-score-on-a-
test answer. It is a long-term commitment, almost like being a parent.” (Goering,
2013, p. 14)

Morgan’s original concerns with defeatism and Jose’s struggles with tea-
cher agency are tangible in Scott’s response about his friends outside of
education. We are up against unprecedented negativity and defeatism in
the prevailing public opinion about teachers and teaching. From an “any-
one can do that job” a decade or two ago to a “why would anyone do that
56 SHELBIE WITTE AND CHRISTIAN Z. GOERING

job” perspective today, these shifts, created to systemically privatize this

public service, are pervasive and ubiquitous. In these times, how do we find
and prepare new teachers to take on the already difficult and complex task
of teaching English let alone equip them to fight on the various fronts
we’ve mentioned here?
We teach our methods courses in the way we want our students to be
able to teach in the public schools classrooms surrounding our universi-
ties. For Chris, engaging students in arts integration approaches, critical
analysis of their and our classroom dialogue, and writing as writers and
teachers of writing are important elements of the fall methods course. His
classes sit in circles so that they are all equally vulnerable, on the same
level, and must interact as humans. He discusses openly the need to take
care of one’s self physically and emotionally as a teacher and shares his
own struggles with stress, anxiety, and various bi-products of unhealthy
behaviors. Grading essays until 4 am and waking up to teach at 6, rinse,
repeat, is not a satisfying or sustainable life but as a secondary teacher,
Chris rarely slept for more than four hours/night and mostly it was less.
We must practice pedagogies of kindness and respect, the apt title of a
recent collection of essays edited by our colleagues (Thomas, Carr,
Gorlewski, & Porfilio, 2015).
Beyond the review of the skills needed to teach the English Language
Arts well, Shelbie’s methods course also provides teacher candidates with
opportunities to bridge traditional curriculum and standards with popular
culture and multimodal texts, to build a community among learners, to
model (and view) examples of excellent culturally responsive teaching
within classrooms of embraced diversity, and to apply differentiated learn-
ing and unconventional assessments of the many literacies we teach in the
English Language Arts. She discusses the importance of the real lessons
that are taught in the classroom, beyond the curriculum, such as the impor-
tance of being a caring and compassionate member of society. Every stu-
dent comes to the classroom with baggage and it’s the teacher’s
responsibility to recognize how to help students in spite of what they carry.
And, most importantly, as a teacher it is okay to ask for help, it is okay to
admit you don’t know, and it is okay when things don’t go as planned.
Learning is messy, and what we do when things don’t go well in the messy
world of learning defines us as professionals.
In our own ways we each take up the mantle of advocacy for the profes-
sion, for the language arts, and for our students as they navigate these
unwelcoming waters. We make public to our students the ways in which we
cope with working in a similar environment to the public schools and share
Advocacy, Humanity, and Hope 57

our struggles and successes in doing what is best for our students. It is and
should be our life’s honor to remain forever in touch with the people we
prepared to teach or prepare other teachers, modeling a sense of what
Scott mentioned in the quotation above.
In that same way, teacher educators are in as difficult of a situation
today as ever and taking care of one another instead of surrendering to the
market forces of competition prevalent in higher education is key. And
perhaps this is the lesson of all of this, if we stick together, we’ll have a
chance to positively impact generations of future teachers and students, to
turn back the asinine reforms and label them for what they really are

nefarious attempts at privatization
to instead simultaneously enhance
ever-improving methods of teaching, our fragile democracies, and our
appreciation of the people in and around our lives.

REFERENCES

Berliner, D. C., & Biddle, B. J. (1995). The manufactured crisis: Myths, fraud, and the attack on
America’s public schools. Cambridge, MA: Basic Books.
Brighton, C. M. (1999). Keeping good teachers: Lessons from novices. In M. Scherer (Ed.), A
better beginning: Supporting and mentoring new teachers. Alexandria: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Brookfield, S. (1995). The getting of wisdom: What critically reflective teaching is and why it’s
important. In Becoming a critically reflective teacher (pp. 1
28). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Burton, D. L. (1973). Research in the teaching of English: The troubled dream. Research in the
Teaching of English, 7(2), 160
189.
Campbell, M. R., & Brummett, V. M. (2007). Mentoring preservice teachers for development
and growth of professional knowledge. Music Educators Journal, 93(3), 50
55. Retrieved
from http://intl-mej.sagepub.com/
Cherubini, L. (2008). A grounded theory analysis of beginning teachers’ experiences:
Illuminating leadership capacities. International Journal of Teacher Leadership, 1(1),
22
38. Retrieved from http://www.csupomona.edu/~ijtl/
Dahrendorf, R. (1967). Pfade aus Utopia: Arbeiten zur Theorie und Methode der Soziologie
(Vol. 1). Piper Verlag GmbH: R. Piper.
Dalton, M. (1995). The Hollywood curriculum: Who is the good teacher. Curriculum Studies,
3(1), 23
44.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). Teacher education and the American future. Journal of Teacher
Education, 61(1
2), 35
48. doi:10.1177/0022487109348024
Elliott, P. (2013, May). ‘A Nation at Risk’: 30 years after report, schools remain mostly
unchanged. Huff Post Politics. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/
04/24/a-nation-at-risk-30-years-report-schools_n_3147535.html
Eyster, E. S. (1966). The challenge facing business teachers. The Clearing House, 40(8), 492.
Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/30185749
58 SHELBIE WITTE AND CHRISTIAN Z. GOERING

Feiman-Nesmer, S. (2003). What new teachers need to learn. Educational Leadership,

60(8), 25
29.
Finney, C. (2007). Learning to teach: Teacher candidates reflect on the relational, conceptual,
and contextual influences of responsive mentorship. Canadian Journal of Education,
30(1), 25
47. doi:10.2307/20466624
Ganser, T. (2002). The new teacher mentors: Four trends that are changing the mentoring
programs for new teachers. American School Board Journal, 189(12), 25
27. Retrieved
from www.asbj.com
Goering, C. Z. (2013). “Juggling 400 oranges”: Calling all mentor teachers. English Journal,
102(3), 13
15.
Goering, C. Z., & Thomas, P. L. (2016). Get up, stand up: How and why English teachers
must identify as advocates. Voices from the Middle, 23(5), 41
43.
Goering, C. Z., Witte, S., Jennings-Davis, J., Ward, P., Flammang, B., & Gerhardson, A.
(2015). The ‘Hollywoodization’ of education reform in won’t back down. Journal of
Curriculum & Pedagogy, 12(3), 205
222.
Gordon, S. P., & Maxey, S. (2000). How to help beginning teachers succeed (2nd ed.).
Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Gordon, S. P., Smyth, J., & Diehl, J. (2008). The Iraq war, “sound science,” and “evidence-
based” educational reform: How the Bush administration uses deception, manipulation,
and subterfuge to advance its chosen ideology. Journal for Critical Education Policy
Studies, 6(2), 173
204.
Greenlee, B. J., & Dedeugd, I. S. (2002). From hope to despair: The need for beginning teacher
advocacy. Teacher Development, 6(1), 63
74.
Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. (2000). Mentoring in the new millennium. Theory into Practice,
39(1), 50
54. doi:10.1207/s15430421tip3901_8
Harris, D. N., & Herrington, C. D. (2015). Editors’ introduction: The use of teacher value-
added measures in schools: New evidence, unanswered questions, and future prospects.
Educational Researcher, 44(2), 71
76.
Huebner, D. (1975). The tasks of the curricular theorist. In W. Pinar (Ed.), Curriculum theoriz-
ing: The reconceptualists (pp. 250–271). Berkeley, CA: MacCutchen.
Huling-Austin, L. (1992). Research on learning to teach: Implications for teaching induction
and mentoring programmes. Journal of Teacher Education, 43(2), 173
180.
Ingersoll, R., & Kralik, J. (2004). The impact of mentoring on teacher retention: What the
research says. Retrieved from http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/50/36/5036.htm
Inman, D., & Marlow, L. (2004). Teacher retention: Why do beginning teachers remain in the
profession? Education, 124(4), 605
614. Retrieved from http://www.projectinnovation.
biz/education.html
Jones, J. M. (2012). Confidence in U.S. public schools at new low. Retrieved from http://www.
gallup.com/poll/155258/confidence-public-schools-new-low.aspx
Korthagen, F. A., & Kessels, J. P. (1999). Linking theory and practice: Changing the pedagogy
of teacher education. Educational Researcher, 28(4), 4
17.
Mader, J. (2012). Teachers’ unions rise: A look at union impact over the years. Huffington
Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/20/teachers-unions-rise-
a-lo_n_1900130.html
Manley, M., Siudzinski, L., & Varah, L. J. (1989). Easing the transition for first-year teachers.
NASSP Bulletin, 73(515), 16
21.
Advocacy, Humanity, and Hope 59

Moir, E., Barlin, D., Gless, J., & Miles, J. (2009). New teacher mentoring: Hopes and
promise for improving teacher effectiveness. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education
Press.
Moir, E., Gless, J., & Baron, W. (1999). A support program with heart: The Santa Cruz
project. In M. Scherer (Ed.), A better beginning: Supporting and mentoring new teachers.
Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Nahal, S. P. (2010, August). Voices from the field: Perspectives of first-year teachers on the
disconnect between teacher preparation programs and the realities of the classroom.
Research in Higher Education Journal, 8, 1
20. Retrieved from http://www.aabri.com/
rhej.html
National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. (2014). English language arts standards
(3rd ed.). Retrieved from http://www.nbpts.org/sites/default/files/documents/certifi-
cates/NB-Standards/ELA%20_NB_Standards.pdf
Nimmo, J. W., & Park, S. (2009). Engaging early childhood teachers in the thinking and prac-
tice of inquiry: Collaborative research mentorship as a tool for shifting teacher identity.
Early Childhood Teacher Education, 30(2), 93
104. doi:10.1080/10901020902885356
Odell, S., & Huling, L. (2000). Quality mentoring for novice teachers. Indianapolis, IN: Kappa
Delta Pi.
Possony, S. T. (1942). Defeatism. The Review of Politics, 4(1), 34
60. Retrieved from http://
www.jstor.org/stable/1404276
Purves, A. C., & Beach, R. (1972). Literature and the reader: Research in response to literature,
reading interests, and the teaching of literature. Urbana, IL: National Council of
Teachers of English.
Ravitch, D. (2010). The death and life of the great American school system: How testing and
choice are undermining education. New York, NY: Basic Books (AZ).
Richardson, V. (1996). The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach. In Handbook of
research on teacher education (Vol. 2, pp. 102
119). New York: Association of
Teacher Educations.
Rousmaniere, K. (1999). Teacher unions in popular culture: Individualism and the absence of
collectivity; media today falsely portray education unions as too militant and hostile to
their communities. Working USA, 3(3), 38.
Solnit, R. (2010). We won’t bow down. The Nation, 290(8), 18
21. Retrieved from OmniFile
Full Text Mega database.
Stansbury, K., & Zimmerman, J. (2000). Lifelines to the classroom: Designing support for
beginning teachers. WestEd Knowledge Brief. San Francisco, CA: WestEd.
Tennant, D. (2006). Disturbing defeatism. Computerworld (Framingham, Mass.), 40(36), 20.
Retrieved from OmniFile Full Text Mega database.
Thomas, P. L., Carr, P. R., Gorlewski, J., & Porfilio, B. (Eds.). (2015). Pedagogies of kindness
and respect: On the lives and education of children. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Tomlinson, C. A. (2001). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms.
Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Tomlinson, C. A. (2014). Differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners.
Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Trier, J. D. (2001). The cinematic representation of the personal and professional lives of
teachers. Teacher Education Quarterly, 28(3), 127
142.
Wilhelm, J. D., & Novak, B. (2011). Teaching literacy for love and wisdom: Being the book and
being the change. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
60 SHELBIE WITTE AND CHRISTIAN Z. GOERING

Witte, S. (2016). What does it mean to be literate? Examining school film teachers and their
literacy values with preservice teachers. In M. Shoffner (Ed.), Saviors, scapegoats and
schoolmarms: Examining the classroom teacher in Fiction and film for teacher education.
Abingdon: Routledge.
Witte, S., & Goodson, T. (2010). “This Guy’s Dead”: Seeking the origins of the dystopian
narrative of the American high school in the popular culture. The High School Journal,
94(1), 3
14.
Wood, A. L. (2005). The importance of principals: Site administrators’ roles in novice teacher
induction. American Secondary Education, 33(2), 39
62. Retrieved from http://www1.
ashland.edu/coe/about-college/american-secondary-educationjournal
 PART II
LENSES FOR PREPARING
PROSPECTIVE TEACHERS TO
TEACH ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS
This page intentionally left blank
SECTION INTRODUCTION TO
PART II

Heidi L. Hallman

Part II follows Dixon’s lead in the sense that it emphasizes the process
of doing English language arts. Part II begins with a chapter by Amanda
Haertling Thein, Richard Beach, and Anthony Johnston that explores the
implications of teaching literature through an identity-focused framework.
An identity-focused framework invites adolescents to approach literature in
a more engaged manner, relating themes to who they are and how they see
the world around them. Thein, Beach, and Johnston assert that most
classes that use young adult literature employ a very developmental
conception of adolescent identity. The authors then explain how a socio-
cultural approach, in contrast, emphasizes the relational component of
identity-making. The chapter “Re-Positioning Youth in English Teacher
Education,” by Robert Petrone and Sophia Tatiana Sarigianides, extends
the argument that the framing of adolescent identity is critical in the field
of English language arts teacher education. Highlighting three ways that
English teacher educators might facilitate prospective English teachers’
interrogation of dominant discourses of adolescence/ts, Petrone and
Sarigianides emphasize that this interrogation will help prospective English
teachers be better positioned to create pedagogical practices aligned with
more comprehensive understandings of secondary students. This chapter
also focuses on how youth, themselves, can be integrated into English
teacher education coursework as guest speakers on a range of English and
schooling practices, thereby being “re-positioned” as experts and contribu-
tors to English teacher education. The next chapter, the chapter “Beyond
the Knowledge Economy: Teaching English for Economic Justice,” by
Ross Collin, explores English language arts’ tradition of economic critique.
Collin asserts that although economic critique has long had a role in ELA,
it has seldom been seen as a way for teachers to pursue ELA’s economic
mission of teaching forms of literacy that students can use to improve their
63
64 SECTION INTRODUCTION TO PART II

economic positions. Collin introduces a way that ELA teachers can help
students improve their economic positions by showing them (a) how to
read and write about abuses of economic and political power and (b) how
to work toward a more economically just society. The final chapter in
Part II of the book, the chapter “From Research to Practice: Writing,
Technology, and English Teacher Education,” by Jen Scott Curwood,
Jayne C. Lammers, and Alecia Marie Magnifico, stresses the advantages
of writing authentically and looking at youths’ writing “in the wild”
(Curwood, Magnifico, & Lammers, 2013). Through drawing on their
experiences as English teacher educators and as researchers of digital litera-
cies and online affinity spaces, Curwood, Lammers, and Magnifico offer
examples from three English teacher education programs in the United
States and Australia to demonstrate a link between their research in out-of-
school spaces to literacy practices in school contexts.
Just as Dixon (1967, 2003) advocated for the process model in English
language arts through the personal experience agenda, stressing that
language is learned through the process of doing, Part II encourages the
teaching and learning of English language arts as fully rooted in the experi-
ence of doing. By encouraging students to share their life’s experiences, the
personal experience model, according to Dixon (2003) allows students to
“build [their] own representational world[s] and work to make this fit
reality as [they] experience it” (p. 13). This model is alive within Part II of
the book and resonates with a Deweyan, experience-based curriculum
(1938/1963), valuing and promoting learning through experience.

REFERENCES

Curwood, J. S., Magnifico, A. M., & Lammers, J. C. (2013). Writing in the wild: Writers’
motivation in fan-based affinity spaces. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy,
56(8), 677
685.
Dewey, J. (1938/1963). Experience and education. New York, NY: Macmillan.
Dixon, J. (1967). Growth through English. Champaign, IL: National Council of Teachers
of English.
Dixon, J. (2003). Historical considerations: An international perspective. In J. Flood,
D. Lapp, J. R. Squire, & J. Jensen (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching the English
language arts (pp. 18
23). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
RETHINKING IDENTITY AND
ADOLESCENCE IN THE TEACHING
OF LITERATURE: IMPLICATIONS
FOR PRE-SERVICE TEACHER
EDUCATION

Amanda Haertling Thein, Richard Beach and

Anthony Johnston

ABSTRACT

A thematic focus on identity has for years been a mainstay of secondary

school literature curricula. Typical curricular units engage students in
questions related to what it means to come of age and to develop an inte-
grated sense of individual identity in the face of societal pressures toward
conformity. This common thematic focus relies on conventional theories
of identity as static, located in the individual, and linked to an autono-
mous self. Further, this focus positions adolescents as incomplete people,
lacking fully formed identities. Current sociocultural theories of identity,
however, understand identity as multiple, fluid, performed, and shaped by
cultural histories and social contexts. Identity, in this view is always in
process. Adolescents are fully formed people with identities that are no

Innovations in English Language Arts Teacher Education

Advances in Research on Teaching, Volume 27, 65
87
Copyright r 2017 by Emerald Publishing Limited
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved
ISSN: 1479-3687/doi:10.1108/S1479-368720170000027004
65
66 AMANDA HAERTLING THEIN

more or less complete than those of anyone else. Such a view of identity
requires a more complex and nuanced conceptualization of adolescents,
their capabilities, and their interactions with texts than does an individual
view of identity. In this chapter, we outline a framework for identity
focused literature instruction that relies on sociocultural understandings
of identity, then draw on illustrations from classroom research to explore
three key ways that an identity-focused approach challenges current
approaches to pre-service teacher education related to literature instruc-
tion. Specifically, we explore challenges to the ways that we teach tea-
chers to select and evaluate literary texts, plan literature instruction, and
engage in inquiry and dialogue with students.
Keywords: Identity; secondary school literature; sociocultural theory;
literature instruction

The Individual vs. Society. Coming-of-Age. Loss of Innocence. Experience vs.

Youth. Self-Discovery. Self-Reliance. The Journey toward Enlightenment.
English teachers and educators will find these phrases all too familiar.
These seemingly universal literary themes have been a mainstay of second-
ary school English language arts (ELA) curricula for decades. Instruction
on these themes typically aims to engage students in questions related to
what it means to become an adult and to develop an integrated sense of
individual identity in the face of societal pressures toward conformity.
Undergirding these themes is a commitment to conventional theories of
identity as stable, located in the individual, and linked to an autonomous
self. Further, these themes imply a commitment to a conceptualization of
adolescents as incomplete people in need of adult guidance to develop fully
formed identities (Lesko, 2012). Teaching literature, in this view, is in no
small part about the development and resolution of adolescent identity.
But what if identity was not individual, singular, or stable? What if iden-
tity was not developed and resolved during adolescence, but instead was
multiple and constantly in flux? How would that change approaches to the
teaching of literature and to English education? How would that change
teachers’ and teacher educators’ stances toward adolescents?
In this chapter we consider how sociocultural theories of identity

which understand identity as multiple, fluid, performed, and shaped by
cultural histories and social contexts (Holland et al., 2002)
activate more
complex and nuanced conceptualizations of adolescents, their capabilities,
Identity and Adolescence 67

and their interactions with literature than does an autonomous view of

identity. We argue that this more complex view of adolescents, identity,
and literature response has significant implications for how English
teachers and teacher educators approach the teaching of literature.
We begin this chapter by briefly discussing the origins of the conven-
tional, autonomous view of identity, and its linkage to adolescence,
followed by a description of some of the ways that this view has shaped
pedagogy in English and English education. Next, we draw on sociocultural
theories of identity and critical theories about youth to point out limita-
tions of conventional approaches to identity and adolescence, particularly
as they influence the work of literature instruction. Finally, we outline key
practices for sociocultural, identity-focused literature instruction (Beach,
Johnston, & Thein, 2015; see http://identities.pbworks.com for further
information). We then pinpoint three ways that such an approach chal-
lenges current practices in pre-service teacher education related to literature
instruction. Specifically, we explore challenges to the ways that we teach
teachers to select and evaluate literary texts, conceptualize and develop
literature instruction, and design instructional practices and activities.

TRADITIONAL APPROACHES TO ADOLESCENTS,

IDENTITY, AND LITERATURE INSTRUCTION
Autonomous Identity and the Developing Adolescent

Autonomous theories of identity can be traced to Western philosophers

such as Aristotle, Descartes, and Locke who suggest that each person has a
single unitary “self” whose life purpose comes from within. In this view,
identity is static, while people often adopt various “outer selves” when
faced with pressures from society and culture, each person has one authen-
tic “inner self” (Lawler, 2008). Identity work, therefore, is about finding
one’s true inner identity and working to align that identity with one’s life
path. In the United States, this approach to identity is associated with
notions of American individualism and self-reliance forward by Emerson
and other 19th century philosophers
notions that suggest that a person’s
success or failure is due to their ability to find their true identity and
purpose, thereby developing initiative, motivation, and self-reliance.
In psychological research, autonomous identity development has long
been associated with adolescence
a concept typically conceived of as the
68 AMANDA HAERTLING THEIN

teenage years. Adolescence, according to scholars like Hall (1916), is a uni-

versal biological and developmental period of “storm and stress” marked
by erratic hormones, rebellion, peer-orientation, and immaturity that each
person must pass through in order to become a complete adult. For
Erickson (1950), adolescence is the key developmental period in which
people experience identity crises and work to resolve identity confusion.
Taken together, dominant, autonomous conceptualizations of identity
and adolescence suggest that a complete, unified, resolved identity is a criti-
cal marker of adulthood and the broader accomplishment of resolute
personhood. Moreover, these conceptualizations position adolescents as
incomplete people with unresolved identities who are inevitably in the
midst of crisis.

Autonomous Identity Development in the ELA Classroom

Adolescent identity development, as articulated above, has in many ways

been a consistent, central goal of ELA instruction. Although English as an
academic discipline was first guided by New Critical approaches to literature
analysis that take a technical, scientific, and objective stance toward literary
interpretation (Wimsatt & Beardsley, 1949), Reader Response and Personal
Growth approaches to English soon emerged as a distinct contrast, espe-
cially in the secondary English classroom (Dixon, 1975; Rosenblatt, 1995).
These approaches view English curricula
and literature in particular

as a vehicle for developing students as autonomous individuals. Implicit in
these approaches is a belief in adolescents as people in the process of devel-
oping unified identities. Although a number of approaches to literature
instruction have proliferated throughout the years (e.g., cultural knowl-
edge, skills and processes, critical literacy), a focus on the personal growth
and identity development of adolescents continues to undergird dominant
approaches to literature instruction. This focus is reflected in units on “the
individual versus society” wherein students examine issues of conformity to
social dictates evident in texts such as The Catcher in the Rye (Salinger,
1951)
a novel in which the protagonist, Holden is framed as being out-
side or at odds with “society.”
Not surprisingly, research has found that pre-service ELA teachers
believe it is important to nurture identity development through their
stances toward their students and through their pedagogical and instruc-
tional choices. For instance, Petrone and Lewis (2012) found that pre-
service ELA teachers in their study “viewed the secondary school subject
Identity and Adolescence 69

English as an instrument to facilitate students’ processes of personal self-

discovery/identity formation … from this perspective, the role of curricu-
lum is to help adolescents both figure out who they are and who or how
they want to be in the world at large” (p. 270). Similarly, Sulzer and Thein
(2016) found that pre-service English teachers in their study often evaluated
young adult literature for future classroom use based on assumptions about
the developmental identity needs of their future students. The authors point
to ELA teacher education as encouraging a view of young adult literature
as a tool of adolescent identity development, arguing that the questions
English educators often pose about teaching young adult literature invite
pre-service teachers to imagine their future students as “hypothetical ado-
lescents” in the midst of individual identity development.
In short, the teaching of literature within secondary English and English
education is deeply entrenched in a view of adolescents as people in the
midst of autonomous identity development
a development that can be
nurtured through literature instruction.

AN ALTERNATIVE APPROACH TO ADOLESCENTS

AND LITERATURE INSTRUCTION
Sociocultural Theories of Identity

Current sociocultural theories of identity point to the limitations of an

autonomous view of identity and offer new ways to imagine who
adolescents are and what it means to engage in identity work through litera-
ture instruction. Sociocultural theories of identity emerged during the
Postmodern movement as sociologists like Bourdieu (1984) and philoso-
phers like Foucault (1977) posited that identity is not an intrinsic or idiosyn-
cratic internal state, nor is it entirely fluid. Instead, identity is constructed
and shaped by race, social class, and gender, as well as institutional
discourses and allegiances. In this view binaries between one’s inner and
outer identity are dissolved because all identities are seen as constructed,
performed, and improvised upon amid various cultural experiences, social
situations, and institutional demands. People develop recognizable, if flex-
ible identities through repeated performances of certain identities in certain
contexts (Holland et al., 2002). Hyland (2013) explains:
[Identity does not belong] within the individual person, but between persons and within
social relations … Identity is not the state of being a particular person, but a process,
70 AMANDA HAERTLING THEIN

something which is assembled and changes over time throughout interactions with
others … who we are, or rather who we present ourselves to be, is an outcome of how we
routinely and repeatedly engage in interactions with others on an everyday basis.
(pp. 2
3)

Importantly, this view of identity assumes that people have multiple, inter-
secting identities that they negotiate across multiple contexts and across
time. For instance, a teacher performs a different identity in the classroom
than at home with family or at a social event with friends. These identity
performances are related to different expectations, norms, and roles that are
performed in each context and are manifested in various discourses, disposi-
tions, attitudes, relationships, and myriad other overt and subtle differences.
Additionally, a teacher’s identity performances in each of these contexts are
shaped by gender, race, and social class norms and experiences.
Synthesizing sociocultural theories of identity, Beach et al. (2015) define
identity as “the performance of practices grounded in a social and cultural
history and improvised upon in particular social situations through the
positioning of the self and others” (p. 5). In this conceptualization, identity
is understood as enacted through different ways of being and becoming by
adopting different practices in different contexts.

Rethinking Adolescents and Identity Development

Sociocultural theories of identity provide important challenges to common

beliefs about adolescence as a time-bound developmental period of identity
development marked by a universal set of biological and psychological
experiences and crises. Scholars in youth studies (Lesko, 2012) argue that
adolescence is not a developmental or biological period, but instead is a
social and cultural construct that did not exist until the early 1900s.
Commonplace beliefs about adolescence as a temporal, universal, develop-
mental period position young people as members of a monolithic group,
ignoring cultural and social differences in the experiences and identities of
young people. Sociocultural theories of identity help to disrupt dominant
myths about the universality of the adolescent identity experience. Beach
et al. (2015) explain that:
Adolescents are typically imagined to be highly impressionable people who will not
become complete until they reach adulthood. A sociocultural view of identity, which
rejects fixed identity categories, compels us to rethink this universal view of adolescent
identity and asks us to imagine the many complex, socially, culturally, and historically
driven ways that adolescents experience life and perform identities. Moreover, such a
Identity and Adolescence 71

view asks us to view adolescents as complete human beings with experiences, beliefs,
and opinions that matter. (p. 6)

For English teachers and educators, a sociocultural view of identity dis-

rupts the “storm and stress” notion that adolescents can be understood as
experiencing the same crises or having the same needs. It also disrupts the
notion that literature instruction should be grounded in the development
and resolution of a singular, autonomous identity or self. Identity, in this
view, is always in process. Adolescents are fully formed people with identi-
ties that are no more or less complete than those of anyone else
including
their teachers. Moreover, a sociocultural view of identity means that grap-
pling with identity through literature instruction in the ELA classroom
must be about something more than helping prototypical adolescents
achieve a singular identity resolution.

TEACHING LITERATURE TO ADOLESCENTS

THROUGH A SOCIOCULTURAL VIEW OF IDENTITY
Key Shifts in Approaching Literature Instruction

A sociocultural view of identity compels at least two significant shifts in

how ELA teachers approach literature instruction.
First, a sociocultural view of identity refocuses the goals of engaging in
identity work within instruction on literature. Instead of aiming to help stu-
dents find and resolve their identities, the goal becomes helping students
become aware of the ways in which they are positioned by language, dis-
courses, and narratives to take up and perform particular identities asso-
ciated with various social, cultural, and institutional contexts and
situations. Such an awareness allows students to become active participants
in their identity negotiations, determining, for instance, how particular
positionings may constrain them and how those positioning might be trans-
formed. Beach et al. (2015) explain that:
Consciousness [about identity positioning] allows for imagining new ways of construct-
ing, responding to, and critiquing texts that might reposition identities. Further, focus-
ing on identity in the ELA classroom allows students to see how various uses of texts,
language, discourse, and narrative matter in material ways to their own lives and the
lives of those around them. (p. 7)

For instance, in studying a text like Alexie’s The Absolutely True Diary of a
Part-Time Indian (2007)
a young adult novel about a Spokane Indian boy
72 AMANDA HAERTLING THEIN

who leaves his reservation school to better his education at a White high
school, students might focus less on Junior’s “coming-of-age” through the
independent decision he makes about his education, and more on the ways in
which social and cultural narratives about family, friendship, loyalty, success,
and Whiteness create tensions for Junior as he negotiates competing identities
across the different social worlds he experiences. Students might then reflect
on ways in which such narratives work in their own social worlds.
In addition to refocusing the goals of identity work in the teaching of
literature, a sociocultural view of identity also encourages teachers to think
beyond limiting labels that position students as having intrinsic identity traits
and to develop a stance toward students that sees them as more complex.
From a sociocultural perspectives students are not just “adolescents” who
are self-focused and immature, “struggling readers” who are disengaged
with literature, or “behavioral problems” who are expected to be perpetually
disruptive. Instead, these labels become ways in which students are
positioned
positionings that can be transformed through a shift in stance
toward students and instruction. Beach et al. (2015) explain, “When you
view your students as more than just a universal group of adolescents, you
raise their status. They become equal participants with you in the process of
identity work” (p. 14). In other words, teaching literature through a sociocul-
tural view of identity requires English teachers to dissolves some of the artifi-
cial boundaries that are often erected between teachers and students when
students are imagined to be incomplete people in the process of identity
work that teachers have already completed (Lewis & Finders, 2002). English
teachers, therefore, must be willing to share a more dialogic space with stu-
dents, to decenter some of their authority, and to engage with students in the
ongoing work of identity negotiation that can be mediated by literature.

Key Instructional Practices

Beach et al. (2015) outline several key practices for a sociocultural,

identity-focused ELA. Below, we detail three of these key practices, discuss-
ing how each can be used to re-center identity work in classroom literature
instruction.

Adopting Alternative Perspectives

One way students can become aware of the socially and culturally
constructed nature of identity is to study and “try on” the perspectives of
literary characters, pinpointing ways in which those perspectives are
Identity and Adolescence 73

shaped by socially, culturally, and institutionally constructed narratives

and discourses (Moya, 2005; Thein, Beach, & Parks, 2007). In this practice,
students can begin to see how the expression of various perspectives is a
key element in characters’ performances of identities that converge and
diverge from the values and norms of various cultures and institutions.
Wes Moore’s memoir, The Other Wes Moore (2010), is a useful example
of a text that allows students to experiment with alternative perspectives.
The book alternates between the successful author’s experiences growing
up in a poor neighborhood in Baltimore and the similar experiences of
another man, now in prison for murder, also named Wes Moore. In consid-
ering and trying on the perspectives of each of the two men, students can
work to pinpoint the ways in which discourses, narratives, and beliefs that
arose from family, educational, and institutional experiences are taken up
by each of the two men as they develop perspectives as young Black men

perspectives that both embrace and resist particular identity positionings.
Students might notice how the author’s positive perspective about the
power of education was shaped by the successes his parents and grand-
parents experienced with schooling. Likewise, they might notice that the
“other” Wes Moore’s perspective related to the necessity of his participa-
tion in the drug trade was shaped by his and his family’s repeated denied
access to institutions that would allow them to escape the cycle of poverty.
Students might then consider ways in which their own perspectives are
both shaped by their social, cultural, and institutional experiences, and
might be transformed as they encounter new people and experiences.

Negotiating Identities across Different Social Worlds

As students learn to identify and understand how perspectives and identi-
ties are socially and culturally constructed and performed, they may also
notice both continuities and differences in how people perform identities
across the multiple and competing social worlds they encounter. In inter-
preting literature, students might examine characters’ shifting perspectives,
attitudes, roles, dispositions, and language use as they move across social
worlds. While reading The Hunger Games (2008), students could examine
how the protagonist, Katniss makes both conscious and unconscious iden-
tity shifts as she moves from her home, where she performs an adult-like
identity in caring and providing for her family, to the capital city, where
she is positioned as a child and must become a feminine object of media
attention in order to survive (Petrone, Sarigianides, & Lewis, 2015).
Students might then consider how and to what end they perform different
identities (through dress, language, demeanor, and discourse, for instance)
74 AMANDA HAERTLING THEIN

as they take on different roles and work toward different goals in their own
social worlds.

Making Connections across People and Texts

As students explore how perspectives and identities are constructed,
performed, and negotiated across contexts, they can also begin to make
connections across people and texts, noticing ways in which identities
become recognizable through repeated positionings and performances.
For example, students might look across texts featuring teenaged charac-
ters who experience pregnancy (e.g., Salvage the Bones (Ward, 2011), Make
Lemonade (Wolff, 1993), Weetzie Bat (Block, 1989), Tender Morsels
(Lanagan, 2008)), examining (dis)continuities in how these characters are
depicted with regard to happiness, resilience, intelligence, and maturity
(Niccolini, 2015; Sarigianides, 2014). Students might consider whether
pregnancy is depicted as a punishment, an inevitability, a tragedy, or a
conscious choice. They might study how pregnancy positions characters
within the identity category of “teenaged mother” or how it compels char-
acters to transform that positioning by developing new resources, perspec-
tives, and identities. Becoming aware of these patterns, consistencies, and
transformations in identity positionings can help students make choices
about how to respond to identity positioning in their own lives.
Each of these three key practices engages students in identity work
related to literature interpretation in ways that are fundamentally different
from approaches grounded in a view of identity as autonomous and
resolved during adolescence. These practices treat literature not as a tool
for identity development, but as a platform for exploring socioculturally
constructed discourses and narratives that inform the continual negotiation
of identity as one is positioned and positions oneself in and among various
social, cultural, and institutional contexts.

PREPARING PRE-SERVICE ENGLISH TEACHERS FOR

IDENTITY-FOCUSED LITERATURE INSTRUCTION
Developing literature instruction that engages students in these three iden-
tity practices means changes to the approach English educators take in pre-
paring pre-service teachers to explore identity through literature. In this
section we outline three ways in which English educators might rethink
their practice.
Identity and Adolescence 75

Selecting and Evaluating Texts

In teaching teachers about text selection and evaluation, English educators

often encourage pre-service teachers to consider the needs and interests of
their future students. However, it is difficult for pre-service teachers to
imagine who their future students might be without relying on assumptions
about adolescents based either on their own experiences or on larger
socially-constructed beliefs about who adolescents are and what they care
about. Sulzer and Thein (2016) found that when English educators asked
pre-service teachers to evaluate texts with their future students in mind, they
used two primary strategies
a matching strategy in which they matched
the content of the book with the presumed needs of adolescents (needs asso-
ciated with coming-of-age and identity resolution), and a salvaging strategy
in which they argued that texts they deemed otherwise inappropriate for the
presumed needs of adolescents might be read only by selected individuals or
small groups, or excerpted for specific instructional purposes. In others
words, they looked for books that would meet what they assumed to be the
universal needs of adolescents and avoided books that depicted adolescents
with complex, intersectional, or unexpected identities.
These findings usefully illustrate the need for English educators to
teach pre-service teachers new criteria for selecting and evaluating texts for
their future students. When adolescent identity is understood as fluid,
performed, and intersectional rather than stable and resolvable through
universal experiences, texts that make developmental assumptions about
the experiences of students should be traded in for those that provide
nuanced explorations of identity. Below we discuss textual features that
might be highlighted in English education courses in the interest of helping
pre-service teachers learn to evaluate and select books that allow for a
complex, sociocultural exploration of identity.

Movement and Negotiation across Social Worlds

Texts that depict characters moving across markedly different social worlds
provide for exploration of identity as shifting and changing across social,
cultural, and institutional contexts. Such books allow students to explore
the ways in which competing norms, values, roles, and expectations across
worlds compel characters to negotiate and perform different identities.
For instance, books in which characters travel across time are often
particularly useful for exploration of identity negotiation across social
worlds. Octavia Butler’s novel, Kindred (2003) powerfully illustrates a char-
acter’s changing identity across time and social context. The protagonist,
76 AMANDA HAERTLING THEIN

Dana is a young African-American woman living in California in the mid-

1970s. She is a confident professional who is married to a White man.
However, when she travels back in time to the antebellum South, she must
be subservient to men and to White people on the whole in order to
survive. The reader experiences the cognitive dissonance that Dana feels in
her first experiences in the past, and also sees how her repeated identity
performances as an African-American woman living on a plantation
change her confidence, her attitude, her demeanor, and her sense of agency.

Multiple and Competing Perspectives

Texts with multi-voiced narratives are often generative for exploring how
perspectives are constructed and identities are performed in response to
different experiences with people and events.
Jandy Nelson’s novel, I’ll Give you the Sun (2014) illustrates competing
identities and perspectives through a narration that is split between a twin
brother and sister. Once very close, the siblings have grown apart in
response to a series of overlapping events that occurred in the months lead-
ing up to their mother’s death. The book alternates between Jude’s story

told after their mother’s death when the twins are 16, and Noah’s story,
told when the twins are 13. The twins share a family history and a love of
art, but experience life differently in their interactions with peers, teachers,
and parents, and in response to expectations for gender and sexuality. Each
character experiences marked identity shifts throughout the narrative
in
dress, demeanor, attitude, and in actions and choices that often negatively
affect one another. However, the book allows readers to explore and come
to understand these identity shifts by seeing the twins’ experiences through
each of their perspectives.

Unresolved Identities
Many literary texts end with some sort of resolution to a problem or crisis.
In young adult literature
particularly contemporary realistic fiction

coming-of-age and identity clarification often serve as resolutions to a
novel (Cadden, 2011). While appealing, such resolutions reinforce the
notion that identity is developed in adolescence and becomes fixed at the
start of adulthood (Thein & Kedley, 2015). Books that avoid clear coming-
of-age moments complicate ideas about identity resolution as a marker of
adulthood, allowing students to see identity as an ongoing negotiation.
Walter Dean Myers’s Monster (1999) is an example of a novel in which
the protagonist becomes increasingly less certain of his identity through the
course of the narrative. Steve is an African-American, urban teenager who
Identity and Adolescence 77

is being tried as an accessory to murder. Although he is eventually found

not guilty, his experiences in the criminal justice system
where he is posi-
tioned as a “monster”
shake everything he believes about his identity as a
good person, son, brother, and student. Even as he returns to school and to
his loving and relieved family, Steve is left feeling uncertain of his innocence,
his identity, and his own humanity. The lack of identity resolution in this
novel illuminates the ways in which cultural and institutional discourses

in this case related to race and violence
serve to position people; influen-
cing, shaping, and unhinging their identity beliefs and practices.

Complex and Unexpected Portrayals of Young People

Instead of looking for books that depict adolescents experiencing proto-
typical crises (e.g., first love, experimentation with drugs and alcohol, rebel-
lion from parents), or having prototypical interests (e.g., parties, music,
fast cars, dating, gossip), it is useful to look for books that challenge
assumptions about what young people care about and find interesting
by providing complex and unexpected portrayals of young people. Such
portrays allow for an exploration of the various ways in which adolescents
negotiate, resist, and transform identity positionings that are often linked
with assumptions about their age.
Caitlin Doughty’s Smoke gets in your Eyes (2014), is a memoir about a
young woman’s interest in death and dying and her exploration of these
issues through her work in crematories and funeral homes. Although it is
often assumed that young people see themselves as immortal, Doughty’s
memoir illustrates the careful, thoughtful way that one young person has
come to explore death as a part of life. Doughty details her experiences as
part of the “death industry,” reflecting on how these experiences led her to
negotiate an identity as a mortician with an alternative philosophy on
death and funeral practice.
Other books that challenge assumptions about adolescent identity are
those that depict youth as having intersectional identities that influence
their interests, needs, and desires. Saenz’s novel Aristotle and Dante
Discover the Secrets of the Universe (2012) is one such book. In this novel,
Ari and Dante are teenaged boys living in El Paso, Texas in the late 1980s.
Best friends, each boy negotiates the norms and expectations of being a
Mexican-American man along with questions that arise as they explore
gender and sexuality.
Each of the textual features highlighted in this section encourage text
selection and evaluation focused on complicating assumptions about ado-
lescents and identity that have historically guided secondary school
78 AMANDA HAERTLING THEIN

literature instruction. In the section that follows we discuss implications for

conceptualizing and developing literature instruction that arise in response
to a sociocultural approach to adolescents and identity.

Conceptualizing and Developing Identity-Focused Literature Instruction

In an approach to literature instruction that takes seriously the social and

cultural complexity of adolescents and identities, instruction cannot be
developed in a vacuum. Just as texts cannot be selected with the needs of a
hypothetical adolescent in mind, neither can instruction be planned in
this way. Instead, if identity is shaped by social and cultural experiences,
pre-service teachers need to be encouraged to conceptualize and develop
instruction with a keen eye toward to the social and cultural contexts in
which real students live and attend school, and the issues and concerns that
real students care about.

Learning about Communities, Schools, and Students

A useful way to begin the process of developing identity-focused literature
instruction is to incorporate ethnographic observations and interviews into
pre-service teachers’ field experiences (see Sunstein & Chiseri-Strater, 2011
for a useful introduction to ethnographic methods). By observing and
taking field notes in everyday contexts in a school and community (e.g.,
classrooms, the cafeteria, hallways, afterschool activities, local coffee shops,
and hangouts), pre-service teachers can learn much about what a particular
school values, what issues it faces, how people organize themselves socially,
and how students’ identities are positioned. By interviewing students about
their social and cultural experiences, their beliefs and values, and their roles
and relationships, pre-service teachers can gain insights into the problems
and issues that matter to students within the social and cultural worlds of
their school and community.
For instance, ethnographic observations in a working-class high school
and its surrounding community in St. Paul, Minnesota revealed that while
a change in the local economy had dramatically altered the demographic
composition of the community, the school was still deeply committed to
White, masculine, athletic traditions of the past. Interviews with students in
the school revealed that although most identified as having a shared urban,
working-class background, they had a range of social, academic, and extra-
curricular experiences associated with their racial positionings in the school
that influenced their identity performances. In planning for literature
Identity and Adolescence 79

instruction in this school, English teacher Daryl Parks selected texts and
activities that provided students the opportunity to explore both race and
class as these constructs influence communities and identities (Beach,
Thein, & Parks, 2008).
For pre-service teachers, ethnographic observations and interviews can
shed light on the complex particularities of the communities, schools, and
students they interact with in their field experiences. These particularities
help pre-service teachers locate important starting points for developing
identity-focused literature instruction.

Pinpointing Problems and Issues for Exploration

Once pre-service teachers have developed some background knowledge
about the social and cultural contexts that shape the identities of students
they will teach, they can use that knowledge to hone in on problems and
issues that might matter to their students. Rather than selecting general
and universal themes (e.g., coming-of-age) or inquiry questions (e.g., What
responsibilities do humans have to nature?), pre-service teachers will be in
a position to develop more specific areas of inquiry that start with students’
local identity experiences.
For instance, Rebecca Oberg, an English teacher in a high school in
Minneapolis, found that her students were concerned about poverty and
violence in their urban neighborhood. She planned instruction around these
concerns by developing a unit centered on the study of urban neighbor-
hoods. Central questions for her unit included “What is a neighborhood?”
“How do neighborhoods change over time?” and “How does the individual
impact his/her neighborhood?” For this unit, Rebecca selected Days of
Rondo (Fairbanks, 1990), a memoir about the destruction of an urban
neighborhood the occurred in the 1930s and 1940s when an interstate high-
way was routed through the neighborhood. Along with their reading of
this text, Rebecca’s students interviewed long-time residents of their own
neighborhood, exploring how neighborhoods shape our identities and how
they can be transformed. Reflecting on their learning in this unit, students
shared their own writing about neighborhoods and identity in blog posts
(Beach, Thein, & Webb, 2016).

Providing a Range of Texts and Perspectives

Once pre-service teachers have determined a specific problem or issue they
would like to explore through identity-focused literature instruction, it is
important that they locate a multiple texts of varying lengths and genres
that will allow students to explore a number of perspectives that illustrate
80 AMANDA HAERTLING THEIN

differences in how people position themselves and are positioned by others

relative to the issue at hand.
For instance, Elizabeth Erdmann, a teacher in suburban Minneapolis
led her students in a unit related to family and identity. She used Guest’s
Ordinary People (1976)
a novel that depicts a White, middle class family
striving to maintain their status as a “typical” family despite experiences
of death, depression, and marital conflict that deeply challenge each family
member’s identity positioning. In addition to reading this novel,
Elizabeth’s students studied media representations of family found in popu-
lar television programs such as Family Guy, That ’70s Show, Gilmore Girls,
and The Cosby Show. Key questions that students explored in considering
family and identity across the various perspectives in these texts were,
“How do family members influence each other? What roles and dynamics
do you see in these media depictions? Are these roles typical of mothers,
fathers, and children? What is typical/ordinary?” (Beach et al., 2015).
In extending a unit like Elizabeth’s, teachers might include other texts
that further challenge the norms, values, and composition of a “typical”
family. This could include texts that explore the ways in which relationships
among extended family members influence identity performances (e.g.,
Love Medicine, (Erdrich, 1984); Bastard out of Carolina, (Allison, 1993)),
texts that shed light on the various identity positions taken up by members
of families who have immigrated to a new country (e.g., How the Garcia
Girls Lost Their Accents (Alvarez, 1991); The Namesake (Lahiri, 2003)), or
texts with families that challenge heteronormative identity positionings
(e.g., From the Notebooks of Melanin Sun, Woodson, 1995).
The strategies for developing identity-focused literature instruction
detailed in this section highlight the need for English educators to guide
pre-service teachers in active inquiry into the social, cultural, and institu-
tional forces that shape their future students’ identities, and to learn about
the specific issues that matter to their future students rather than relying on
their assumptions about “hypothetical adolescents” (Sulzer & Thein, 2016).
Further, these strategies encourage pre-service teachers to build instruc-
tional units around an array of texts that provide multiple perspectives on
the specific issues they hope to explore with students.

Designing Instructional Practices and Activities for Identity Exploration

Once pre-service teachers have conceptualized and developed a central

focus for a unit and texts that will provide multiple perspectives on that
Identity and Adolescence 81

focus, they can begin to design specific activities for exploring identity
through literature. In this section we discuss a range of activities and prac-
tices that can be modeled in English education coursework and integrated
into pre-service teachers’ unit planning. These activities and practices incor-
porate the three key practices for identity-focused instruction outlined ear-
lier: adopting alternative perspectives, negotiating identities across different
social worlds, and making connections across people and texts.

Dialogic Discussion
Student-centered, inquiry-driven discussion is perhaps the most basic and
important activity that pre-service teachers should incorporate into their
units and lessons related to identity-focused literature instruction. Often
referred to as “dialogic” discussion (Nystrand & Gamoran, 1991), this form
of discussion is a contrast with teacher-directed recitation in which the tea-
cher poses questions, students recite answers, then the teacher evaluates
those answers for correctness (Mehan, 1979). Instead, in dialogic discussion
the focus is on “authentic questions” for which there are no prescribed
answers, and dialogue among all members of the class wherein “uptake” of
ideas occurs as people listen to one another and respond in a manner that
incorporates previous ideas into new contributions (Nystrand & Gamoran,
1991). Dialogic discussion is important for identity-focused literature
instruction because it allows for students to share and consider a range of
perspectives on a given issue rather than searching for a correct answer.
For pre-service teachers, writing authentic questions and facilitating
dialogic discussion can be a challenge because both tasks require a will-
ingness to entertain the unpredictable in one’s teaching. Writing truly
authentic questions means posing questions about which the teacher gen-
uinely wonders and wants to explore with their students. A question is
not really authentic if a teacher is hoping for the emergence of certain
kinds of responses or interpretations. Leading a dialogic discussion
requires improvisation. Teachers must become adept at asking follow-up
questions for clarification or elaboration, listening carefully to what stu-
dents find compelling and want to pursue in a given text, and making
choices about when to redirect discussion and when to let discussion
move in its own direction. English educators will want to allow signifi-
cant time for pre-service teachers to practice developing authentic inquiry
question and to lead dialogic discussions with their peers. O’Donnell-
Allen (2011) and Juzwik, Borsheim-Black, Caughlan, and Heintz (2013)
each provide useful strategies for helping pre-service teachers develop
strategies for dialogic discussion.
82 AMANDA HAERTLING THEIN

Drama and Role-Play

Activities that engage students in process drama and role-play scenarios
can help students experiment with multiple perspectives and imagine what
it might be like to negotiate across various competing social worlds. For
instance, Daryl Parks asked his students to write and perform monologues
in which they used information from a literary text as well as their own
inferences to speak in the voice of a character and explain that character’s
perspective. Each student was asked to start with the words, “You think
you know me, but you don’t …” (Beach et al., 2008; Thein et al., 2007).
Jeff, a teacher at a socioeconomically diverse high school in Iowa,
planned a unit that aimed to help students explore their questions about
income inequality in their community. Jeff selected Barbara Ehrenreich’s
Nickel and Dimed (2001), a journalistic account of the author’s attempt to
live for a year on minimum wage. In preparation for reading this book,
Jeff engaged his students in an online role-play activity in which they faced
difficult choices and obstacles as they attempted to live on minimum wage.
The simulation begins with the premise that the player has no job or home
and only $1,000. The game challenges the player to make it through one
month without going broke, by acquiring an entry-level job and making
good financial decisions. As Jeff’s students read Nickel and Dimed, their
vicarious experiences with difficult choices in the role-play scaffolded their
close reading of the book. In small and large group discussions of the
book, students continually referenced the obstacles and challenges they had
to navigate in the simulation. Further, in attempting to understand the
perspectives of the people portrayed in Nickel and Dimed, students rarely
made moral judgments, and instead continued to think about people in
terms of the challenging choices they had to make in navigating their
social, cultural, and institutional worlds, and the often unanticipated conse-
quences that they faced as a result.
Other simple and quick role-play and drama activities might also be
designed to get students out of their seats and improvising within the per-
spectives of literary characters. Great ideas for activities like these that
might be useful to pre-service teachers can be found in Edmiston (2014)
and Pirie (1997).

Writing
There are many ways in which pre-service teachers can design writing
tasks to help students explore identity in literature. For instance, students
might keep dialogue journals with a peer in which they write to one
another in the voices of literary characters (Vinz, 2000), or they might
Identity and Adolescence 83

create mock social media sites for characters, imagining what kinds of
images, quotations, media links, and daily commentaries a given character
might post.
Pre-service teachers might also be encouraged to design writing tasks
that help students reflect on their own identity performances and position-
ings in response to what they’ve interpreted in a literary text. Steph, a tea-
cher in a White, working-class, farming community in Iowa developed a
unit in which students explored identity as linked to the places they live.
Her students read The House on Mango Street (Cisneros, 1991), a novel
told in poetic vignettes about a young Mexican-American girl’s experiences
of race, class, gender, and family in an urban Chicago neighborhood. In
response to the novel, Steph’s students wrote their own vignettes focused
on the details of life in their own homes and neighborhoods. In writing
these vignettes, students considered how their own identities were shaped
by the homes they lived in and the neighborhoods they were a part of
(Beach et al., 2015).

Language Study
Finally, because identity is often performed through language and dis-
course, pre-service teachers should be encouraged to include close analy-
sis of language in designing activities for identity-focused literature
instruction. People learn to adopt different discourses as “identity tool-
kits” based on different ways of knowing and thinking. For example,
school administrators often adopt a discourse of business management
for justifying the need for “accountability” and “measurable outcomes”
(Gee, 2015).
In studying the ways in which language and identity shift as people
move across social worlds, students in DeAnn Long Sloan’s 10th-grade
English classroom studied Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird (1960). Focusing
on the character of Calpurnia, an African-American housekeeper in a
White household, students noticed that the character’s language, dis-
course, and demeanor shift as she moves from the social world of her
work to the social world of her home and church community (Thein,
Oldakowski, & Sloan, 2010). Similarly, Flynn (2011) detailed a unit in
which students studied Soto’s play, Novio Boy (1997). Students in this
classroom examined how and for what purposes characters made choices
about speaking English or Spanish. Students came to see that language is
tied to identity performance in important ways; characters shifted their
use of language depending on their purposes, goals, and relationships in
various social contexts.
84 AMANDA HAERTLING THEIN

CONCLUSIONS
Moving beyond a view of identity as idiosyncratic, autonomous, and uni-
versally developed during adolescence means rethinking the ways in which
we approach identity in the teaching of English and English education.
Instructional units that aim to provide universal guidance in “coming-of-
age” or developing a resolute identity in the face of societal pressure
become intrinsically problematic when we view identity as fluid, shifting,
performed, and shaped by social, cultural, and institutional forces. Such
units position young people as incomplete human beings experiencing pro-
totypical crises. Further, such units fail to consider the complexity of the
lived experiences that young people encounter
all of which shape what
they care about and how they position themselves in the world.
In this chapter, we have outlined a number of key shifts that a sociocul-
tural view of identity and adolescence requires of English teachers and
educators. We’ve also detailed central practices that might drive a sociocul-
tural, identity-focused approach to literature instruction. The implications
we’ve suggested for preparing pre-service ELA teachers make clear that
shifting toward a sociocultural identity-focused approach to literature
instruction means rethinking the stance English educators ask pre-service
teachers to take toward their future students. These implications suggest
that pre-service teachers must be taught to pay close attention to the social
and cultural contexts in which they will teach and to the specific needs,
desires, and interests of the students in those contexts. Previous approaches
to identity in literature instruction encouraged pre-service teachers to view
their students as hypothetical adolescents whose needs can be met through
texts and instruction that focus on universal crises and problems. The
approach outlined in this chapter provides a paradigm shift; it suggests
that pre-service teachers must be encouraged to treat their students as
complex, fully formed human beings by selecting texts that offer opportu-
nities for complex identity exploration, conceptualizing units that focus on
specific problems that matter to the youth they will teach, and designing
instruction that encourages perspective-taking and identity negotiation.

REFERENCES

Beach, R., Johnston, A., & Thein, A. H. (2015). Identity-focused ELA teaching: A curriculum
framework for diverse secondary classrooms. New York, NY: Routledge.
Identity and Adolescence 85

Beach, R., Thein, A. H., & Parks, D. (2008). High school students’ social world: Negotiating
identities and allegiances through responding to multicultural literature. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Beach, R., Thein, A. H., & Webb, A. (2016). Teaching to exceed the English language arts
common core standards: A critical inquiry approach for 6
12 classrooms (2nd ed.).
New York, NY: Routledge.
Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Cadden, M. (2011). Genre as nexus: The novel for children and young adults. In S. Wolf,
K. Coats, P. Enciso, & C. Jenkins (Eds.), Handbook of research on children’s and young
adult literature (pp. 302
313). New York, NY: Routledge.
Dixon, J. (1975). Growth through English: Set in the perspective of the seventies. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Edmiston, B. (2014). Transforming teaching and learning with active and dramatic approaches:
Engaging students across the curriculum. New York, NY: Routledge.
Erickson, E. (1950). Childhood and society. New York, NY: Norton.
Flynn, J. E. (2011). The language of power: Beyond the grammar workbook. English Journal,
100(4), 27
30.
Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. New York, NY:
Pantheon Books.
Gee, J. P. (2015). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses (5th ed.). New York,
NY: Routledge.
Hall, G. S. (1916). Adolescence: Its psychology and its relations to physiology, anthropology,
crime, religion and education. New York, NY: D. Appleton.
Holland, D. C., Lachicotte, W., Skinner, D., & Cain, C. (2002). Identity and agency in cultural
worlds (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Hyland, K. (2013). Disciplinary identities: Individuality and community in academic discourse.
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Juzwik, M. M., Borsheim-Black, C., Caughlan, S., & Heintz, A. (2013). Inspiring talk: Putting
student voices at the core of English teaching. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Lawler, S. (2008). Identity: Sociological perspectives. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Lesko, N. (2012). Act your age!: A cultural construction of adolescence (2nd ed.). New York,
NY: Routledge.
Lewis, C., & Finders, M. (2002). Implied adolescents and implied teachers: A generation gap
for new times. In D. E. Alvermann (Ed.), Adolescents and literacies in a digital world
(pp. 101
113). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lesson: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Moya, P. M. L. (2005). What’s identity got to do with it: Mobilizing identity in the multicul-
tural classroom. In P. M. L. Moya (Ed.), Identity politics reconsidered (pp. 96
117).
New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Niccolini, A. (2015). Precocious knowledge: Using banned books to engage in a youth lens.
English Journal, 104(3), 22
28.
Nystrand, M., & Gamoran, A. (1991). Instructional discourse, student engagement, and litera-
ture achievement. Research in the Teaching of English, 25, 261
290.
O’Donnell-Allen, C. (2011). Tough talk tough texts: Teaching English to change the world.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
86 AMANDA HAERTLING THEIN

Petrone, R., & Lewis, M. A. (2012). Deficits, therapists, and a desire to distance: Secondary
English pre-service teachers’ reasoning about their future students. English Education,
44(3), 254
287.
Petrone, R., Sarigianides, S. T., & Lewis, M. A. (2015). The youth lens: Analyzing adolescents/
ce in literary texts. Journal of Literacy Research, 64(4), 506
533.
Pirie, B. (1997). Reshaping high school English. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers
of English.
Rosenblatt, L. (1995). Literature as exploration (4th ed.). New York, NY: Modern Language
Association.
Sarigianides, S. T. (2014). Rampant teen sex: Teen sexuality and the promise of happiness as
obstacles to rethinking adolescence. Journal of Youth Studies, 17(8), 1061
1076.
Sulzer, M. A., & Thein, A. H. (2016). Reconsidering the hypothetical adolescent in evaluating
and teaching young adult literature. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 60(2),
163
171. doi:10.1002/jaal.556
Sunstein, B. S., & Chiseri-Strater, E. (2011). FieldWorking: Reading and writing research.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Thein, A. H., Beach, R., & Parks, D. (2007). Perspective-taking as transformative practice in
teaching multicultural literature to white students. English Journal, 97(2), 54
60.
Thein, A. H., & Kedley, K. E. (2015). Out of the closet and all grown up: Problematizing
normative narratives of coming-out and coming-of-age in young adult literature. In
D. L. Carlson & D. Linville (Eds.), Beyond borders: Queer eros and ethos (ethics) in
LGBTQ young adult literature (pp. 4
20). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Thein, A. H., Oldakowski, T., & Sloan, D. L. (2010). Using blogs to teach strategies for
inquiry into the construction of lived and text worlds. Journal of Media Literacy
Education, 2(1), 23
36.
Vinz, R. (2000). Becoming (other)wise. Portland, ME: Calendar Islands Publishers.
Wimsatt, W. K., & Beardsley, M. (1949). The affective fallacy. Sewanee Review, 57(1), 31
55.

LITERARY TEXTS

Alexie, S. (2007). The absolutely true diary of a part-time Indian. New York, NY:
Little, Brown.
Allison, D. (1993). Bastard out of Carolina. New York, NY: Plume.
Alvarez, J. (1991). How the Garcı´a girls lost their accents. Chapel Hill, NC: Algonquin Books
of Chapel Hill.
Block, F. L. (1989). Weetzie bat. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
Butler, O. E. (2003). Kindred. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Cisneros, S. (1991). The house on mango street. New York, NY: Vintage Books.
Collins, S. (2008). The hunger games. New York, NY: Scholastic.
Doughty, C. (2014). Smoke gets in your eyes: And other lessons from the crematory. New York,
NY: W.W. Norton & Company.
Ehrenreich, B. (2001). Nickel and dimed: On (not) getting by in America. New York, NY:
Metropolitan Books.
Erdrich, L. (1984). Love medicine: A novel. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Fairbanks, E. (1990). The days of Rondo. St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Historical Society Press.
Identity and Adolescence 87

Guest, J. (1976). Ordinary people. New York, NY: Viking Press.

Lahiri, J. (2003). The namesake. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Lanagan, M. (2008). Tender morsels. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf.
Lee, H. (1960). To kill a mockingbird. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott.
Moore, W. (2010). The other Wes Moore: One name, two fates. New York, NY: Spiegel
& Grau.
Myers, W. D. (1999). Monster. New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers.
Nelson, J. (2014). I’ll give you the sun. New York, NY: Dial Books.
Sáenz, B. A. (2014). Aristotle and Dante discover the secrets of the universe. New York, NY:
Simon and Schuster.
Salinger, J. D. (1951). The catcher in the rye. Boston, MA: Little Brown.
Soto, G. (1997). Novio boy: A play. San Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace & Co.
Ward, J. (2011). Salvage the bones: A novel. New York, NY: Bloomsbury.
Wolff, V. E. (1993). Make lemonade. New York, NY: Holt.
Woodson, J. (1995). From the notebooks of Melanin Sun. New York, NY: Blue Sky Press.
This page intentionally left blank
RE-POSITIONING YOUTH IN
ENGLISH TEACHER EDUCATION

Robert Petrone and Sophia Tatiana Sarigianides

ABSTRACT

Grounded in Critical Youth Studies and English education scholarship

that examines the consequences of conceptions of adolescence on English
teachers’ thinking about pedagogy, this chapter highlights two ways
English teacher educators can facilitate pre-service English teachers’
interrogation of dominant discourses of adolescence/ts so they might be
better positioned to create pedagogical practices aligned with more com-
prehensive understandings of secondary students. The first focuses on
teaching a Youth Lens in the context of a Young Adult Literature
course, an approach that helps future teachers learn about adolescence
as a construct and the linkages between this idea and English pedagogy.
The second focuses on integrating youth into English teacher education
coursework as guest speakers on a range of English and schooling prac-
tices whereby they are “re-positioned” as experts and contributors to
English teacher education. Together, these points of intervention provide
ways to re-position youth systemically throughout English teacher educa-
tion programs.
Keywords: English teacher education; Youth lens; adolescence; young
adult literature; pre-service teachers

Innovations in English Language Arts Teacher Education

Advances in Research on Teaching, Volume 27, 89
105
Copyright r 2017 by Emerald Publishing Limited
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved
ISSN: 1479-3687/doi:10.1108/S1479-368720170000027005
89
90 ROBERT PETRONE AND SOPHIA TATIANA SARIGIANIDES

For the past decade, the two of us have been intent on calling attention to
how ideas of youth and adolescence circulate within the field of English
Education. The underlying impetus for our work has been a concern that
(literacy) educational discourses and practices
like the broader cultural
discourses and practices within which they exist
often operate from a set
of naturalized, normative conceptions of adolescence that are problematic.
Such dominant discourses of adolescence typically position youth through
deficit orientations, and consequently engender pedagogical practices and
ways of thinking about secondary students that reify these diminishing per-
spectives. We are interested in locating how ideas of adolescence and youth
circulate in English Education, and in better understanding how some of
the more problematic of these ideas can be made visible and disrupted in
our work with pre- and in-service English teachers. Ultimately, our goal is
to guide educators to be better equipped to develop more humane and criti-
cal pedagogies in their secondary English classrooms.
In this chapter, we provide a brief overview of some of the central theo-
retical tenets and related scholarship in English Education that we see as
crucial for work focused on examining and disrupting conceptions of ado-
lescence. Additionally, we highlight several ways the two of us have
attempted to re-configure dominant notions of adolescence and youth with
pre- and in-service English teachers in our respective university-based
English teacher education programs. To do so, we discuss our approach to
teaching the Young Adult Literature course, a class that has increasingly
become a popular, and often mandatory component of most English
Education programs across the United States. Specifically, we explain how
we foreground the idea of a Youth Lens, an approach to the analysis of
texts focused on depictions of adolescence, age, and youth, through tea-
chers’ examinations of young adult literature. Second, and perhaps most
fitting with the spirit of this book, we explain innovations we have made in
our respective programs that follow this emphasis on revised views of ado-
lescence to put pre- and in-service English teachers into dialogue with
youth, particularly those typically labeled “at-risk.” Specifically, we explain
how we create opportunities in our programs to “re-position” secondary-
aged youth as experts in a range of ways.
In sharing these concrete interventions, our hope is to encourage fellow
English teacher educators to become even more strategic in working with
pre- and in-service English teachers regarding critiques of adolescence and
youth. Ultimately, our aim is to help bring about systemic change in our
field so that reconfigurations of adolescence and youth are central to the
work of English Education programs and literacy instruction in schools.
Re-Positioning Youth in English Teacher Education 91

BRIEF OVERVIEW OF RELATED THEORY AND

SCHOLARSHIP1
In recent years, the field of English Education has seen a significant develop-
ment of scholarship focused on examining the intersections between concep-
tions of adolescence within secondary English curriculum and instruction,
English teacher education, and literacy-related policies. In general, this
scholarship is theoretically grounded in re-conceptualizations of adolescence
as a cultural construct (Austin & Willard, 1998; Best, 2007; Lesko, 2012;
Vadeboncoeur & Patel Stevens, 2005). This theoretical orientation recog-
nizes adolescence as a socially fabricated and culturally perpetuated concept
rather than a “naturally occurring” stage of life. Such critical re-conceptuali-
zations of adolescence provide a foundation for redressing some of the pro-
blematic ways dominant views of adolescence culturally position young
people, particularly youth of color, working-class youth, and other young
people not seen as following conventional trajectories of adolescence.
Drawing upon this general set of assumptions regarding the concept of
adolescence, some scholars in English Education have set out to under-
stand how ideas of adolescence circulate in the field and the consequences
or effects these ideas have for English pedagogy, secondary students, and
English teacher education. For instance, in some of the earliest work in
the field in this area, literacy scholar Margaret Finders, in a series of qua-
litative studies, demonstrated how discourses of adolescence tied to the
body (i.e., “raging hormones”) constrained English teachers’ thinking
about their students, and consequently limited possibilities for pedagogy
and learning opportunities for youth (Finders, 1997, 1998/1999, 2005;
Lewis & Finders, 2002). Building on this research, Rob, in collaboration
with colleague, Mark A. Lewis, examined linkages between conceptions of
adolescence teacher thinking of their students and themselves, and teachers’
development of curriculum (Lewis & Petrone, 2010; Petrone & Lewis,
2012). In general, this research shows how a group of pre-service English
teachers conceptualized their students in deficit orientations connected to
paradigms from developmental psychology, and subsequently developed
curriculum designed to intervene in their students’ “naturally” troubled
lives. Comparably, Sophia analyzed how a pre-service teacher in her English
Methods course relied upon stereotyped views of adolescence as “troubled”
and as experiencing a distinct, stage-based adolescence, for her rationale
for selecting The Catcher in the Rye and Holden Caulfield as a
protagonist with whom her future students, also struggling, would identify
(Sarigianides, 2012).
92 ROBERT PETRONE AND SOPHIA TATIANA SARIGIANIDES

In addition to tracing the problematic effects of dominant views of

adolescence in English education, scholars have also focused on what hap-
pens when problematic notions of youth are made visible or disrupted
within teacher education. Often this occurs when adolescence is explicitly
named as a construct or existing English pedagogies are critiqued for their
reliance upon dominant ideas of youth. For example, in one study, Sophia
(Sarigianides, 2012) located various ways pre-service English teachers,
within the context of a Young Adult Literature course, resisted theoretical
re-conceptualizations of adolescence as a cultural construct and the
analyses and pedagogies they opened up. In another study (Sarigianides,
2014), this time with in-service teachers, Sophia revealed strong resistance
to reconceptions of adolescence, particularly as they involved imagining
young people as sexual
perhaps even parenting at a young age. More
recently, Falter (2016) highlights several pedagogical moves she makes in
her teaching of Young Adult Literature to pre-service English teachers that
help to shift their thinking of their future students from deficit to more
asset orientations. She reveals how while many were receptive to rethinking
adolescence as they explored young adult literary texts, some still resisted.
In addition, recent research has also helped usher in scholarship that
specifically examines young adult literary texts for their representations of
adolescence and youth. As we discuss below, the two of us, along with our
colleague Mark A. Lewis, have articulated an approach for analyzing texts
focused on depictions of youth, an approach we name the Youth Lens
(Petrone et al., 2015). The assumptions and applications of a Youth Lens

especially to representations of youth in young adult literature
will be
discussed through scholarship within and outside the field of English
Education. In the field of English teaching, instances of secondary class-
rooms and curriculum that explicitly challenge normative assumptions of
adolescence are increasing. For example, in the past two years, NCTE’s
English Journal (2015) and The ALAN Review (2016) have had special
themed issues on the connections between rethinking adolescence and teach-
ing English. Both issues highlight a range of ways secondary English teachers
are taking up these ideas in their classrooms to engage their students.
Clearly, this is an exciting time in English Education when it comes to
re-evaluating the assumptions we hold about adolescence and the English
Language Arts. Next, we discuss some of the ways this line of inquiry has
informed our thinking about and development of teaching and program-
matic practices focused on both disrupting dominant conceptions of ado-
lescence and conceptualizing pedagogical practices that better align with
more comprehensive understandings of youth.
Re-Positioning Youth in English Teacher Education 93

RETHINKING THE YOUNG ADULT LITERATURE

COURSE IN ENGLISH TEACHER EDUCATION
Though both of us regularly teach young adult literature courses within the
context of preparing future English teachers, we have experienced quite a
bit of ambivalence about young adult literature and typical ways of teach-
ing it in English Education. On the one hand, we appreciate and value how
young adult literature has, among other things, stimulated reading among
secondary students
both in and out of the English classroom
provided
educators ways to teach literary concepts, and offered avenues to youth for
engaging more traditionally-taught texts (Herz & Gallo, 2005). We are par-
ticularly drawn to the myriad ways teachers and scholars examine and
teach young adult literature to facilitate critical literacy, especially analyses
related to representations of social categories such as race, class, gender,
sexuality, poverty, and disability (Alsup, 2010; Hill, 2016).
On the other hand, we have been concerned with what, until recently,
has been a lack of explicit attention to the ways young adult literature
represents adolescence as a distinct social category. Our concern gets parti-
cularly amplified when considering the often invisible ideological work of
some young adult literature in relying upon and reifying dominant tropes
of adolescence, particularly in relation to notions of teen sexuality, power
relations between youth and adults, and the role that schools and other
institutions play in shaping expectations for appropriate youth behavior
(Kokkola, 2013; Trites, 2000; Waller, 2009). In other words, we have
worried that a course on young adult literature for English educators that
does not draw explicit attention to critiques of adolescence as a cultural
construct could easily perpetuate taken-for-granted assumptions of youth

many of which we see as deeply problematic and potentially detrimental to
the well-being of young people.
To reconcile this ambivalence, both of us, unaware of the other at the
time, integrated theoretical re-orientations of adolescence into our teaching
of the young adult literature course in our respective teacher education pro-
grams. From this work, and as we’ve written about elsewhere in conjunc-
tion with our colleague, Mark A. Lewis (Petrone et al., 2015), we have
articulated a Youth Lens, which has become central to our teaching of this
course, especially as it provides a foundation for literary analysis and possi-
ble pedagogical practices.
A Youth Lens is an approach to textual analysis that foregrounds depic-
tions of youth and adolescence as a central point of critique. In addition to
94 ROBERT PETRONE AND SOPHIA TATIANA SARIGIANIDES

theoretical and empirical scholarship that operates from the basic assump-
tion that youth and adolescence are cultural constructs (Austin & Willard,
1998; Best, 2007; Lesko, 2012), the lens draws upon literary scholarship,
mostly outside of English Education, that critiques young adult literature
for its representations of adolescence. Unbeknownst to us when we began
our own work critiquing representations of adolescence, scholars of chil-
dren’s literature who examine representations of childhood in texts have
propounded critiques of children’s
and young adult
literature specifi-
cally through assumptions that childhood and adolescence are cultural
constructs (Kokkola, 2013; Nikolajeva, 2010; Trites, 2000, 2007; Waller,
2009), indicating an existing tradition in the field writ large for this kind of
analysis of texts. (For more on the tenets of a Youth Lens, as well as exam-
ples of applications of it, see Lewis & Durand, 2014; Lewis, Petrone, &
Sarigianides, 2016; Sarigianides, 2015; Sarigianides, Lewis, & Petrone,
2015; Sieben, 2016; Thein & Sulzer, 2015; Thein, Sulzer, & Schmidt, 2013).
Building on these ideas, we typically organize our young adult literature
courses around three central aims. First, we introduce and explore the idea
of adolescence as a cultural construct. For many students, not only is this
idea new, but it also contradicts, or at least troubles, much of what they
previously learned in their coursework in adolescent development or educa-
tional psychology regarding youth. As Sophia has demonstrated, this cog-
nitive dissonance often leads to resistance to revised ideas of adolescence
(Sarigianides, 2012, 2014). A second aim of the course is to teach and prac-
tice a Youth Lens through applications to young adult literary texts. This
content and its application comprises the bulk of the course. A third aim of
the course involves creating space for students to develop pedagogical prac-
tices that build on the ideas of adolescence as a cultural construct, perhaps
through a Youth Lens, and applied to young adult literature. Typically,
these take the form of lesson plans, rationales for teaching certain texts,
and/or unit plans. For the remainder of this section, we discuss two key
moves we make to teach the idea of adolescence as a cultural construct and
to build a Youth Lens.

Providing Contrastive Perspectives to Disrupt a Naturalized View of

Adolescence

For many of our students, particularly those who have taken required
coursework in development psychology, the idea of adolescence as a cul-
tural construct is new. Though some teachers encountering this construct
Re-Positioning Youth in English Teacher Education 95

may not hold to deficit views of youth
especially if they have extensive
experience working successfully with young people
the presentation of a
traceable history of adolescence surprises most students in our courses. For
this reason, a key first step in building a Youth Lens to analyze young
adult literature is to explore with our students the idea of adolescence as
a construct.
To do so, we tend to avoid beginning with the lexicon and idea of a con-
struct. Instead, we have found it helpful to engage our students in a series
of activities, lectures, and readings that disrupt normative assumptions of
adolescence. In other words, we often take an inductive approach to intro-
ducing the idea of adolescence as a construct by first illustrating, or “show-
ing” its constructedness prior to naming it.
Though the possibilities for providing these contrastive experiences are
endless, one way we’ve had great success is by discussing the delineations
between “social age” and “biological age.” Unlike biological age which is
fixed, social age is “culturally produced through material practices” (Lesko,
2012, p. 107) and explains why it may be that the way a person acts may
not be consonant with the norms tied to her/his age. For instance, Lesko
recounts research from Norway that reveals delineations between “big”
and “little” 12-year-olds within family systems. In one family, for example,
a 12-year-old was considered “big” since she was responsible for tasks simi-
lar to adults in the household. In another family, a 12-year-old was consid-
ered “little” and was not responsible for tasks similar to the adults in that
household. This research reveals how the meanings ascribed to a particular
age are not inherent in biology but rather the positioning and status of the
youth within a specific family context.
To illuminate this distinction between social and biological age, Rob
often shares with his students the concept of a “parentified” or “adultified”
child, or, a “young carer.” A parentified child refers to youth who have
been thrust into the role of parent in relation to their own parent(s) and/or
younger siblings. The parentification of children may be physical, where a
child assumes practical responsibilities for the physical well-being of them-
selves and their parents (and siblings potentially), as well as the emotional
needs of their parents. In thinking of young adult literature, the case can
easily be made that Katniss in The Hunger Games, particularly at the onset
of the first book in the trilogy, is a parentified child as she is responsible for
caring for her mother and younger sister. Though common in many cul-
tures globally, in the United States, this phenomenon disrupts normative
notions of (an “American”) adolescence. This example opens up a range of
questions that can counter attempts at universalizing or naturalizing
96 ROBERT PETRONE AND SOPHIA TATIANA SARIGIANIDES

adolescence. What contradictions can we identify for parentified youth

who might be seen as irresponsible culturally (because they are “adoles-
cents”) at the same time that they assume “adult” responsibilities in their
own families?
Similar questions can be raised when looking at the varied and often
non-normative experiences of working-class youth (Bettie, 2014; Eckert,
1989; Finders, 1997). Many such youth contribute financially to the family
and/or are largely responsible for themselves economically. Also, when
looking at the experiences of immigrant youth, many of whom often func-
tion as language brokers for their families and need to navigate social
systems and bureaucracies typically reserved for “adults” (Patel, 2012), we
again see how normative views of adolescence as a slow and steady coming
of age and a primarily biological and psychological phenomenon, break
down quickly. Even geographical affiliations such as rurality complicate
naturalized views of youth, as many rural youth, particularly those who
grow up ranching, assume varied adult responsibilities (e.g., driving at a
young age, working heavy, and expensive machinery) much earlier than
dominant discourses of youth suggest they do or ought to. Comparably,
our colleague, Borsheim-Black (2015) explains how she uses the concept of
the age of “16” to introduce to her students the idea of adolescence as a
construct. Her point is that being 16 years old in one context
whether
that context be specific in its historical, cultural, national, and/or socioeco-
nomic facets
is not the same as being sixteen in another.
Once adolescence has been denaturalized and made visible through these
contrastive examples, we guide our students through a range of theoretical
and empirical scholarship that explicitly addresses adolescence as a histori-
cally constituted entity that has myriad effects. We have found that weav-
ing together theoretical readings and empirical studies around adolescence
offers students a balanced way to begin to question dominant views of ado-
lescence. For us, Nancy Lesko’s Act Your Age!: A Cultural Construction of
Adolescence (2012) offers pre- and in-service teachers a compelling account
of a historically situated adolescence. Even if the Foucauldian genealogy
and post-structuralist terminology challenges some readers, her detailed
analysis of how adolescence was not always conceptualized the way we see
it today, and that youth were once seen as responsible, capable, and more
“adult,” compels readers to pause and reconsider their beliefs. For readers
who delve into more specific analyses of particularly marginalized adoles-
cents, like pregnant teens or teen moms, Lesko’s analysis of how such
women are conceptually seen as “too adult” for teachers to know what to
teach them resonates powerfully to affect shifts in thinking.
Re-Positioning Youth in English Teacher Education 97

Especially because Lesko’s text proves challenging for many readers, in

particular the pre-service undergraduates eager to learn more about peda-
gogy, complementing this reading with empirical studies set in classrooms
helps to guide teachers to see the impact of these conceptual ideas about
youth. A favorite text to employ for these purposes is Finders’s (2005)
“‘Gotta Be Worse’: Literacy, Schooling, and Adolescent Youth Offenders.”
Finders analyzes how dominant discourses of adolescence constrain how
teachers engage students at an alternative-to-incarceration school. Students
are so aware that their criminal records and/or young parenting status
pushes them out of “proper” adolescence, that their goal in this school is to
be “worse” than those already low expectations as a sign of “achievement”
among themselves as s/he who is the most “bad.” Semester after semester,
when teachers read this article, they find it difficult to refute that dominant
discourses of adolescence have effects on real young people, and that they
have especially deleterious effects on those who are most marginalized.

Using Media to Employ the Youth Lens

Once the idea of adolescence as a construct is developed, we move to

employ the Youth Lens with our students through a range of texts. A key
aim here is to explore how texts not only draw upon ideas that circulate in
society but also help to produce them. In this way, we position young adult
literature alongside media and other popular culture texts
everything
from advertisements to films to songs and videos
to illuminate how texts
both draw upon, critique, and help to shape broader understandings of
youth.
At the heart of analyzing texts from a Youth Lens is trying to ascer-
tain what the text is and is not saying about youth. Since this point of
analysis is most likely new, unlike other constructs such as gender or race
that the students may be more familiar with from their previous training
and experiences, we typically apprentice the students into this analysis via
texts that are more familiar to them. Like English Education scholars
who have argued for working with popular culture in secondary class-
rooms to help students make connections between texts more proximate
and distal to them (Kirkland, 2008), we start with a range of media and
pop cultural texts to develop the Youth Lens. We have found great value
in using TV commercials (e.g., for Totinos), episodes of popular talk
shows that highlight youth issues (e.g., The Dr. Drew Show), music lyrics
(e.g., Peter Tosh’s “You Can’t Blame the Youth”), films (e.g., Easy A),
98 ROBERT PETRONE AND SOPHIA TATIANA SARIGIANIDES

as well as news stories, and even The New Yorker cartoons that depict
stereotypes of youth. These texts have proven extremely useful in both
helping our students orient themselves toward a textual critique that fore-
grounds adolescence, as well as developing approaches to the young adult
literary texts they next encounter.
As we move from the media texts to the literary texts, we also have
our students read literary criticism that either explicitly draws upon a
Youth Lens or otherwise draws attention to depictions of adolescence in
young adult literature. The work of English Education scholars Thein
and Sulzer (2015) have proven quite useful for our students. Their ana-
lyses offer concrete approaches to young adult literature that students
can immediately apply to texts. As our work with students begins to
examine intersections between depictions of adolescence with other social
categories such as gender or sexual orientation, the work of English
Education scholars Lewis and Durand (2014) and Sieben (2016) similarly
provide our students with ways to further deepen and complicate their
interpretive readings. In addition to these examples of literary criticism, a
range of others, particularly from literary scholars outside of English
education we cited earlier have proven helpful in pushing our students to
deepen and trouble their analyses.

A “RE-POSITIONING PEDAGOGY”: YOUTH AS

EXPERTS IN ENGLISH TEACHER EDUCATION
Though the work we explain in the previous section has proven generative
for helping to engage pre- and in-service English teachers with theoretical
reconfigurations of adolescence and with analyses of literary texts, it leaves
these ideas as primarily conceptual. We want our students to engage with
the actual people designated by labels such as adolescence and teenagers.
Therefore, a second intervention we have made in our respective pro-
grams is to create opportunities for pre-service and in-service English tea-
chers to interact and dialogue with secondary-aged youth in contexts other
than traditionally sanctioned practicum and teaching settings. When we
shape these interactions, we ensure that we position youth as authorities
and experts in relation to the pre- and in-service students. We are particu-
larly interested in setting up this positioning for youth who have been
labeled by their schools, the criminal justice system, or other authorizing
institutions in deficit-oriented ways
for example as “at-risk” or “struggling”
Re-Positioning Youth in English Teacher Education 99

(Vasudevan & Campano, 2007). We do this so the pre- and in-service teachers
have a positive experience with students who are typically labeled as having
little if anything to offer the intellectual and/or social life of schools. More
than that, though, we deliberately seek out marginalized youth to serve as
experts in teacher education to create a space within an academically sanc-
tioned institution to value the skills and knowledge the youth offer. Time and
time again
in both these interventions and our own research with youth

we’ve come to see how creating such a space for anyone, but especially youth
for whom schools have been anything but hospitable, has powerful posi-
tive effects.
Though we have developed several of these opportunities within our
English Education programs, we highlight two of them in this section.
Both of these involve several secondary-aged youth coming into English
Education classes as guest speakers to address topics pertinent to the
course curriculum.

“At-Risk” Youth Teaching English Teachers How to Write and

Teach Poetry

As part of a writing methods course for pre-service English teachers, two

women who were high school seniors visited the class as guest lecturers to
engage the pre-service teachers in approaches to writing and teaching
poetry. This intervention emerged from a pre-existing collaboration between
a local youth empowerment organization and the English Education
program at Rob’s university.
Working closely with the executive director of the youth organization,
Rob identified two young women who were simultaneously underachieving
academically (and labeled “at-risk” by their high school) and deeply
engaged in their personal literacy lives, particularly as it involved poetry.
The organization’s director and Rob met to establish mutually reciprocal
goals for the collaboration, then met with the two young women to ascer-
tain their interests and to brainstorm presentation ideas with them. Over
the course of the next several weeks, the two young women developed a
90-minute workshop in which they led a class of pre-service English
teachers through a series of activities designed to stimulate lesson ideas for
the teachers to consider when working with students of their own.
To do this, the young women opened their lesson by formally introdu-
cing themselves by providing biographical information as well as their
experiences and attitudes towards school, poetry and literacy more
100 ROBERT PETRONE AND SOPHIA TATIANA SARIGIANIDES

generally, as well as by reading some of their own poetry. They then

showed a short video about their relationship to writing poetry, a video
they created especially for their presentation. From there, they facilitated
small groups in which the pre-service teachers wrote collective poems, fol-
lowed by a whole class discussion for people to debrief their writing experi-
ences and to share thoughts for potential teaching practices that might
emerge from these experiences. The youths’ formal lesson culminated in an
invitation for the pre-service teachers read aloud the poetry they’d created.
After the presentation ended, about a third of the pre-service teachers
joined the two guest speakers and Rob for lunch followed by a poetry read-
ing while sitting on the campus green. It’s impossible to describe just how
powerful an experience this was for the pre-service teachers and the guest
speakers. To bear witness to one of these young women standing amidst a
group of future teachers on a college campus, reading a poem she wrote
about refusing to be put on medication because she didn’t want her mind
numbed out was one of the best experiences of Rob’s teaching career.
Rob also knew that the experience had touched many of the pre-service
students
both emotionally and intellectually
and also that the experi-
ence provided a space for the two young women to shine in an academic
space where, as they discussed with the class, they typically felt constrained
and disrespected.

LGBTQ Youth Teaching Future English Teachers about Young Adult

Literature and Their Experiences in Schools

While teaching a graduate-level young adult literature course for pre-service

English teachers at Teachers College, Columbia University, Sophia worked
closely with a local student teacher, Nicole Dixon, to set up opportunities
for Nicole’s secondary students to present to and dialogue with Sophia’s
university students. Nicole was student teaching at New York City’s Harvey
Milk High School (HMHS), an “alternative” public school dedicated
especially to supporting LGBTQ youth. High school students admitted into
this small school had experienced prior challenges at another NYC school,
so the HMHS was considered a “second chance” school.
The high school students’ presentations occurred in two parts, and took
place two weeks in a row. The first week, the high school students came to
Teachers College to share their personal narratives with Sophia’s pre-service
teachers. Developed in concert with writers from The Moth, an organization
Re-Positioning Youth in English Teacher Education 101

focused on developing and showcasing public speaking around personal

narratives without notes, students’ stories often focused on coming out or
their experiences in schools before transferring to Harvey Milk. The follow-
ing week, the students participated in young adult, LGBTQ-themed, book
circles with the pre-service teachers in Sophia’s class. All the books selected
for these book circles were introduced by Nicole to the Harvey Milk
students, and the Harvey Milk students had the final say on which books
they
and, in turn, the pre-service University graduate students
would
read for this collaborative experience. During the book circle discussions,
the Harvey Milk students talked with Sophia’s students about identifying
with characters in books read in school for the first time, and the pleasure of
reading texts about gay storylines that were not depressing.
Sophia and Nicole identified multiple purposes for these visits which
were designed to be mutually beneficial to both the high school students
and the pre-service teacher candidates. They offered the Harvey Milk
students a live audience for sharing their own writing and experiences,
especially an audience that featured graduate students preparing to teach.
In other words, the high school students’ writing and lived experiences as
LGBTQ youth were designed to inform and to potentially play a role in
reforming the same institutions that stigmatized them as students. Both
Nicole and Sophia saw this positioning of youth
especially these particu-
lar marginalized youth
as enormously potent for them.
Secondly, the visits offered graduate-level pre-service teachers an oppor-
tunity to listen to and to talk with young people marginalized by public
schools, mostly but not solely because of their sexuality. To explain, since
many of the students were also recent immigrants, homeless or in foster
care, and/or poor, the youth often experienced social marginalization in
multiple ways. Within the young adult literature course, this opportunity
also afforded the pre-service teachers a chance to consider the fact that
dominant conceptions of adolescence were not only gendered (male),
classed (middle class), and raced (White), they were also heteronormative,
as they had read about through engagement with Lesko’s (2012) text.
These visits with the students would now allow the theory that had been
circulating in the graduate course to play out in the pre-service teachers’
interactions with real youth to help the teachers-in-training see the impact
of dominant views of adolescence.
Sophia shares a few specific anecdotes to discuss the effects of the
Harvey Milk students’ presentations on the pre-service teacher candidates
and on the youth. One graduate student in the class whose book circle read
102 ROBERT PETRONE AND SOPHIA TATIANA SARIGIANIDES

(and loved) Levithan’s (2003) Boy Meets Boy, described her in-class experi-
ence this way:

I found the book circles to be a difficult experience for me personally. I realized how
“unprepared” I was to talk about an LGBTQ text with a gay student or a bisexual
student. I was overly cognizant of my wording and phrasing of thoughts so I wouldn’t
offend the students in any way. It made me aware of how teachers (or simply people)
often express their opinions in ways that may unintentionally offend and ostracize
others. And not doing so is a difficult and conscious task.

Despite being a graduate student steeped in disciplinary training in inter-

preting texts and engaging in literary discussions, the mere presence of
openly gay or bisexual students in the dialogue made it “difficult” and
brought the possibility of inadvertently offending such students to her
awareness. The book circle interactions brought the “margins” to the
“center” for this teacher, and potentially made visible the ways her pre-
parations for teaching may have depended on assumed heterosexual
“adolescents” in her classroom. Sophia could not imagine how any amount
of reading could have offered this student the insights that just interacting
with gay, gay teens offered her. In other words, sometimes teacher educa-
tion programs send out teacher candidates with too much confidence about
their knowledge. An experience like this one that merely put real youth

especially marginalized, non-heterosexual youth
in proximity with
teachers helped the teachers understand the importance of understanding
and being sensitive to the complex lives of the students in their classes.
Sophia’s insights about the effects of the experience on the youth came
directly from the teacher, Nicole’s debriefings with the Harvey Milk
students. Here Nicole focused on the book circle visit where she brought
four students to Sophia’s graduate course and where she discusses the effect
of the experience on one of her most “at-risk” students:

I’m not sure if she improved as a reader or writer at all during the course of this class.
I hope so, but small changes are really hard to measure. I do know that she was from
the outset the most difficult student to teach
the one I had the most qualms about
accepting into the class, the most frequently disruptive, uncooperative, and disrespectful
student of the bunch at times. The crazy thing is, she was also far and away the student
who cared the most about this class, and got the most out of it. The other three
students who came to speak to your class are articulate superstars who can talk about
how an experience affected them, but they have these busy lives full of promise and
opportunity. For [this student], the visits to Teachers College, and even just the subway
rides there and back, were the most memorable part of her academic career. One of the
most amazing things to come out of this class for me as a teacher was this sort of
re-evaluation of what some of my ultimate teaching objectives might look like. I focus
Re-Positioning Youth in English Teacher Education 103

so much on what students will be able to do and understand that it’s easy to forget
about what they might feel.

As a graduate student preparing to teach herself, and one of the co-

designers of this entire experience with Sophia, Nicole made realizations
through these visits that shifted the ways she thought about the goals of
teaching entirely. It’s not just content that we teach, but people and their
feelings and experiences with us matter as much
if not more than
the
English content we hope to help them understand and apply.
Echoing sentiments similar to Nicole’s, another graduate student in
Sophia’s course offered these comments after their visits the first week:
When the Harvey Milk students chose to share their most personal moments with all of
us, that’s when I began to realize the full impact of what being a teacher was really all
about. It’s not just what we teach but whom we teach and how we teach them that the
real art and guts and risks of being a teacher lay.

If our lenses as teachers
and adults
emphasize only the “endings” to

which our students must direct their lives, then taking the time to consider
how their experiences are now in our classes
especially as real people
rendered invisible by the curriculum and hyper-visible by social norms, is
all the more significant if we are to have an effect on the inequities of
schooling for all our students and especially for youth often marginalized
by schools.

THINKING PROGRAMMATICALLY
By sharing these examples of concrete points of intervention, we hope to
stimulate thinking for how the field of English Education writ large can
begin to effect systemic revisions whereby reconfigurations of adolescence
are made central to the preparation and professional development of
English teachers. In the past few years, the field has made great strides in
this direction, and we hope the work we’ve shared here can help move us
along a bit further for the larger social justice purposes of improving the
school and out-of-school literacy experiences of the youth in teachers’ lives.

NOTE

1. Given space constraints, this section will provide a brief overview of the theo-
retical grounding and related scholarship. However, we have articulated
104 ROBERT PETRONE AND SOPHIA TATIANA SARIGIANIDES

the theoretical orientation for this work more extensively elsewhere. Please see
Petrone, Sarigianides, and Lewis (2015) for a more detailed discussion.

REFERENCES

Alsup, J. (Ed.). (2010). Young adult literature and adolescent identity across cultures and
classrooms: Contexts for the literacy lives of teens. New York, NY: Routledge.
Austin, J., & Willard, M. N. (1998). Generations of youth: Youth cultures and history in twentieth-
century America. New York, NY: NYU Press.
Best, A. (2007). Representing youth: Methodological issues in critical youth studies. New York,
NY: NYU Press.
Bettie, J. (2014). Women without class: Girls, race, and identity (2nd ed.). Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press.
Borsheim-Black, C. (2015). Reading pop culture and young adult literature through a youth
lens. English Journal, 104(3), 29
34.
Eckert, P. (1989). Jocks & burnouts: Social categories and identity in the high school.
New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Falter, M. (2016). Addressing assumptions of about adolescents in a preservice YAL course.
ALAN Review, 43, 51
61.
Finders, M. (1997). Just girls: Hidden literacies and life in junior high. New York, NY:
Teachers College Press.
Finders, M. (1998/1999). Raging hormones: Stories of adolescence and implications for teacher
preparation. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 42, 2
13.
Finders, M. (2005). “Gotta be worse”: Literacy, schooling, and adolescent youth offenders. In
J. A. Vadeboncoeur & L. Patel Stevens (Eds.), Re/constructing “the adolescent”: Sign,
symbol, and body (pp. 97
122). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Herz, S. K., & Gallo, D. R. (2005). From Hinton to Hamlet: Building bridges between young
adult literature and the classics (2nd ed.). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Hill, C. (Ed.). (2016). The critical merits of young adult literature: Coming of age. New York,
NY: Routledge.
Kirkland, D. E. (2008). “The rose that grew from concrete”: Postmodern blackness and new
English education. English Journal, 97, 69
75.
Kokkola, L. (2013). Fictions of adolescent carnality: Sexy sinners and delinquent deviants.
Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
Lesko, N. (2012). Act your age!: A cultural construction of adolescence (2nd ed.). New York,
NY: Routledge.
Levithan, D. (2005). Boy meets boy. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf.
Lewis, C., & Finders, M. (2002). Implied adolescents and implied teachers: A generation gap
for new times. In D. E. Alvermann (Ed.), Adolescents and literacies in a digital world
(pp. 101
113). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Lewis, M. A., & Durand, E. S. (2014). Sexuality as risk and resistance in young adult litera-
ture. In C. Hill (Ed.), The critical merits of young adult literature: Coming of age
(pp. 38
54). New York, NY: Routledge.
Re-Positioning Youth in English Teacher Education 105

Lewis, M. A., & Petrone, R. (2010). “Although adolescence need not be violent…”: Pre-service
teachers’ connections between “adolescence” and literacy curriculum. Journal of
Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 53(5), 398
407.
Lewis, M. A., Petrone, R., & Sarigianides, S. T. (2016). Acting adolescent?: Critical examina-
tions of the youth-adult binary in Feed and Looking for Alaska. The ALAN Review,
43, 43
50.
Nikolajeva, M. (2010). Power, voice and subjectivity in literature for young readers. New York,
NY: Routledge.
Patel, L. (2012). Youth held at the border: Immigration, education, and the politics of inclusion.
New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Petrone, R., & Lewis, M. A. (2012). Deficits, therapists, and a desire to distance: Secondary
English pre-service teachers’ reasoning about their future students. English Education,
44(3), 254
287.
Petrone, R., Sarigianides, S. T., & Lewis, M. A. (2015). The Youth Lens: Analyzing adolescents/
ce in literary texts. Journal of Literacy Research, 64(4), 506
533.
Sarigianides, S. T. (2012). Tensions in teaching adolescents/ce: Analyzing resistances in a
young adult literature course. Journal of Adult and Adolescent Literacy, 56(3), 222
230.
Sarigianides, S. T. (2014). Rampant teen sex: Teen sexuality and the promise of happiness as
obstacles to rethinking adolescence. Journal of Youth Studies, 17(8), 1061
1076.
Sarigianides, S. T. (2015). Situating a youth lens within children’s literary criticism and English
education. Journal of Language and Literacy Education. Retrieved from http://jolle.coe.
uga.edu/
Sarigianides, S. T., Lewis, M. A., & Petrone, R. (2015). EJ in focus: How re-thinking adolescence
helps re-imagine the teaching of English. English Journal, 104(3), 13
18.
Sieben, N. (2016). Openly straight: A look at teaching LGBTQ young adult sports literature
through a queer theory youth lens. In D. Linville & D. L. Carlson (Eds.), Beyond borders:
Queer eros and ethos (ethics) in LGBTQ young adult literature. New York: Peter Lang.
Thein, A. H., Sulzer, M., & Schmidt, R. (2013). Engaging students in democracy through
adolescent literature: Lessons from two versions of Wes Moore’s memoir. English
Journal, 102(2), 52–59.
Thein, A. H., & Sulzer, M. A. (2015). Illuminating discourses of youth through the study of
first-person narration in young adult literature. English Journal, 104(3), 47
53.
Trites, R. S. (2000). Disturbing the universe: Power and repression in adolescent literature. Iowa
City, IA: University of Iowa Press.
Trites, R. S. (2007). Twain, Alcott, and the birth of the adolescent reform novel. Iowa City, IA:
University of Iowa Press.
Vadeboncoeur, J. A., & Patel Stevens, L. (Eds.). (2005). Re/constructing “the adolescent”: Sign,
symbol, and body. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Vasudevan, L., & Campano, G. (2009). The social production of adolescent risk and the
promise of adolescent literacies. Review of Research in Education, 33, 310–353.
Waller, A. (2009). Constructing adolescence in fantastic realism. New York, NY: Routledge.
This page intentionally left blank
BEYOND THE KNOWLEDGE
ECONOMY: TEACHING ENGLISH
FOR ECONOMIC JUSTICE

Ross Collin

ABSTRACT

In this chapter, I consider arguments for aligning ELA with the demands
of a soon-to-arrive knowledge economy. I ask how these arguments call
ELA teachers to prepare students to work in an economy that values
creativity, interpretation, and cutting-edge literacies
the stock-in-trade
of ELA classes. Although these arguments have many strengths
they
play down standardization and play up creativity
they rest on faulty
assumptions about the number and distribution of high-skills jobs in the
near future. Most people will not perform work that leverages creativity
and cutting-edge knowledge. Given this reality, I ask how teachers of
ELA teachers can take what’s good in the knowledge economy approach
and adapt it so diverse students can acquire literacies that may help them
succeed in and, perhaps, transform the economic field. This more viable
approach to ELA calls teachers to teach not only economically valuable
forms of reading and writing but also ways of critiquing and changing
economies in line with democratic principles. I illustrate the latter

Innovations in English Language Arts Teacher Education

Advances in Research on Teaching, Volume 27, 107
119
Copyright r 2017 by Emerald Publishing Limited
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved
ISSN: 1479-3687/doi:10.1108/S1479-368720170000027006
107
108 ROSS COLLIN

approach to ELA instruction with a scenario activity for a unit on A

Raisin in the Sun.
Keywords: English language arts curriculum and instruction;
economic justice and the teaching of English language arts;
knowledge economy

When I think about ELA and economic critique, I think about a moment
from my first year of teaching English. I was standing in the hallway,
describing to a colleague my plans for teaching students about the eco-
nomic context of Lorraine Hansberry’s A Raisin in the Sun. I talked about
investigating the Great Migration, redlining, and racial segregation in labor
unions. Passing by, another colleague smiled and said, “Ha ha! Every
English teacher thinks he’s actually a social studies teacher!”
It was a good-natured joke, but it rested on a shaky premise: Economic
critique belongs in social studies, not in ELA.
In this chapter, I argue not only that economic critique belongs in ELA,
but also that critique is a means of pursuing ELA’s economic mission. By
the latter, I mean the mission of teaching forms of literacy students can use
to improve their economic positions. While many English educators see
new literacies (e.g., digital literacies) as the most economically valuable
practices taught in ELA (see Beers, 2010; Burke, 2013; National Council
of Teachers of English [NCTE], 2009), I argue critical literacies are of
potentially greater value. To work out the practical implications of this
argument, I present a scenario activity for an ELA unit on A Raisin in the
Sun. I describe how, through engaging students in economic critique, the
scenario activity helps teachers pursue ELA’s economic mission.

THE ECONOMIC MISSION OF ELA

For many people, ELA is primarily
maybe purely
a cultural field.
That is, many people think ELA is mostly about appreciation of literature
and personal reflection (for a history of this idea, see Applebee, 1974).
These experiences, moreover, are understood as having little to do with
Beyond the Knowledge Economy 109

economics or politics. The latter concerns are seen as belonging to social

studies. This Romantic idea of ELA as standing apart from the material
world has shaped the field since ELA emerged as a major school subject in
the 1880s (Applebee, 1974, p. 25).
While ELA has a Romantic, anti-economic component, it also has com-
ponents attuned to the workplace. Indeed, as a core part of public school-
ing, ELA pursues the public school’s mission of preparing students for
work. At the same time, ELA and other school subjects prepare students
for citizenship, community membership, and higher education. As a con-
tent area, therefore, ELA is a contradictory formation; it is made up of
components attuned, opposed, and unrelated to the workplace.
What are ELA’s economic components? At different times with different
students, ELA teaches
• advanced literacy skills required in higher education and professional
work (e.g., writing analytical papers)
• basic literacy skills required in nonprofessional workplaces
• new literacy skills required in “new economy” workplaces that emphasize
creativity (e.g., creating digital stories)
• critical literacy skills required in public debates over socio-economic
inequality.
Much like the field as a whole, ELA’s set of economic components is
not internally consistent; it comprises different skills suited to different
purposes. The question of which students get taught which skills for which
purposes is answered through negotiation and struggle (the components
listed above were identified in Applebee, 1974; Beers, 2010; Burke, 2013;
Myers, 1996; NCTE, 2009).

TECHNOLOGY AND LITERACY

Over the past 20 years, many educators have promoted new literacy skills
as economically valuable practices that can be taught in ELA classes
(Beers, 2010; Burke, 2013; NCTE, 2009). As suggested above, new literacy
skills include practices of digital communication (e.g., using social media),
as well as creative practices central to popular culture (e.g., composing
digital stories). To be sure, educators do not see new literacy skills as valu-
able only in an economic sense
these practices are understood as having
cultural, political, personal, and other kinds of value, as well. Nonetheless,
110 ROSS COLLIN

English educators often cite new literacy skills as ELA’s contribution to the
economic success of students and of the nation as a whole.
Popular arguments about the economic value of new literacy skills rely
on a theory of skill-biased technological change (SBTC). This theory was
developed by economists including Lawrence Katz and Kevin Murphy
(1992) and popularized by figures including Robert Reich (1992), author of
the widely read book The Work of Nations. Reich’s arguments about SBTC
were brought into literacy studies by Colin Lankshear and Michele Knobel
(2003) and James Gee (2008). SBTC posits the following: In the second
half of the twentieth century, information technologies were developed that
enable companies to automate or outsource more and more work. The jobs
that are most susceptible to automation and outsourcing are routine pro-
duction jobs (e.g., many types of factory work). Given the realities of auto-
mation and outsourcing, routine production workers have little leverage to
improve their wages, job security, or working conditions. Thus, SBTC dis-
advantages low-skill workers. On the other side of the coin, SBTC advan-
tages high-skill workers who can use new tools to link together, manage,
and create networks in the high-tech global economy. For instance, the
new economy pays a premium for workers who can develop and advertise
new products to new consumer markets. Ultimately, theorists of SBTC
posit that a good deal of economic inequality has to do with who has crea-
tive, high-tech skills, and who does not.
Working with a theory of SBTC, some English educators frame ELA as
a good training ground for work in the new economy. Specifically, they
argue ELA classes can serve as venues in which students can hone their
creativity and learn new literacies (and especially digital literacies). For
example, English teacher Jim Burke (2013) writes,

[A]ll work dependent on the left-brain capacities
logic, sequence, literalness, analysis

is increasingly sent abroad, or, more frequently, done by computers, whereas the right
brain work
synthesis, emotional expression, creating context, and thinking about the
big picture
is what should be [ELA teachers’] focus. (p. 4)

Striking a similar note, Kylene Beers (2010) argues, “One way we rebuild a
strong economy is to educate students so that they are able to do this
creative
innovative
work” (original emphasis, p. 7). Beers (2010) says
that while the worker who learns new literacies may lose a routine job to
globalization, she can find an innovative, higher-paying job in the creative
sector, so “She still has a job, and a better one” (p. 6). By trying out new
literacies in ELA classes, advocates argue, students will be better equipped
to perform the kind of work valued in new times. Thus, for some English
Beyond the Knowledge Economy 111

educators, new literacies are means by which they can pursue ELA’s eco-
nomic mission of teaching forms of literacy students can use to improve
their economic positions. And by teaching new literacies to all students,
they can equip all future workers with valuable skills and thus rectify socio-
economic inequality (for closer analyses of arguments about literacy and
new economies, see Collin, 2014, 2016).
SBTC and its ELA corollary make sense in a general way. Many
American workplaces, like the broader society, have grown more high-tech
and have come to require forms of literacy that fit the new high-tech envir-
onment. However, SBTC explains less and less the closer we look at eco-
nomic trends. As economist Paul Krugman (2015) writes, SBTC “has fared
very badly over the past quarter-century, to the point where it no longer
deserves to be taken seriously as an account of what ails us” (par. 8). For
one thing, Krugman observes, real wages of American college graduates

those whom SBTC is supposed to advantage
have stalled over the past
20 years. Relatedly, job markets in the United States show less demand for
creative, high-tech jobs than SBTC predicts. And data on business invest-
ments show most companies are not rushing to purchase new worker-
replacing technologies. What’s more, other advanced capitalist nations
such as Canada and Germany
nations subject to the same technological
changes as the United States
have not shed jobs at the American rate.
“In short,” Krugman (2015) argues, “a technological account of rising
inequality is looking ever less plausible, and the notion that increasing
workers’ skills can reverse the trend is looking less plausible still” (para. 11;
for a more elaborated critique of SBTC, see Schmitt, Shierholz, & Mishel,
2013). Thus, like most economists, ELA educators would do well to drop
SBTC and its pedagogical corollaries.

FROM TECHNOLOGY TO POWER

A better account of the US’s economic difficulties
and, I argue below,
a better approach to pursuing ELA’s economic mission
foregrounds
questions of power. Indeed, power, more so than technology, is now a key
concern of prominent mainstream economists including Krugman (2015),
Thomas Piketty (2014), and Joseph Stiglitz (2015). Significantly, Reich has
also shifted his focus from technology
a central theme in his 1992 book
The Work of Nations
to power. Building on the work of Krugman et al.,
Reich argues in his 2015 book Saving Capitalism: For the Many, Not the
Few that the core economic challenges the United States face have at least
112 ROSS COLLIN

as much to do with politics as they have to do with technology. Reich notes

how, since at least the 1970s, corporations and wealthy individuals have
organized and used their political power to hold down minimum wages,
undercut unions, limit consumers’ rights, defund social programs, and tilt
the tax code in favor of the affluent. As a result, the non-wealthy have less
income to spend on goods and services. Moreover, in the wake of the finan-
cial crisis of 2008, many consumers are opting to spend less so they can pay
down their debts. Seeing little demand, companies have little reason to hire
workers. Why pay someone to produce goods and offer services when there
aren’t enough customers with enough money to buy what you’re selling?
Completing this vicious cycle, unemployed or underemployed people do
not have much income to buy goods and services. Thus, the USA’s current
quandary is less an effect of impersonal technological changes and more a
result of political decisions about how workplaces, consumer markets, and
tax systems should be organized. Put more plainly, we are where we are
because we’ve rewritten the social contract about what we owe each other.
Of course, technology still matters. Workers need the right skills for
good jobs. Corporations might invest in worker-replacing technologies if
they are denied other, simpler ways of increasing profits (e.g., undercutting
unions). The key point, however, is that technology does not act on its
own. It is mobilized as part of social, political, and economic projects. A
high-tech future could set all workers against each other in a desperate
scramble to acquire the right skills for the few remaining good jobs. Or a
high-tech future could free us from more than a few hours of labor a week.
Which future we create will depend as much on political struggle as it will
on technological innovation.

POWER, CRITIQUE, AND ELA

The growing recognition that power, more so than technology, is the
central factor in the current crisis means a few things for ELA. First, as
Krugman (2015) writes, it means “the notion that increasing workers’ skills
can reverse the trend [toward inequality] is looking” less and less plausible
(para. 11). Thus, while there are many good reasons to teach new literacies
in ELA classes, workforce preparation is not one of them. Second, it means
teachers might pursue ELA’s economic mission by teaching students to
engage in economic critique. As noted above, ELA’s economic mission
involves teaching forms of literacy students can use to improve their
economic positions. If Americans’ economic positions are compromised
Beyond the Knowledge Economy 113

because of political efforts to tilt the playing field in favor of the powerful,
then ELA teachers might teach their students to ask why the playing
field is arranged as it is and how it might be arranged in a more
equitable manner. In this way, ELA teachers can help students improve
their economic positions. Specifically, ELA teachers might have students
read and write texts that pose questions of equality underlying current eco-
nomic debates: What do we owe each other? In what sense am I my broth-
er’s and my sister’s keeper? How can we balance individuality against
responsibility to the group? By reading and writing texts that engage these
questions, students can learn forms of economic critique they can use in
broader struggles that determine their pay, their cost of living, and the
taxes they pay. Below, I present an ELA scenario activity that pursues this
type of economic critique.
But doesn’t this approach to teaching English transgress disciplinary
boundaries? Shouldn’t ELA stick to the literary and personal and leave the
economic and political to social studies? In a word, no. Disciplinary bound-
aries are not so clearly drawn. For years, ELA classes have addressed
socio-political problems of racism and anti-Semitism by reading books
such as Richard Wright’s Native Son, Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird,
and Elie Wiesel’s Night. Moreover, some of the most commonly taught
texts in ELA foreground questions of economic inequality. Consider,
for example, Lorraine Hansberry’s A Raisin in the Sun, George Orwell’s
Animal Farm, John Steinbeck’s The Grapes of Wrath, The Pearl, and Of
Mice and Men, Sandra Cisneros’s The House on Mango Street, Sherman
Alexie’s The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian, and F. Scott
Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby. These texts can and should be read for their
literary merit and for the opportunities they present for personal reflection.
At the same time, however, they should be read for their portrayals of the
haves and have-nots and for their explanations (implicit or explicit) of eco-
nomic inequality.
Although economic critique is an important current in ELA
a current
relayed, if nowhere else, in the texts listed above
it has long sparked
controversy. For instance, in his presidential address to the 1934
Convention of the National Council of Teachers of English, Oscar J.
Campbell discussed pedagogies of reconstructionism and their emphasis on
economic critique. He warned,
The greatest danger in such a time as ours is that one’s mind may be completely captured
by the immediate and pressing. Values which are not obvious are in danger of becoming
obscured or lost. Our duties in a rapidly changing world can best be discharged
if we remain cognizant of the nature of our subject and of those deeper regions
114 ROSS COLLIN

of personality to which it brings, life and energy. (quoted in Applebee, 1974,

pp. 117
118)

By linking “the nature of our subject” (ELA) to the “deeper regions of

personality,” Campbell construes ELA as a field concerned more with indivi-
dual growth and reflection than with “the immediate and pressing” matters
of “a rapidly changing world.” These matters, in the depths of the Great
Depression in 1934, included matters of economics and politics. Despite the
severity of the economic situation, Campbell urged his audience to keep their
attention focused mainly on the personal, apolitical side of English studies.
More than 80 years after Campbell’s address, in my survey of English
education professors’ beliefs about the field, respondents’ answers departed
slightly from Campbell’s view of ELA and economic critique (Collin, in press).
While most respondents said ELA classes could include moments of eco-
nomic critique, the latter should not detract from the field’s central concerns
of literary study and personal reflection. One respondent elaborated their
views, saying that while they believe critique might have a limited role in
English class, “There is the danger of political indoctrination that should be
kept out of the high school curriculum.” Thus, to this day, economic critique
is a recognized part of ELA, but it is often relegated to a small, proscribed
role in English classes.
However, if economic critique is seen as a means of pursing ELA’s
economic mission, it might be able to secure a more central place in the field.
If Reich, Krugman, et al. are correct and workers’ current difficulties have
more to do with political and economic struggles than they have to do with
workers’ lack of digital literacies, then ELA teachers can help their students
improve their economic positions by teaching literacies of economic critique.
But what would this type of critical pedagogy look like in ELA classes?

A RAISIN IN THE SUN AND ECONOMIC CRITIQUE

Although economic critique has a place in ELA, it can and should play out
in ways appropriate to the field. Thus, English teachers should not spend
too much time setting up student debates over the wisdom of Franklin
Roosevelt’s 1937 spending cuts or Lyndon Johnson’s guns-and-butter poli-
cies of the 1960s. These topics are best explored in social studies classes.
Instead, English teachers might teach economic critique by focusing on big
questions of fairness and equality at the center of literary works. Teachers
can link these big questions to key debates in present times.
Beyond the Knowledge Economy 115

Consider, for instance, Hansberry’s A Raisin in the Sun. This classic play
is set in a working-class African-American neighborhood in Chicago in the
1950s. The five members of the Younger family live in a cramped apart-
ment and work through compounding problems of personal, social, and
economic varieties. Much of the conflict in the play turns on the question
of whether the Youngers should move into a bigger home in an all-white
neighborhood whose residents try to keep out people of color through brib-
ery and violence.
One big question at the heart of the play is “When must we share?” The
residents of the all-white neighborhood in A Raisin in the Sun do not want
to share their neighborhood with people of color. Thankfully, few students
today would seriously argue it is acceptable for people to try to segregate
neighborhoods on the basis of race. However, many people
adolescents
and adults
believe it is acceptable to segregate neighborhoods on the basis
of income (which, in the United States, is bound up with race). Many of
these same people resist efforts to build subsidized housing in high-income
areas, arguing that if people want to move into affluent neighborhoods, they
should work harder and save more money. Others argue that given the
unequal geographical distribution of good jobs and good schools, it is
exceedingly difficult in some neighborhoods to pull oneself up by one’s boot-
straps. Therefore, people of this second opinion argue, public money should
be used to fund affordable housing in high-income areas. On this issue, dif-
ferent people offer different answers to the question “When must we share?”
Because housing policy is notoriously tricky and too arcane for many
adolescents, English teachers might reproduce the dilemma in a scenario
more accessible to high school students (this approach to creating scenarios
is adapted from McCann, Johannessen, Kahn, & Flannagan, 2006). In
other words, teachers might develop a case study set in the teenage world
that raises the question “When must we share?” In this way, English tea-
chers can connect the text (A Raisin in the Sun) to students’ lives and to the
broader realm of economic debate. The following section presents a sce-
nario handout to be distributed to students and worked through in an ELA
class that recently finished reading A Raisin in the Sun.

A SCENARIO: DEBATING DEBATE CLUB

Students who attend Floodrock High School (FHS) live in two different
areas. Glendale, where 75% of students live, is lower middle class. Rock
Row, where the other 25% of students live, is working class and poor.
116 ROSS COLLIN

Although FHS does not have much money to field athletic teams, it has
a long established, nationally ranked debate team. Many students see
debate as the most prestigious extracurricular activity at the school. In per-
sonal essays submitted with college applications, members of the team
often describe their participation in debate. Each year, an average of four
seniors from the team are awarded academic scholarships from the colleges
they will attend (average scholarship: $2,500). These seniors almost always
credit the debate team with helping them distinguish themselves as students
deserving of scholarships.
Because FHS has little money to spend on extracurricular activities,
members of the debate team and other teams and clubs have to pay partici-
pation fees. For a student to join the debate team, she must pay a $300 fee
each year that covers travel, food, lodging, and registration for debate tour-
naments. This $300 is in addition to money put up by FHS and money gen-
erated by the annual debate team fundraiser (selling candy bars).
Each year, the 30 members of the debate team usually include about 27
students from lower middle class Glendale and about 3 students from work-
ing class and poor Rock Row. Many families from Rock Row see the $300
fee as a deal breaker. To open up the club to more students from Rock
Row, Mr. Turnbaugh, the faculty advisor of the debate team, has proposed
charging Glendale debaters an extra $100 a year. This extra money
an
average of $2,700 a year ($100 times 27 students)
could fund nine free
spots for debaters from Park Row ($2,700 divided by $300). Mr.
Turnbaugh’s proposal elicited the following reactions from FHS students.
Jenny Trimarco (Rock Row): Finally, a little fairness! For years, only
kids from Glendale could afford to be on the debate team, so only kids
from Glendale got to list debate on college applications and get those big
scholarships. That’s a lot of valuable stuff
college slots and scholarship
money
given just to the kids from the richer side of the tracks.
Compared to all that valuable stuff, $100 isn’t even all that much. Debaters
from Glendale can totally afford it and it would give kids from Rock Row
a better chance at getting into a good college and being able to afford tui-
tion. Thank you, Mr. Turnbaugh!
Jared Richards (Glendale): Turnbaugh’s heart is in the right place, but
this plan just isn’t fair. Sure, most families from Glendale are a little better
off than most families from Rock Row. But they’re not so much better off
that they can just cough up an extra $100 any time someone asks for it.
Plus, better off families are better off because they worked for it. And
because they worked for it, they should be able to spend that money on
their own kids, not someone else’s kids.
Beyond the Knowledge Economy 117

Kendra Gunderson (Glendale): $100 is too much money. I’d be a little

more in favor of Turnbaugh’s plan if it was, like, an extra $50 charged to
Glendale debaters. That would mean the team could fund four Rock Row
students for free or nine Rock Row students at half price. And I think it’s
most fair to ask Rock Row students to pay at least half. I mean, if you
want to do something extra
and extra-curricular activities are extra

then you can’t expect to get it for free. You have to pay something.
Juliana Wills (Rock Row): I’m from Rock Row and I have mixed feel-
ings about Mr. Turnbaugh’s plan. I don’t like the idea of asking some other
student to pay my way. But I also know there are lots of schools
like my
cousin’s school in Virginia
where they don’t charge you any money to be
on a team. I guess that comes out of tax money, so everyone in the area
pays more to give all kids a chance to do extra-curriculars. I’d be more
comfortable with that, where no students
rich, poor, or whatever
pay
a fee to be on a team because all the adults
rich, poor, or whatever

chipped in to pay more in taxes. But I know a lot of adults freak out when
someone says their taxes are going to go up.
Imagine you are a student at FHS from either Glendale or Rock Row.
Also imagine that your FHS English class just finished reading A Raisin in
the Sun. Write a letter to Ms. Lewis, FHS’s principal, explaining what you
think about Mr. Turnbaugh’s plan. Compare and contrast your views with
the views of two of the four students listed above. Also, explain why the
financial barrier keeping Rock Row students off the debate team is or is
not like the racial barrier keeping the Youngers out of all-white neighbor-
hoods in A Raisin in the Sun.

SCENARIO DEBRIEF
This scenario prompts ELA students to consider key questions of equality
at the center of A Raisin in the Sun. Crucially, the scenario is set in the
world of adolescence (i.e., it is set in a high school) and its central conflict
is a live debate (i.e., economic redistribution is up for public debate in a
way purposeful racial segregation is not). Moreover, as per McCann et al.’s
(2006) advice for designing scenarios, none of the four views is outrageous
or easily dismissed
even if students disagree with a particular view, they
will have to consider and argue against the (perhaps limited) good sense of
that view. By working through the scenario and comparing and contrasting
it to the events of A Raisin in the Sun, students can develop nuanced argu-
ments about when and why people must share resources.
118 ROSS COLLIN

If students in ELA classes are prompted on a regular basis to read,

write, think, and speak about economic questions, they can get used to ask-
ing and answering questions too often left to politicians and the wealthy
donors to whom they’re beholden. As Krugman, Reich, et al. argue, it is
the one percent’s effort to tilt the economic playing field in their favor that
has made things so difficult for the 99%. If the less affluent organize,
develop arguments for shared prosperity, and force their way back into the
debate, they can level the playing the field. In a fairer system, more people
will find more opportunities to improve their economic positions.
One space in which people can debate and develop arguments about
equality, I have shown, is the English classroom. While ELA teachers
should not give over their classes entirely to economic critique, they might
strengthen the critical tradition that has always formed one part of the
field. By prompting students from time to time to engage in economic cri-
tique, teachers can realize ELA’s economic mission of teaching forms of lit-
eracy students can use to improve their lots in life.

LOOKING AHEAD
Although there are good reasons to strengthen ELA’s tradition of eco-
nomic critique, there are several obstacles in the way. First, testing regimes
must be pushed back so English teachers can reclaim the time it takes to
carry out investigations of equality and inequality. The scenario presented
above would take two or three class meetings to work through, so teachers
will need schedules that are not locked up with skill-and-drill test prep.
Second, teacher education and professional development programs should
present more opportunities for ELA teachers to explore ways of teaching
economic critique in their classes. Teachers and teacher educators who
want to strengthen ELA’s tradition of economic critique might take their
cues from teachers who have fought to expand discussions of racial justice
in ELA classes. In other words, successful efforts to put race on the ELA
agenda might inform efforts to emphasize economics. Finally, researchers
might study and write about the efforts of ELA teachers who focus on eco-
nomic critique. Researchers might describe and analyze innovative ways of
teaching A Raisin in the Sun or The Grapes of Wrath or the lyrics of the first
wave of hip hop (which swept out of the economically stressed South
Bronx). By building up the field’s stocks of knowledge about teaching for
economic justice, teachers and researchers can make economic critique a
more recognizable and more practical part of ELA.
Beyond the Knowledge Economy 119

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This work was supported by Virginia Commonwealth University’s
Presidential Research Quest Fund.

REFERENCES

Applebee, A. (1974). Tradition and reform in the teaching of English: A history. Urbana, IL:
National Council of Teachers of English.
Beers, K. (2010). The 2009 NCTE presidential address: Sailing over the edge: Navigating
the uncharted waters of a world gone flat. Research in the Teaching of English,
44(3), 340
352.
Burke, J. (2013). The English teacher’s companion: A completely new guide to classroom, curri-
culum, and the profession (4th ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Collin, R. (2014). English and the knowledge economy: A critical analysis. Changing English,
21(4), 383
392.
Collin, R. (2016). A Jamesonian analysis of “flat world” imagery in education discourse.
Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 37(2), 298
309.
Collin, R. (in press). The value of English: Perspectives on the economic value of studying
English language arts in high school. English Education.
Gee, J. P. (2008). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses (3rd ed.). New York,
NY: Routledge.
Katz, L., & Murphy, K. (1992). Changes in relative wages, 1963
1987: Supply and demand
factors. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 107(1), 35
78.
Krugman, P. (2015, December 17). Challenging the oligopoly. The New York Review of Books.
Retrieved from http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2015/12/17/robert-reich-challen-
ging-oligarchy/
Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2003). New literacies: Changing knowledge and classroom learn-
ing. Buckingham: Open University.
McCann, T., Johannessen, L., Kahn, E., & Flannagan, J. (2006). Talking in class: Using discus-
sion to enhance teaching and learning. Urbana, IL: NCTE.
Myers, M. (1996). Changing our minds: Negotiating English and literacy. Urbana, IL: National
Council of Teachers of English.
National Council of Teachers of English. (2009). Literacy learning in the 21st century. Urbana,
IL: NCTE.
Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the twenty-first century. Cambridge, MA: Harvard.
Reich, R. (1992). The work of nations. New York, NY: Vintage.
Reich, R. (2015). Saving capitalism: For the many, not the few. New York, NY: Alfred
A. Knopf.
Schmitt, J., Shierholz, H., & Mishel, L. (2013). Don’t blame the robots: Assessing the job polari-
zation explanation of growing wage inequality. Washington, DC: Economic Policy
Institute. Retrieved from http://www.epi.org/publication/technology-inequality-dont-
blame-the-robots/
Stiglitz, J. (2015). The great divide: Unequal societies and what we can do about them.
New York, NY: W.W. Norton.
This page intentionally left blank
FROM RESEARCH TO PRACTICE:
WRITING, TECHNOLOGY, AND
ENGLISH TEACHER EDUCATION

Jen Scott Curwood, Jayne C. Lammers and

Alecia Marie Magnifico

ABSTRACT
Writers, their practices, and their tools are mediated by the contexts in
which they work. In online spaces and classroom environments, today’s
writers have increased access to collaborators, readers, and reviewers.
Drawing on our experiences as English teacher educators and as
researchers of digital literacies and online affinity spaces, this chapter
offers examples from three English teacher education programs in
the United States and Australia to demonstrate how we link our research
in out-of-school spaces to literacy practices in school contexts for our
pre-service teachers. To do so, we share an illustrative example from
each program and consider how in-class activities and assessment tasks
can encourage pre-service teachers to learn about: the importance of
clear goals and real-world audiences for writers; the value of self-
sponsored, interest-driven writing in the English curriculum; and the role
of authentic conversations between readers and writers as part of the
writing, revising, and publishing process. The chapter concludes with

Innovations in English Language Arts Teacher Education

Advances in Research on Teaching, Volume 27, 121
141
Copyright r 2017 by Emerald Publishing Limited
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved
ISSN: 1479-3687/doi:10.1108/S1479-368720170000027007
121
122 JEN SCOTT CURWOOD ET AL.

recommendations for class activities and assessments that could be used

within English education programs.
Keywords: Digital literacies; online affinity spaces; English education;
teaching of writing

Rapidly transforming digital landscapes influence how individuals draw on

multiple semiotic resources to construct meaning, participate in social inter-
actions across time and space, and engage in critical dialogue and creative
expression. Young adults, and their teachers, must be equipped to readily
adapt to new digital tools and online spaces in order to employ new literacy
practices (Kalantzis & Cope, 2012), from instant messaging and blogging
to programming and videogaming (Fields, Kafai, & Giang, 2016; Turner,
Abrams, Katic, & Donovan, 2014; Vasudevan, DeJaynes, & Schmier,
2010). From research in out-of-school contexts, we know that many youth
develop essential writing skills in online spaces as they write for specific
audiences (Curwood, Magnifico, & Lammers, 2013), give and receive con-
structive criticism (Black, 2008), and use smartphone apps to conceptualize,
revise, and share experiential narratives (Wargo, 2015).
However, English classrooms tend to incorporate technology in teacher-
directed ways that focus on editing and revising final products not often
shared with wider online audiences (Applebee & Langer, 2011; Graham,
Capizzi, Harris, Hebert, & Morphy, 2014). To avoid furthering the digital
divide, schools face growing pressure to ensure that students can use tech-
nology in novel ways and for diverse purposes to communicate, collaborate,
and innovate. Thus, we argue that English education must model best prac-
tices and guide pre-service teachers as they work toward understanding the
theories and practices of new literacies by developing the skills and disposi-
tions necessary to teach with ever-evolving digital tools and online contexts.
As researchers and teacher educators, we ask: How can teacher educa-
tion programs prepare our pre-service teachers to meet the challenges asso-
ciated with literacy in a digital age? In this chapter, we draw on our
experiences as secondary English teacher educators in the United States
and Australia, and we share an illustrative example from each of our pro-
grams. In particular, we consider how class activities and assessment tasks
can encourage pre-service teachers to learn about (1) the importance of
clear purposes and real-world audiences for writers; (2) the value of self-
sponsored, interest-driven writing in the English curriculum; (3) the role of
From Research to Practice 123

authentic conversations between readers and writers as part of the writing,

revising, and publishing process. As new digital technologies become avail-
able, and as new literacy research emerges, English teacher education must
reflect the changing landscape.
While we appreciate and benefit from reading the scholarship of those
English educators who situate their research within their teacher preparation
programs and courses (Barnes, 2016; Brass & Webb, 2015; Hallman &
Burdick, 2011), we have adopted a different approach. We seek to bring les-
sons learned from youth digital literacy practices and spaces “in the wild”
(Curwood et al., 2013; Hutchins, 1995) to bear on our work with pre-service
teachers. We find this approach particularly important for three key reasons.
First, situating our research with youth in digital spaces allows us to continu-
ally learn about how such spaces and their norms change and shift over
time, with implications for young people and teachers alike. Second, introdu-
cing our students to these spaces to compose for and with a real audience
helps pre-service teachers understand the value and challenge of digital com-
munication. Finally, drawing on our research with youth remains vital to
how we help our English pre-service teachers see the importance of making
classroom instruction relevant to their students’ literacies and lives.
We recognize the multi-faceted challenges associated with preparing pre-
service teachers to engage with new literacies, adapt to evolving technolo-
gies, and address the digital divide. Teacher education programs are faced
with multiple demands, from addressing curriculum directives, such as
those related to the Common Core State Standards and the Australian
Curriculum, to meeting requirements associated with accreditation and
performance-based certification. While we aim to address largely digital
social practices, we often work in primarily print-based cultures in second-
ary and university contexts. Consequently, in this chapter, we highlight
innovative practices within international teacher education programs
designed to advance pre-service teachers’ understanding of new literacies
and their ability to support their own students’ literacy development.

ARTICULATING OUR POSITIONALITY AS

RESEARCHERS AND TEACHER EDUCATORS
Broadly speaking, all three of us enact our roles as literacy researchers
and English teacher educators in ways that honor the reciprocal relation-
ship between these roles. We draw on our past experiences as
classroom English teachers to inform both our teaching and our research
124 JEN SCOTT CURWOOD ET AL.

(Curwood & Gibbons, 2009). Building on our work to understand

contemporary relationships between writers and audiences (Magnifico,
2010) and to trace youth digital literacies in online contexts (Curwood,
2013; Lammers, 2016), we have collaboratively theorized affinity spaces
(Curwood et al., 2013; Lammers, Curwood, & Magnifico, 2012) and stu-
died audience interactions in online fanfiction communities (Magnifico,
Curwood, & Lammers, 2015).
Our scholarship and our teaching position young people as the focus of
attention; therefore, we often privilege the voices of youth in our research
and encourage our pre-service teachers to design instruction in ways that
center on students. As teacher educators, specifically, we work to bring our
pre-service teachers into real-world (physical as well as virtual) contexts
where literacies happen. We teach from a broad base of literature and
informational texts and expand pre-service teachers’ notions of what counts
as reading and writing in the English classroom. Through demonstration
lessons and modeling culturally relevant and socially just pedagogies
(Duncan-Andrade & Morrell, 2008; Ladson-Billings, 1995), we strive to
embody what we profess in ways that align with Kalantzis and Cope’s
(2012) ideas about school needing to prepare students to be “new ‘kinds of
people’” who are capable of “negotiating ‘literacies’ in the plural” (p. 7).
For each of us, our research informs our teacher education practices in
different ways, influenced by our university teaching contexts, students,
and the policies shaping the classrooms we prepare pre-service teachers to
enter. The cases below serve as examples of how our digital literacies
research informs our practice. In each, we provide details about the specific
English teacher education program context, describe the case and situate it
within a relevant conversation in the literature, and then present and dis-
cuss data to illuminate how we advance pre-service teachers’ understanding
of new literacies and develop their ability to support their own students’ lit-
eracy development in a digital age.

INTERNATIONAL PRACTICES WITHIN ENGLISH

TEACHER EDUCATION
Engaging in Creative Writing: Jen Scott Curwood

This case focuses on how one of my undergraduate students engaged in

creative writing in order to deepen her understanding of genre and to
From Research to Practice 125

provide her with insight into the challenges associated with composing a
creative work under timed exam conditions. As part of an assessment in
one of her English methodology classes, Alice (all student names are pseu-
donyms) was tasked with writing a creative piece, receiving constructive
feedback, and reflecting on her writing process and the final product. She
chose to use fanfiction as an entry point into creative writing, and to focus
specifically on Attack on Titan, a Japanese manga series. As she explained,
“There’s been a lot of love put into the world. As a fan, I can’t help but
respond to it and try to help make it fuller.”
Creativity is evident in fan culture, which sparks fans’ interest in writing
stories, creating art, producing videos, and engaging in interactive games.
Jenkins (1992) argues that these practices blur “any clear-cut distinction
between media producer and media spectator, since any spectator may
potentially participate in the creation of new artworks” (p. 247). Prior
research has shown that fanfiction allows young adults to draw on mentor
texts to develop their writing craft (Curwood, 2013, 2014), engage in colla-
borative writing and role-playing (Thomas, 2007), construct hybridized
identities (Black, 2008), and share their creative work with an authentic
audience (Lammers, Magnifico, & Curwood, 2014). While it may not be
practical for teachers to use online writing communities like Figment.com
or Wattpad.com directly in their classrooms, research suggests that there is
substantial value in integrating self-sponsored writing practices and in facil-
itating constructive feedback processes in schools.

Teacher Preparation Context

Within the University of Sydney’s Faculty of Education and Social Work,
I serve as coordinator of the secondary English education combined degree
program. As part of completing a Bachelor of Education at this large,
public university, students in this program also complete a Bachelor of
Arts, with a focus on two subject areas, generally English and History.
Within their education degree, students take required classes on human
development, sociology, educational psychology, and pedagogy; within
their arts degree, they must take literature classes (including a focus on
Australian literature), but may choose others that focus on literary theory,
film, linguistics, and language studies.
The English education program includes three English methodology
classes across subsequent semesters; each cohort has around 80 English
pre-service teachers. They engage in multiple professional experiences,
including a 20-day practicum in their third year, a 25-day practicum in
their fourth year, and a 34-day internship in their final year, each of which
126 JEN SCOTT CURWOOD ET AL.

occur in culturally, linguistically, and socioeconomically diverse govern-

ment, independent, and religious schools. After completing their five-year
course, most graduates pursue employment within the state of New South
Wales, including in remote, rural, and urban areas. To do so, they must
demonstrate that they have met the Australian Professional Standards for
Teachers and seek accreditation from the NSW Board of Studies,
Teaching, and Educational Standards.
As a former secondary English teacher and K-12 reading specialist,
I bring my knowledge of literacy development and my passion for social
justice to the English education program. My research on literacy, technol-
ogy, and teacher professional development significantly influences my
pedagogy, including my studies on how young adults create digital poetry
in school contexts (Curwood & Cowell, 2011) and participate in online
writing communities outside of school (Padgett & Curwood, 2016).

Case Study Context

I first met Alice in her third year at university; as a writer and artist, Alice
brought substantial cultural capital to bear on her teacher preparation. She
described her own writing as “very poetic,” and added, “This is a style
I have developed over time through reading a lot of poetic prose, enjoying
it, and identifying with it.” As a high school student, Alice first started par-
ticipating in fan communities such as FanFiction.net, ArchiveofOurOwn.
org, and DeviantArt.com. For her, these online spaces offered a way to
share her creative work and interact with others, particularly around
fandoms associated with Sherlock, Harry Potter, Fullmetal Alchemist
(a Japanese manga series), and Kingdom Hearts (crossover action role-
playing games).
As part of an assessment task, Alice chose to write a short fanfiction
story under exam conditions. She explained that this allowed her to explore
a particular fandom, share her work with a global audience online,
and understand the pressures associated with crafting a creative piece in
50 minutes. This decision was directly informed by the context within
which she will teach. In New South Wales, the final two years of high
school are spent preparing for the Higher School Certificate (HSC) exam.
English is the only compulsory senior subject, and students must be pre-
pared to write a timed creative piece in response to a stimulus, such as a
quote or an image, as well as a prompt in relation to a particular theme,
such as: “Compose a piece of imaginative writing which explores the unex-
pected impact of discovery” (Board of Studies, Teaching, and Education
Standards [BOSTES], 2015, p. 8). Consequently, pre-service teachers must
From Research to Practice 127

be familiar with a wide variety of genres, forms, modes, and semiotic

resources that students can draw on in their creative compositions.

Findings: Alice’s Experiences as a Writer and Teacher

Writing pedagogy emphasizes the importance of agency; for instance, wri-
ters are often motivated when given choice in terms of the genre, content,
and audience. In this assessment task, pre-service teachers were asked to
write a creative piece, solicit feedback, and engage in reflection.

Accessing Readers and Reviewers. In discussing her choice of Attack on

Titan, Alice said, “There’s a lot of tragedy in this anime (being set in a per-
iod of war), but pain that comes from romantic attachments is put on the
backburner.” She chose to write from a specific character’s point of view,
adding, “Levi’s relationship to Erwin is integral to his character develop-
ment, so I decided to explore what would happen if Erwin was taken away
from the picture.” In doing so, she made a conscious choice to draw on her
knowledge of manga as a whole and to explore concepts and themes not
already present within the canon. At the same time, Alice’s choice to write
her story under exam conditions meant that she needed to have a solid
understanding of the craft of writing, including dialogue conventions, as the
interactions between the two characters were crucial to the narrative arc.
By sharing her creative work within two online writing communities,
Alice was eager to receive feedback from readers. Prior research (Magnifico
et al., 2015) indicates that readers often give positive feedback, and they
seldom identify specific writing problems or offer strategies for improvement.
With Alice’s story, readers found the atmosphere “gloomy … yet romantic”
and said that it was “poetic and lovely.” One reader awarded the story a
“gold star,” complimenting Alice’s use of multiple verb tenses to denote past
and present scenes, yet noted that the final section was “a little abrupt” and
explained her rationale. In her written reflection, Alice cited Burke (2013)
and expressed her concern that timed writing assessments may inauthenti-
cally reflect a student’s writing ability. Even though she considered herself an
experienced writer, she took readers’ feedback to heart, explaining, “I not
only need to facilitate students in writing creatively but also teach them how
to write creatively against a time limit. Part of this would be fostering crea-
tive writing forms and techniques as instinctual, like muscle memory.”

Learning about Writing Pedagogy. As a pre-service teacher, Alice came to

see fanfiction as a way to engage students in creative writing. In particular,
she saw fanfiction as a way for students to draw on their own interests, and
128 JEN SCOTT CURWOOD ET AL.

for teachers to encourage students to explore settings, characters, and

themes beyond what currently exists within the canon. Although she was
already an avid participant in several fandoms, and active in multiple fan-
based online affinity spaces, she had previously considered them separate
from her identity as a teacher and from her university work. Not only did
this assessment task allow her to draw on some of her cultural capital, it
gave her the opportunity to develop her knowledge of writing pedagogy in
new and unexpected ways. In her written reflection, Alice concluded: “An
important part of the writing process is the reading process: to get students
to read a range of creative text types and genres, and see which creative
writing type resonates with each student the most so that they have a style
of their own to develop and even fall back on in high-stress situations like
timed writing.”

Discussion
For teachers in New South Wales, creative writing in an integral part of
the secondary English curriculum and a significant component of the HSC
exam. In her reflection, Alice expressed her belief that fanfiction draws on
students’ interests and passions, and that it can serve as an entry point into
creative writing. She argued, “It’s oftentimes much less intimidating to
write [fanfiction] than original prose because there is already a world and
set of characters to build on. It would be excellent for students who need a
boost of confidence in their creative processes.” As an avid writer and
artist, Alice was already comfortable with expressing herself creatively and
producing transformative works for a public audience. By choosing to
write her fanfiction story under exam conditions, she gained insight into
how she might prepare her own students to draw on their personal inter-
ests, develop deep understandings of genres and conventions, and be pre-
pared to respond to diverse prompts and multimodal stimuli. This
particular assessment task provided pre-service teachers with agency to
explore various facets of creative writing; for Alice, it allowed her to bring
her own passion about manga into the university classroom and it also
challenged her to grow as a writer and an educator.

Blogging in the English Classroom: Jayne C. Lammers

This case highlights how one of my pre-service teachers, Thom, used blogs
to innovate writing instruction in his student teaching placement. Though
blogs are not a new innovation, they continue to be a means of developing
From Research to Practice 129

teachers’ and students’ digital literacies (Hicks & Turner, 2013), particu-
larly because they facilitate digital, multimodal, and communicative writ-
ing, connecting writers with audiences within and beyond the classroom.
Through this case, we see one example of how our research connects to
practice by directly informing our pre-service teachers’ work with their
own students.
The research and practice literature documents varied experiences of
students and teachers blogging as part of English instruction. Blogs can
encourage students who do not contribute verbally in class to participate
(Gillespie, 2006), facilitate collaborative writing and idea sharing (Allison,
2009; Ranker, 2015), and bring a sense of play and enjoyment into student
writing (West, 2008). However, Hicks and Turner (2013) stress the impor-
tance of using “blog” as a verb and not a noun, saying, “To blog is to
write, to publish, and to invite comment” (p. 60).

Teacher Preparation Context

At the University of Rochester’s Warner Graduate School of Education
and Human Development, I direct the secondary English teacher prepara-
tion program. As part of earning a Master’s degree in adolescence
education, pre-service teachers at this small, private university enroll in a
15-month program that leads to New York state initial and professional
certification for English teaching in grades 7
12. Most students come to
this program with their English requirements already fulfilled, having taken
a broad range of literature, writing, and literary theory coursework in their
undergraduate degrees. Thus, the summer through summer program at
Warner focuses on educational foundations, English teaching methods, and
practical field experiences.
During the academic year, my students spend their days in local class-
rooms and take theory- and methods-focused coursework in the afternoon
and evening. In the autumn, they complete a 100-hour field experience, in
which they observe and slowly take on more responsibility in an English
classroom, under the mentorship of a veteran cooperating teacher. They
then transition to a 20-day student teaching placement in this same context,
during which their teaching is formally and informally observed. In the
spring semester, pre-service teachers complete a 40-day student teaching
placement in a different cooperating teacher’s classroom. Through these
placements, pre-service teachers gain confidence in middle and high school
classrooms, and at least one placement occurs in a high-needs district,
providing them with a breadth of experience across grade levels and
student populations.
130 JEN SCOTT CURWOOD ET AL.

The hallmark of our program is the simultaneous pairing of coursework

with fieldwork, supported by weekly cohort meetings with the English pre-
service teachers, their field supervisor (an advanced doctoral student with
multiple years of secondary English teaching experience), and me. To these
meetings, my teaching and course design, and my supervision of pre-service
teachers, I bring my background as a former English teacher in an urban
middle school and reading teacher at a large suburban high school. I also
bring lessons learned from my research exploring youth digital literacies in
videogame-related online spaces (Lammers, 2016) and an adolescent
author’s networked writing on Fanfiction.net (Lammers & Marsh, 2015),
and from my on-going collaboration with this chapter’s other authors.
Students learn about my affinity space and literacies research in courses
such as Literacy Learning as Social Practice and Integrating English and
Technology, and in our interactions throughout the program.

Case Study Context

Thom came to Warner as a student who was homeschooled until he
enrolled in college. He received his undergraduate degree from the
University of Rochester in medieval studies, a program with coursework in
both history and English. At Warner, Thom completed a Master of Arts in
Teaching, taking three English courses in addition to the teacher prepara-
tion program to fulfill the state’s content knowledge requirements. When
he entered a middle school for his fall field experience, it was Thom’s first
time ever in a secondary classroom. The word “chaos” featured promi-
nently in his journal entries from that week.
In this case, I highlight Thom’s use of blogs in his second student teach-
ing placement in a 9th grade English classroom at an urban arts-focused
high school. Students audition for acceptance into the school, and those in
Thom’s class were enrolled in the creative writing track. Their English
class, titled “Writing for Publication,” aimed to provide students with
authentic publication experiences while also meeting the New York State
Common Core (NYSCC) Learning Standards for grade nine English
Language Arts and Literacy. Classes met on alternating days, for 80-
minute periods. The first half of class occurred in a traditional classroom,
during which Thom taught writing mini-lessons and/or engaged students in
reading and textual analysis activities. Then, they moved to a computer lab
next door for the independent writing portion of class. As part of his “inno-
vative unit” assignment for his spring methods course at Warner, Thom
implemented blogs as both an instructional practice and publication venue
for his students. Thom’s unit was guided by the overarching question,
From Research to Practice 131

“What is the nature and relationship between human beings and story-
telling, and how has the relationship changed over time?”

Findings: Blogging in Thom’s class

Blogs and blogging served multiple purposes for various audiences in
Thom’s class.

Blogging as Instruction. Thom used his blog as an instructional tool, with his
students as the only intended audience. Often the entries provided written
instructions for lesson activities. On the day I observed Thom’s teaching, he
greeted students at the door, handing each an index card and asking them to
read the blog entry displayed on the SmartBoard. Thom had written, “We’re
going to do some talking and writing. 1) What are your favorite stories? Think
it out, talk it out, and list three on the card. If three is too difficult to narrow
down to, list five. …” (emphasis in original). His daily entries also offered
encouragement to student writers (“Your blog posts are beyond fabulous.
Like, wow.”), and directed them to writing resources. For example, during a
lesson on writing 500-word short stories, Thom’s blog entry included a hyper-
link to a mentor text that provided “an example of a rather powerful 500
word short story” and to writing contests, so students could see real-world
opportunities and audiences for pieces of this length. Thom spoke directly to
students in his blog entries, with reminders (“Use this time wisely, catch up
with things you don’t have handed in.”) and in ways that showcased his own
voice, as in this excerpt from his final entry at the end of student teaching:
“As we reach the end of our own story together, do you have any questions?
That was a terribly lame joke, but whatever. Seriously, any questions?”
Thom used the technical affordances of blogs as a means of enhancing
his instruction. For one writing prompt, he embedded a provocative image
in the entry and guided students’ writing by posting, “Remember that
you’re not telling the story of the picture, but building your own story off
an aspect (or two or three) of the picture!” He maintained a blog roll that
linked all of the students’ blogs to his own, connecting students for peer-
review activities. Rarely did Thom encourage students to use the comment
feature on his blog, except to have them submit links to assignments, such
as when students used Padlet.com to brainstorm their final story. Thus,
Thom’s blog served primarily as one-way communication from teacher to
students. While Thom acknowledged that there were students “who never
read the blog,” he also recognized that “blog access was a great deal of
help” to many students, including one on the autism spectrum who “pre-
ferred to independently access the daily materials.”
132 JEN SCOTT CURWOOD ET AL.

Blogging as Student Production. Thom had students create their own

blogs to develop their digital writing and to communicate with audiences
within and outside of the classroom. In blogging, students wrote their
own fictional stories, ranging from “hint fiction” (25 words or less) to
the culminating summative writing task, a multi-page story that students
spent weeks developing. While Thom’s assignments guided much of what
students blogged, he also encouraged them to write more than was
assigned, saying, “This is your blog, post as much as you want!” and
“Post. On. Your. Blog. Don’t stop.” A few students took him up on
this, posting poetry, photographs, and personal narratives. Finally,
Thom reinforced that he was not the only intended audience for stu-
dents’ blogs, encouraging writers to read others’ work, beyond what was
required in peer-review assignments. On his blog, he told students,
“Having a blog is cool. It’s especially cool if people are reading what
you’re writing! It’s even cooler if there are people besides me reading
what you’ve written.”

Discussion
In reflecting on his rationale for incorporating blogs into his writing
instruction, Thom explained:
The reasoning behind my intention to create a learning community that practiced
publishing written stories in blog-based affinity spaces was to have a classroom culture
of flexibility. By and large, I wanted the students to realize that the way we tell stories
changes, evolves, and (especially) that they have the power and skill to craft their
own narratives.

Thus we see Thom embracing Kalantzis and Cope’s (2012) notion that
English teachers need to prepare students to be flexible communicators,
able to recognize the impact that digital tools and practices have on lit-
eracies (see also Lankshear & Knobel, 2011). Looking at how Thom and
his students blogged demonstrates the roles that audience and purpose
play in shaping how blogs get taken up in an English classroom. Thom
blogged to communicate with his students and organize his daily lessons.
His students blogged to complete writing assignments, but also to become
authentic creators of digital content connecting with audiences beyond
their teacher. Finally, Thom’s case illustrates how blogging was used to
meet the curriculum goal of preparing creative writers for publication
while also addressing the broader NYSCC standards, which encourage
using technology for the production and distribution of writing.
From Research to Practice 133

#WalkMyWorld, a Social Media English Education Experiment:

Alecia Marie Magnifico

This case brings to light challenges and benefits of turning a classroom

context into a writers’ group of creative composers. Many teachers
(Atwell, 2014; Curwood et al., 2013; Kittle, 2008) have advocated for
including authentic composition opportunities into English Language Arts
courses for K-16 students and methods courses for pre-service teachers. At
the same time, there are few empirical accounts of this work, particularly
in its early stages. Through this case of a university class’s exploration
of digital, communicative composition, we see students learning to take
risks with new tools and media, as well as risks of sharing that media
with a wide audience. This communal experience helped me and my stu-
dents to critically reflect on several “best practices” for writing instruction,
bringing research and practice together by thinking about our own learn-
ing and composition processes and what these experiences mean for our
own teaching.
Literature that examines K-12 students’ and teachers’ composition
practices often advocates for teachers to “write beside” their students
(Kittle, 2008), modeling the often-messy creative processes and practices
of writers, or to meet with them for regular guiding conferences
(Atwell, 2014). Gallagher (2011) points out, too, that students are aided
by “read[ing], analyz[ing], and emulat[ing]” writers before they strike out
into composing their own works. The audience for students’ writing in
such contexts is often very local
classmates and the classroom teacher,
or perhaps additional classes in the school (Reed & Hicks, 2009). Writing
becomes more complex in public and digital spaces, however. While Ito
and her team’s Connected Learning work (2010) points out that teachers
who support students’ interests with opportunities to write and create in
public spaces can be powerful, composing for a public audience can also
lead to social surveillance (boyd, 2014). Additionally, when students
compose online, multimodal tools and opportunities introduce new and
different choices including images, genres, transitions, and colors
any
or all of which may be meaning-laden (Curwood & Gibbons, 2009).

Teacher Preparation Context

In the University of New Hampshire’s English Department, I serve as the
coordinator of our English Teaching program. Students take a full pro-
gram of English content-area courses in literature, theory, and writing
before transitioning into a two-semester teaching methods sequence in their
134 JEN SCOTT CURWOOD ET AL.

junior and senior years. Many English Teaching undergraduates choose to

continue in our Master’s program that leads to New Hampshire state
certification for English teaching at the secondary level. In the Master’s
program, each student takes additional graduate-level courses in English
and Education and spends a full year as a teaching intern, essentially teach-
ing full time with a cooperating teacher in a local district.
This case follows the experiences of my “Teaching English in the 21st
Century” course. The course draws both masters-level students in their
internship and upper-level undergraduates, and it supports students in their
fulfillment of the New Hampshire state certification standards in media
literacies. Our English department has a strong commitment to students’
active writing and conference pedagogies (Atwell, 2014) throughout the
curriculum, so these practices strongly infuse our preparation of future
teachers. I bring to this course my experience as a former middle school
teacher and as a researcher with interests in communicative writing and
adolescents’ formal and informal literacy learning with a variety of media
(Magnifico, 2012; Magnifico, Woodard, & McCarthey, 2014). My pre-
service and graduate students learn about adolescents’ digital literacies,
composition practices, and participation in affinity spaces alongside of
traditional texts and teaching methods.

Case Study Context

When teaching this course in recent semesters, I have asked my students to
participate in the #WalkMyWorld Project, a social media experiment in
which a variety of people (K-12 teachers, college professors, our students,
digital media scholars, those interested in digital composition) from around
the world take part in weekly activities, connecting online with a consistent
Twitter hashtag. McVerry et al. (2015); see also Wise and O’Byrne (2015)
began this open research project in 2014 and have executed a new series of
composition-oriented learning events each year since. It is accessible at
http://walkmy.world/.
Engaging in this “accidental MOOC” (O’Byrne, 2015) experience gives
my class the opportunity to consider our theoretical and pedagogical read-
ings in very practical ways. Not only do we map out the arguments that var-
ious articles make, but we experience the situations of composing and
sharing multimodal projects. During the spring semester of 2015, I required
my students
and myself, in a “write beside them” (Kittle, 2008) moment

to choose, complete, and share at least five of these events on the #walkmy-
world hashtag.
From Research to Practice 135

Findings: Learning through #WalkMyWorld

In this particular class, many students had participated in social networks
like Facebook and Instagram, and one graduate student was (and is) an
active contributor to pedagogical discussions like #engchat on Twitter.
#WalkMyWorld, however, marked the first time many of them had tried
multimodal composition and digital sharing in a professional context. As
such, class discussion often focused on the sometimes-uncomfortable feelings
of learning how to create in a new tool or media
how it felt to participate
actively in a digital realm as teachers, students, and writers.

Student Choice. Many teachers of composition and writing advocate for

student choice in composition assignments. Such choice in topic, media, or
genre gives students a sense of rhetorical purpose and agency, encouraging
them to write for a communicative purpose in an appropriate form rather
than simply responding to a teacher’s assignment for a grade. At first,
largely, students chose to complete events in conventional ways. For exam-
ple, in the learning event entitled “opening new doors,” all of us (including
me), shared photographs of our literal doors. Students responded directly
to the prompt’s instructions, tweeting front doors, building doors, and
classroom doors. A few provided context by adding “digital front doors”
like blogs or personal sites, as suggested by the prompt. Some students
wondered openly why they should put time into a project that seemed to
elicit such basic responses. In response to these early posts that looked like
mimicry, I worried that the students would not learn about the social and
professional development potential of a project like this, and began to plan
out how to model learning new tools in the coming weeks without forfeit-
ing time for class-planning or response to their work.
My students, however, began to push themselves and each other toward
challenge without my intervention. Beginning mid-semester, one student,
Erica, decided to try a new digital composition tool (Google drawings,
Mozilla popcorn maker, iMovie) or genre (music video, digital poetry)
each week. While many of the products that she tweeted were rough
because she was learning tools and composing drafts concurrently, her
work often prompted in-class reactions of “how did you do that?!” that
led into valuable discussions of affordances and constraints of different
media tools for teaching. Another student, Beth, began to create poetic
images once she gained confidence in compositing text and images with
PowerPoint. She visually remixed poems that moved her
Sharon Olds’s
“I Go Back To May 1937” and Robert Frost’s “Fire and Ice”
and asked
136 JEN SCOTT CURWOOD ET AL.

for feedback in class about how to strengthen certain emotions or achieve

certain effects.

Writing for Audience. As a class composition group, many students

engaged in similar eliciting activities. Several asked to discuss their #walk-
myworld contributions during class time, and many wanted to talk through
the important elements in their compositions. When Sage’s digital poem
was retweeted by many members of both #walkmyworld and #engchat, we
celebrated together but also discussed how much time she’d spent on sur-
prising aspects of the video. “Oh, the transitions!,” she commented, point-
ing out how difficult it had been for her to choose effective shifts among
images, and how surprised she had been that such small choices could
affect her video in meaningful ways. Later, Erica shared a similar experi-
ence with using colors to represent the different characters of “Maggie and
Millie and Molly and May” in a visual animation of the E.E. Cummings
poem. In short, creating meaning for and with others was difficult, particu-
larly when using new multimodal spaces and tools, but sharing work in class
was helpful.
For most students, however, this supportive in-class audience was far
more comfortable than the #walkmyworld audience. While Sage posted
with increasing frequency as her posts received more attention
including
one remix of her digital poem by a #walkmyworld participant from another
university
other students felt increasing surveillance. Beth worried when
her responses to the learning events got fewer retweets and favorites than
some classmates, and Erica became greatly stressed when a very personal
video started to attract compliments. She was flattered, but pointed out
that she had really wanted the video to be for us, the class, rather than for
the rest of the #walkmyworld participants. Ultimately, Erica was concerned
about the video gathering attention during her teaching internship and job
search, and she removed it from YouTube.

Discussion
Teachers in New Hampshire are required to meet state media literacies
standards for certification, but real experiences with making and sharing
media complicate often-cited “best practices” for literacy instruction.
Providing students with choice and a real audience for their work chal-
lenged all of us throughout the semester (Allison, 2009; Magnifico, 2010).
“Choice,” for me, meant choosing to not push students beyond thin inter-
pretations of each week’s learning event, and instead providing models and
trusting that experimentation would continue. As students continued to
From Research to Practice 137

share responses to the learning events, they gained confidence in their

media-making and multimodal communication with a wider audience
(Kalantzis & Cope, 2012). At the same time, students also developed a criti-
cal view of this audience. While some were excited about their Twitter
interactions, they also recognized that public writing could feel like surveil-
lance or lead to conventionalization, and that it was difficult to think about
their work as truly public until responses came in. These lessons, and the
discomfort and opportunity of learning by making led to students’ thinking
about future learning designs from both student and teacher perspectives.
I argue that such questions and conversations are central to successful
media literacy in pre-service teachers’ future classrooms.

IMPLICATIONS FOR ENGLISH

TEACHER EDUCATION
In this chapter, we have examined three cases to think about how global
teacher education programs prepare teachers to adopt global, networked,
and multimodal views of literacies in their own classrooms. As teacher edu-
cators who also study affinity spaces and new literacies, we believe that
media literacy and media participation are critical for pre-service teachers’
education. We must, as a profession, expand notions of what counts as
reading and writing in the English classroom if we are to promote literacy
pedagogies for young adults from a wide variety of backgrounds and
cultures, and if we are to value youth’s digitally mediated and self-directed
literacy practices. As such, this chapter concludes with recommendations
for class activities and assessments that could be used within English educa-
tion programs. In order to change the orientation of English Language
Arts as a subject, we must value and incorporate youth digital literacy
practices and spaces “in the wild” within teacher education.
We suggest that teacher educators consider how or whether their
students participate in global social networks that foster multimodal com-
position, transformative and creative works, and exchanges of feedback.
Taking part in such spaces provides pre-service teachers a chance to witness
and produce compositions in which they themselves are interested
and
also offers impetus for engagement with real feedback and revision. Since
many pre-service teachers are strongly affiliated with school-typical,
teacher-centered, “vertical” models of “write and evaluate” (Kalantzis &
Cope, 2012), it is important for them to experience alternatives.
138 JEN SCOTT CURWOOD ET AL.

All of our programs require pre-service teachers to produce full unit

plans as part of their teaching preparation, with New Hampshire’s courses
and Rochester’s program specifically citing an “innovative unit plan.”
Thom’s unit plan, for instance, incorporated the communicative writing of
blogging to encourage students to think beyond writing for their teacher.
While the course profiled here does not require an innovative unit,
Magnifico’s students have written unit plans that incorporate diverse
media, such as podcasting interviews about real-world professions reflected
in The Giver and using social networks to group students as in Ender’s
Game. Similarly, Curwood’s students produce digital texts in relation to the
Stage 6 Syllabus, such as a short film related to the concept of discovery or
a book trailer for a prescribed text like The Awakening.
Writing innovative units encourages pre-service teachers to reach beyond
print- and teacher-centered teaching techniques (Allison, 2009; Ranker,
2015; Reed & Hicks, 2009), and, at the same time, forces them to think
about setting clear rationales, goals, and tasks for their future students. Such
units ask pre-service teachers to consider the contexts and standards for
which students will be writing, and practical considerations like this are sub-
stantial parts of teachers’ lives. We argue that innovative unit plans encou-
rage pre-service teachers to apply theory to practice, and to value socially
situated approaches to teaching and learning, as they move beyond more
traditional English instructional experiences. As teacher educators, we strive
to model this in our own practice, including through the design and inclu-
sion of such assessments within English teacher education programs.
Finally, even as the idea of teachers (Woodard, 2015) and students
(Atwell, 2014; Kittle, 2008) writing for and with authentic feedback has
been a feature of teacher education literature for many years, many stu-
dents are still writing for evaluative purposes, in isolation, and for a limited
audience
their teachers or markers. We hope that expanding the defini-
tion of “writing” and “texts” to broader constellations of media helps both
our pre-service teachers see the importance of multimodal literacy instruc-
tion in students’ lives. Over the course of their careers, pre-service teachers
around the world will need to make sense of new policies and standards,
and it is crucial that they can draw on evolving technologies and diverse lit-
eracy practices to be innovative and reflective. What is important, in the
end, is their future students’ ability to take their reading and composition
skills forward into post-secondary education and the workforce. As such,
pre-service teachers must graduate with a sense of how to communicate
effectively with networked audiences in multiple media
which, as these
cases suggest, is often quite far from a straightforward task.
From Research to Practice 139

REFERENCES

Allison, P. (2009). Be a blogger: Social networking in the classroom. In A. Herrington,

K. Hodgson, & C. Moran (Eds.), Teaching the new writing: Technology, change, and
assessment in the 21st century classroom (pp. 75
91). New York, NY: Teachers
College Press.
Applebee, A. N., & Langer, J. A. (2011). A snapshot of writing instruction in middle schools
and high schools. English Journal, 100(6), 14
27.
Atwell, N. (2014). In the middle: A lifetime of learning about writing, reading, and adolescents
(3rd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Barnes, M. E. (2016). Recalculation in teacher preparation: Challenging assumptions through
increased community contact. English Education, 48(2), 149
176.
Black, R. W. (2008). Adolescents and online fan fiction. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Board of Studies, Teaching, and Education Standards (BOSTES). (2015). Higher school certifi-
cate examination: English (Standard) and English (Advanced) paper 1. Area of Study.
BOSTES, Sydney, NSW.
boyd, d. (2014). It’s complicated. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Brass, J., & Webb, A. (Eds.). (2015). Reclaiming English language arts methods courses: Critical
issues and challenges for teacher educators in top-down times. New York, NY: Routledge.
Burke, J. (2013).The English Teacher’s Companion. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Curwood, J. S. (2013). Fan fiction, remix culture, and The Potter Games. In V. E. Frankel
(Ed.), Teaching with Harry Potter (pp. 81
92). Jefferson, NC: McFarland.
Curwood, J. S. (2014). Reader, writer, gamer: Online role playing games as literary response.
In H. R. Gerber & S. S. Abrams (Eds.), Bridging literacies with videogames (pp. 53
66).
Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Curwood, J. S., & Cowell, L. L. (2011). iPoetry: Creating space for new literacies in the
English curriculum. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 55(2), 107
117.
Curwood, J. S., & Gibbons, D. (2009). “Just like I have felt”: Multimodal counternarratives in
youth-produced digital media. International Journal of Learning and Media,
1(4), 59
77.
Curwood, J. S., Magnifico, A. M., & Lammers, J. C. (2013). Writing in the wild: Writers’
motivation in fan-based affinity spaces. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy,
56(8), 677
685.
Duncan-Andrade, J. M. R., & Morrell, E. (2008). The art of critical pedagogy: Possibilities for
moving from theory to practice in urban schools. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Fields, D. A., Kafai, Y. B., & Giang, M. T. (2016). Coding by choice: A transitional analysis
of patterns in social networking and coding contributions in the online Scratch commu-
nity. In U. Cress, H. Jeong, & J. Moskaliuk (Eds.), Mass collaboration and education
(pp. 209
240). New York, NY: Springer.
Gallagher, K. (2011). Write like this: Teaching real-world writing through modeling and mentor
texts. Portland, ME: Stenhouse.
Gillespie, J. S. (2006). Getting inside S.E. Hinton’s The Outsiders. English Journal,
95(3), 44
48.
Graham, S., Capizzi, A., Harris, K. R., Hebert, M., & Morphy, P. (2014). Teaching writing to
middle school students: A national survey. Reading and Writing, 27(6), 1015
1042.
Hallman, H. L., & Burdick, M. N. (2011). Service learning and the preparation of English
teachers. English Education, 43(4), 341
368.
140 JEN SCOTT CURWOOD ET AL.

Hicks, T., & Turner, K. H. (2013). No longer a luxury: Digital literacy can’t wait. English
Journal, 102(6), 58
65.
Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT University Press.
Ito, M., Baumer, S., Bittanti, M., boyd, d., Cody, R., Herr-Stevenson, B., … Tripp, L. (2010).
Hanging out, messing around, and geeking out: Kids living and learning with new media.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Jenkins, H. (1992). Textual poachers: Television fans and participatory culture. New York,
NY: Routledge.
Kalantzis, M., & Cope, B. (2012). Literacies. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Kittle, P. (2008). Write beside them: Risk, voice, and clarity in high school writing. Portsmouth,
NH: Heinemann.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American
Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465
491.
Lammers, J. C. (2016). “The Hangout was serious business”: Leveraging participation in
an online space to Design Sims fanfiction. Research in the Teaching of English,
50(3), 309
332.
Lammers, J. C., Curwood, J. S., & Magnifico, A. M. (2012). Toward an affinity space metho-
dology: Considerations for literacy research. English Teaching: Practice and Critique,
11(2), 44
58.
Lammers, J. C., Magnifico, A. M., & Curwood, J. S. (2014). Exploring tools, places, and ways
of being: Audience matters for developing writers. In K. E. Pytash & R. E. Ferdig
(Eds.), Exploring technology for writing and writing instruction (pp. 186
201). Hershey,
PA: IGI Global.
Lammers, J. C., & Marsh, V. L. (2015). Going public: An adolescent’s networked writing on
Fanfiction.net. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 59(3), 277
285.
Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2011). New literacies: Everyday practices and social learning
(3rd ed.). New York, NY: Open University Press.
Magnifico, A. M. (2010). Writing for whom: Cognition, motivation, and a writer’s audience.
Educational Psychologist, 45(3), 167
184.
Magnifico, A. M. (2012). The game of Neopian writing. In E. R. Hayes & S. C. Duncan
(Eds.), Learning in videogame affinity spaces (pp. 212
234). New York, NY:
Peter Lang.
Magnifico, A. M., Curwood, J. S., & Lammers, J. C. (2015). Words on the screen: Broadening
analyses of interactions between fanfiction writers and reviewers. Literacy, 49(3),
158
166.
Magnifico, A. M., Woodard, R. L., & McCarthey, S. J. (2014, December). A Bakhtinian
framework for understanding teachers’ initiating texts, peer response, and revision. Paper
presented at the Literacy Research Association Annual Conference, Marco Island, FL.
McVerry, G., O’Byrne, W. I., Pytash, K. E., Rish, R. M., Shields, M., & Wise, J. B. (2015).
The #walkmyworld project. Civic media project 2015. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
O’Byrne, W. I. (2015). Video trailer for the #walkmyworld project. Retrieved from http://wio-
byrne.com/walkmyworld-video-trailer/
Padgett, E., & Curwood, J. S. (2016). A figment of their imagination: Adolescent poetic literacy
in an online affinity space. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 59(4), 397
407.
Ranker, J. (2015). The affordances of blogs and digital video: New potentials for exploring
topics and representing meaning. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 58(7),
568
578.
From Research to Practice 141

Reed, D., & Hicks, T. (2009). From the front of the classroom to the ears of the world:
Multimodal composing in speech class. In A. Herrington, K. Hodgson, & C. Moran
(Eds.), Teaching the new writing: Technology, change, and assessment in the 21st century
classroom (pp. 124
139). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Thomas, A. (2007). Youth online: Identity and literacy in the digital age. New York, NY:
Peter Lang.
Turner, K. H., Abrams, S. S., Katic, E., & Donovan, M. J. (2014). Demystifying digitalk: The
what and why of the language teens use in digital writing. Journal of Literacy Research,
46(2), 157
193.
Vasudevan, L., DeJaynes, T., & Schmier, S. (2010). Multimodal pedagogies: Playing, teaching
and learning with adolescents’ digital literacies. In D. Alvermann (Ed.), Adolescents’
online literacies: Connecting classrooms, media, and paradigms (pp. 5
25). New York,
NY: Peter Lang.
Wargo, J. M. (2015). Spatial stories with nomadic narrators: Affect, Snapchat, and feeling
embodiment in youth mobile composing. Journal of Language & Literacy Education,
11(1), 47
64.
West, K. C. (2008). Weblogs and literary response: Socially situated identities and hybrid
social languages in English class blogs. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy,
51(7), 588
598.
Wise, J., & O’Byrne, W. I. (2015). Social scholars: Educators’ digital identity construction in
open, online learning environments. Literacy Research: Theory, Method, and Practice,
64, 398
414.
Woodard, R. (2015). The dialogic interplay of writing and teaching writing: Teacher-writers’
talk and textual practices across contexts. Research in the Teaching of English,
50(1), 35
59.
This page intentionally left blank
 PART III
SOCIAL JUSTICE ORIENTED
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS
TEACHER PREPARATION
This page intentionally left blank
SECTION INTRODUCTION TO
PART III

Heidi L. Hallman

The final section of the book begins with a chapter by Deborah Bieler and
Leslie David Burns that articulates the centrality of social justice in English
education. This chapter reveals the tensions surrounding definitions of
social justice, yet articulates the importance of the commitment to social
justice tenets within teaching practices, particularly through professional
organizations such as the National Council of Teachers of English
(NCTE). In the following chapter, the chapter “Addressing LGBTQ-
Themed Texts and Heteronormativity in English Education,” Melissa
Schieble and Jody Polleck illustrate the ways that social justice teaching
can be incorporated into an English language arts methods course through
LGBT-themed literature. Schieble and Polleck describe an innovative
field experience for prospective English teachers that focuses on pairing
prospective teachers with mentor teachers who can help prospective tea-
chers develop critical orientations to classroom teaching. As Schieble and
Polleck note, teacher education programs consistently struggle to provide
opportunities to engage teacher candidates in learning why and how to
implement critical work in schools. Peter Williamson and Marshall A.
George, in the chapter “Toward Clinically Rich English and Literacy
Teacher Preparation: A Tale of Two Programs,” situate social justice tenets
and preparation in school sites within teacher education university-school
partnerships, more generally, and urge us to consider what a true partner-
ship approach to teacher education might look like. Particular features of
two clinically rich English language arts teacher preparation programs,
one in California the other in New York, are described in an effort to
share lessons learned. Finally, in the book’s concluding chapter, Terri L.
Rodriguez, Catherine (Kate) M. Bohn-Gettler, Madeleine (Madey) H.
Israelson, Madeline (Maddy) A. O’Brien, and Lauren Thoma present a
collaborative view of socially just teacher education. This final chapter
145
146 SECTION INTRODUCTION TO PART III

paves new ground in that it recognizes the seemingly contradictory ways

that privilege can act as a barrier and as a resource in social justice teach-
ing. The authors pose questions about social justice teaching: Is it reflec-
tion? Is it action? Is it always both? and use these questions as a guide,
prompting us to consider our current definitions and the affordances and
limitations of them. This chapter is a perfect conclusion for the volume as
it leaves us with the suggestion that English language arts teacher educa-
tion, as field, is always seeking to challenge itself
its aims, goals, and its
future. Questioning, acting, and reflecting are the components of English
teacher education that have spurred its change throughout its history, and
the concluding chapter reminds us that the spiral of questioning, acting,
and reflecting must be carried forward as the field continues to evolve and
change.
THE CRITICAL CENTRALITY OF
SOCIAL JUSTICE IN ENGLISH
TEACHER EDUCATION

Deborah Bieler and Leslie David Burns

ABSTRACT

This chapter argues that equipping teachers for the essential task of
serving as social justice advocates in their classroom and school commu-
nities must become the central task of English teacher preparation
programs. This argument is positioned against the backdrop of a U.S.
sociopolitical climate that has seen increased injustice and violence
against youth, teachers, and schools in spite of official policies promising
otherwise. The authors describe current efforts to achieve a social justice
focus in two spaces that are particularly influential for practicing and
aspiring English teachers: pre-service teacher preparation coursework
and the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE), our primary
professional organization. The chapter examines the trajectory of
research and practice that has arisen in response to the 2012 NCTE stan-
dard on social justice in English teacher preparation and offers sugges-
tions to the next generation of educational researchers about increasing
the visibility and efficacy of this important work.
Keywords: Social justice; English teacher preparation; advocacy;
social justice teaching

Innovations in English Language Arts Teacher Education

Advances in Research on Teaching, Volume 27, 147
163
Copyright r 2017 by Emerald Publishing Limited
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved
ISSN: 1479-3687/doi:10.1108/S1479-368720170000027008
147
148 DEBORAH BIELER AND LESLIE DAVID BURNS

Insofar as Urban Dictionary and Twitter can gauge American popular

opinion, the concept of “social justice” has, at the time of this writing, a
serious public relations problem. Although the first hit on Google for
“social justice” is the definition from the National Association of Social
Workers (NASW): (“Social justice is the view that everyone deserves equal
economic, political, and social rights and opportunities”), it is not the
NASW definition that seems to be shaping or reflecting public opinion.
Instead, consider the top definition of “social justice” on Urban Dictionary:
“Promoting tolerance, freedom, and equality for all people regardless of
race, sex, orientation, national origin, handicap, etc., except for white,
straight, cisgendered [sic] males. [$ & #*] those guys, they’re overprivileged
no matter what: ‘In the name of social justice, check your privilege’”
(“Social justice,” 2012). The primary suspicion that the latter definition
voices about the first is the age-old question of “Equality for whom?”
Clearly, some of our American brothers and sisters believe that true equity
for all is either undesirable or impossible, that equity for some is only possi-
ble at the expense of others, and/or that those who advocate for social
justice are motivated partially or wholly by severe prejudices of their own.
Educators shouldn’t miss the anger beneath the sarcastic surface of the
Urban Dictionary definition; it is the same anger evident in the use of the
hashtag #SJW, which stands for “Social Justice Warrior.” Posts including
this hashtag often include associated terms like “victim culture,” “cry-
babies,” “whiners,” “crybullies,” and “thought police” as well as a corol-
lary #PoliticalCorrectness hashtag. The pejoration of the term “social
justice” appears to have followed closely on the heels of the pejoration of
the term “political correctness,” and regardless of any positive connotation
these terms may once have had, they now seem entirely negative, at least in
popular social media. The anger fueling this pejoration is evident in the
associated terms: where advocates see people being treated unequally,
critics see a threat to their own rights. The inclusion of the term “warrior”
in #SJW rhetoric further perpetuates caricatures of advocates as a
constantly ‘up in arms’ yet easily offended, willing and able only to see the
splinter in others’ eyes rather than the logs in their own.

RECLAIMING “SOCIAL JUSTICE” IN THE PUBLIC

ARENA AND IN ENGLISH TEACHER PREPARATION
Now is the time to reclaim the phrase “social justice” both in public spheres
and English education. Although we have observed social justice advocates
The Critical Centrality of Social Justice 149

exhibit the combative dispositions attributed to #SJWs, we much more

consistently witness advocates demonstrate love, empathy, humility, and
others-centeredness in the tradition of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King. These
are the dispositions advocates need to practice and the public needs to
witness more. Reappropriating “social justice” is necessary precisely
because many members of the public believe social justice work negatively
affects both society at large and themselves personally. They see social jus-
tice work as a threat and attack
to their freedoms, rights, values, morals,
and other cultural and social capital. Social justice scholars must articulate
to the public the merits of working toward a more equitable world, and
while such reasons may seem self-evident, our inability or unwillingness to
put merits forward in compelling ways has only increased public suspicion
and anger.
As members of a public, students come to us with preconceived notions
of this term, and explicitly discussing notions of “social justice” with them
must be one of our first tasks toward “teaching for social justice.” Future
English teachers need to know that, despite the best efforts of many, educa-
tional and social inequity in America is significant: one out of five
American children (20%) lives in poverty (United States Census Bureau,
2014). School suspensions and school-based arrests have skyrocketed, dis-
proportionately involving students of color who then become much less
likely to earn a high school or college degree and, ultimately, jobs through
which they can attain economic stability or mobility (Nemoy, 2013).
Recent years have also brought increased violence against youth in schools
and institutions all across the globe, often in spite of official policies pro-
mising otherwise (Juvonen, 2001; NGO Advisory Council, 2011). Further,
inequitable funding of American public schools continues to exacerbate
race/ethnicity and economic class disparities (Biddle & Berliner, 2002;
Condron & Roscigno, 2003).
Unless our future teachers are aware of these inequities, they are un-
likely to approach their work in ways that attend to or seek to change
them. And why, critics might ask, should English teachers do that? What
does any of this have to do with English language arts? In short, every-
thing. While teachers of all grades and subjects must be prepared to con-
front these inequities, it is especially important for secondary English
teachers because the language arts
reading, writing, speaking, listening,
viewing, and visually representing
provide fertile ground for the cultiva-
tion of personal agency and voice through the critical examination and
creation of texts, of stories. In secondary English classrooms, we identify
kinds of conflict, analyze character types, examine tragedy and comedy,
150 DEBORAH BIELER AND LESLIE DAVID BURNS

connect texts across time and space, and wonder what it all means for use
in society and life, here and right now. English teachers position students
to consider how individuals and institutions are implicated in it all, how
writing reflects and changes how people think over time, and how students
may want to seek justice through their own literate acts. This is why it is
critical for social justice to become central to English teacher preparation.
Literacy practices
the domain of English teachers
have always inter-
twined language and power (Freire, 1970/2000; Janks, 2010).
Those of us who teach English for social justice and prepare future tea-
chers to engage in this work, even when practicing the most positive of dis-
positions, are likely to encounter both internal and external resistance;
thus, we must prepare ourselves and our future teachers not only to expect
but also to engage positively with discomfort, an inevitable consequence of
social justice work. In an attempt to wrestle with such contradictions and
paradoxes, our chapter examines new trajectories of practice and research
on teaching English for social justice that have arisen in response to what is
now known as Standard VI (Social Justice) in the National Council of
Teachers of English/Council for Assessment of Education Professionals
(NCTE/CAEP) Standards for English Language Arts Teachers, Grades
7
12 (National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE), 2012) (see the
appendix). This standard is historic, as it is the first teacher preparation
standard in any discipline to require future teachers to demonstrate their
knowledge of social justice-, diversity-, and equity-oriented theories in their
instructional planning and implementation. We look specifically at social
justice work occurring in English teacher preparation coursework and our
primary professional organization, NCTE. We conclude by offering sugges-
tions to the next generation of educational researchers about how to
increase the visibility and efficacy of this important work.

CRITICALLY CENTERING SOCIAL JUSTICE ACROSS

ENGLISH EDUCATION COURSEWORK
Every 10 years, beginning in 1967, NCTE issued “guidelines” for the field on
what English teachers should know and be able to do, and in 2006, the orga-
nization began working with CAEP when professional standards for teach-
ing became the norm (Burns, 2014). It is significant to note that even in its
first guidelines, published amidst the turmoil of the late 1960s in America,
NCTE clearly indicated that English teachers should and even must value
The Critical Centrality of Social Justice 151

and respond to the needs of diverse learners according to its stated profes-
sional missions. With such history, it is not surprising that the first social
justice standard for teaching and teacher education would arise from this
organization. The 2012 social justice standard (hereafter, “Standard VI”)
arose primarily out of the NCTE-based Conference on English Education
(CEE) Commission on Social Justice in Teacher Education Programs. It is
instructive to consider how groundwork for this standard was carefully laid
over time through a CEE Position Statement (“Beliefs about Social Justice
in English Education,” 2009) and, later, an NCTE Resolution (“Resolution
on Social Justice in Literacy Education,” 2010), with each of the three docu-
ments gradually expanding in scope and deepening in resolve. The process
that led to the standard’s existence is reminiscent of the instructional scaf-
folding process, in which learners acquire new skills by gradually facing
increasingly complex scenarios
and doing so increasingly independently
(Applebee & Langer, 1983; Wood, Bruner, & Ross, 1976). The language of
Standard VI itself implies a significant degree of instructional scaffolding
must occur before a future teacher is able to meet this standard. The stan-
dard requires future teachers to “demonstrate knowledge” of social justice.
Specifically, they must “plan and implement … instruction” that “promotes
social justice” and “use knowledge of theories and research to plan” cul-
turally relevant or culturally sustaining instruction. As is true of most of the
other standards, the language of Standard VI makes a fundamental assump-
tion that future English teachers have already, at some point in the past,
attained the levels of knowledge and comprehension in Bloom’s Taxonomy
and surpassed them on their way to application, analysis, evaluation, and
creation. If English teacher educators view the standards as directives for the
higher-order summative assessment of our pre-service teachers, then, as
backwards design (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005) makes clear, we must build in
a significant amount of scaffolding in order for the pre-service teachers to be
successful as social justice practitioners.
In the spirit of Bloom’s Taxonomy, the knowledge domain of teaching
for social justice is suggestive of the hors cate´gorie or HC (“beyond cate-
gory”) of the steepest mountain climbs in the Tour de France, a level of
mastery to which all elite cyclists aspire to attain. Future English teachers
still need to master both content knowledge and pedagogical knowledge
before they can attempt pedagogical content knowledge (Shulman, 1987),
but future equity-oriented English teachers also need to master an addi-
tional knowledge base and skillset: the pedagogical content knowledge of
how to teach English for social justice. For example, Standard VI.1
requires them to “plan and implement … instruction that promotes social
152 DEBORAH BIELER AND LESLIE DAVID BURNS

justice and critical engagement with complex issues related to maintaining

a diverse, inclusive, equitable society,” and to do so, they need to know
much more than how to plan and implement ELA instruction (e.g., the
pedagogical content knowledge required to construct a coherent literacy-
oriented lesson plan that contains a unified objective, activities, and assess-
ment; utilizes instructional strategies and pace that are appropriate for the
content and for the students’ developmental stages and contexts; and is
guided by grade-level disciplinary standards). They also need to have
already comprehended what it means to look at the world with a “theory
of oppression” (Bell, 1997) and to have practiced using this lens individu-
ally and with students as they interact with texts; to have distinguished how
various scholars have defined “social justice,” “diversity,” and “equity”;
and to have traced the relevance of these definitions to the lesson and to
their students’ lived realities. Perhaps most importantly, they need to have
understood “critical engagement,” recognized its historical and contempor-
ary importance, and designed ELA learning activities that foster students’
ability to develop critical literacy practices (Haddix & Rojas, 2011).
Unpacking just the first of the two Standard VI elements makes it clear
how much additional social justice scaffolding must precede the summative
assessments ultimately required for a program’s accreditation.
The notion of integrating this new scaffolding into existing teacher pre-
paration programs is sure to have caused some of the aforementioned dis-
comfort in programs across the United States, most acutely in those with
only one semester of methods preceding student teaching and in those not
already utilizing a social justice framework. It is difficult for teacher educa-
tors to partner with future English teachers in critically engaging with texts
or in doing so for the purpose of empowering members of subordinated
groups if candidates are in or near the student-teaching phase but still
learning to write effective lesson plans. Requiring them to demonstrate that
they have traversed such a broad and deep spectrum of knowledge and
skills within such a timeframe is almost certain to result in tension, particu-
larly in what can be a tinderbox crucible of experience leading up to and
continuing during student teaching.
Instead, as Bieler (2016) argues, teacher educators
particularly English
teacher educators, given the 2012 social justice standard
must reject tradi-
tional conceptualizations of scaffolding and approach equity and social jus-
tice knowledge as the first domain taught to future teachers rather than the
last (see Fig. 1). An equity and social justice domain should include general
knowledge of inequities and a theory of oppression, specific knowledge of
how inequities and oppression manifest in education, and particular
The Critical Centrality of Social Justice 153

Equity and Social

Justice (ESJ)
Knowledge

(ESJ)
(ESJ)
Pedagogical
Context
Content
Knowledge
Knowledge

(ESJ) (ESJ)
Pedagogical Content
Knowledge Knowledge

Fig. 1. Bieler’s Taxonomy: Domains of Knowledge for Teachers.

knowledge about how educators can work toward equity through culturally
sustaining pedagogies (Paris, 2012), racial literacy (Sealey-Ruiz & Greene,
2015), and equity literacy (Gorski, 2014). By privileging this domain, equity
and social justice can serve future teachers as the foundation of all future
learning and a lens through which they view all domains, not something
“added on” in student teachers’ 11th hour and thus be less likely to receive
their fullest embrace. For example, consider the following scenario: Two dif-
ferent teacher educators ask their future secondary English teachers to write
a two-day lesson plan sequence for a 9th-grade short story unit on irony
using “The Lesson” (Bambara, 1972) and “The Necklace” (de Maupassant,
1907). The first teacher educator asks her aspiring teachers to read and dis-
cuss the above-referenced texts on culturally sustaining pedagogies, racial lit-
eracy, and equity literacy before discussing lesson planning, while the second
teacher educator does not include these frameworks and focuses only on les-
son planning methods. Aspiring teachers taught by first teacher educator
would be much more likely to notice and incorporate in their teaching how
issues of poverty and race/ethnicity figure prominently in these two short
stories, to consider how their knowledge of the school community could
play a role in their framing of these stories, and to look for opportunities to
integrate their students’ skills, interests, and inquiries as they distinguish
between three types of irony. Aspiring teachers taught by the second teacher
educator would be much more likely to limit their focus to distinguishing
between three types of irony. What would happen
to our teacher
154 DEBORAH BIELER AND LESLIE DAVID BURNS

education programs, to our secondary English classrooms, and to the field

of English education
if it became the norm to expect aspiring teachers’
lesson plans to be written with an equity orientation from the very begin-
ning? We agree with Smagorinsky, Johnson, and Clayton (2014), who argue
that “The development of rich conceptions of issues surrounding educational
diversity can never begin soon enough” (p. 133).
Indeed, we see that a shifting of expectations in English teacher prepara-
tion programs in accordance with this front-loading of equity and social
justice knowledge has begun. It can be witnessed in the increase of innova-
tive, equity-oriented early English teacher preparation coursework, particu-
larly coursework that revolves around critical service learning. Critical
service learning, as Mitchell (2008) argues, differs from traditional service
learning in its goals of developing among students a social change orienta-
tion, working to redistribute power, and developing authentic relationships
with the community. Kinloch (2015) notes that “The connection between
critical service-learning and … social justice education cannot be under-
stated. They both emphasize equity and equality; … critique hegemonic dis-
courses and practices that are at the root of injustice; and … interrogate
forms of oppression” (p. 1). Moreover, as Kinloch explains, critical
service learning provides avenues for teachers and learners to engage in
meaning-filled work that is consequential to community members. One
such exemplary program (Haddix, 2015) involves writing methods students
implementing a writing conference for middle and high school students;
notably, Haddix chooses not to use the term “service learning” given its
roots in deficit framing and instead forwards the notion of community
engagement with a deeper, more longitudinal connection between teacher
education faculty, students, and local communities. Haddix’s conceptualiza-
tion of community-engaged teacher education offers English education a
promising new direction for “[listening] to students, their families, and their
communities” in order to “evolve … toward a process for beginning
teachers’ critical interrogation of their own social locations and the ways in
which they engage with and honor their students’ lives and histories” (p. 70).

POLICY, RESEARCH, AND SOCIAL JUSTICE

ADVOCACY IN NCTE
While the (NCTE) and affiliated groups have always formally issued guide-
lines and policies highlighting the central need for professional educators to
The Critical Centrality of Social Justice 155

respond to diverse learners’ and communities’ needs (Burns, 2011, 2014), it

is important to distinguish NCTE’s discourse of valuing diversity from
social justice teaching and teacher education from activist and advocacy
standpoints. Valuing diversity of students, professionals, contexts, and dis-
courses is important in broader social justice missions at all levels, and one
major way that NCTE has supported diversity is through its impressive
Cultivating New Voices among Scholars of Color program, which began in
2000 to support diverse language and literacy researchers. But ELA scho-
larship and social justice teaching also require clear political and ideologi-
cal positions. Explicit advocacy by teachers and researchers with particular
ideological orientations means that such research is not intended to be nor
can ever be fully objective. As Kuhn asserts, no scientific study is ever truly
objective or value-free no matter how researchers design their inquiries
(2012). Professional scientific research in which social justice is either stu-
died or deployed means making assertions that there are better ways than
others. It also means analyzing and evaluating concepts, practices, and
issues in terms of at least right/wrong and just/unjust as determined by epi-
stemological and ideological perspectives, and professionals must strive to
see beyond such binaries regardless. Such work can be seen in many spaces
and instances within the NCTE publication imprint and beyond.
As noted in this chapter’s introduction concerning NCTE’s policy-
making and procedural processes as a Subject Area Professional
Association (SPA), the Conference on English Education’s Commission for
Social Justice systematically organized and promoted its community,
research, and advocacy to re-orient NCTE as a whole. This advocacy work
directly contributed to the willingness of policy makers within and outside
NCTE to develop Standard VI and was driven by scholarship produced by
members and leaders of the Commission on Social Justice (Bieler, 2012;
Burns & Miller, in press). Task Force members also contributed additional
research bases and theory to render Standard VI assessable at the program
and candidate levels for accrediting bodies such as CAEP. They further
authored the standard and worked with leaders of the Commission on
Social Justice to highlight the fundamental relationships between language
arts and social justice work, the need for deeper and ongoing inquiry about
assessment across contexts, and especially the research-based rationales
and theoretical frameworks regarding how and why to use such knowledge
for both public and professional good.
Since passing Standard VI in 2012, NCTE has frequently used its jour-
nals to publish articles on equity, justice, and advocacy overall. NCTE’s
flagship journal for secondary grades practitioners, English Journal, has
156 DEBORAH BIELER AND LESLIE DAVID BURNS

demonstrated regular and emphatic attention to social justice advocacy.

For example, Lindblom produced a themed issue on “Green” English and
the use of literacy for sustainable living and environmental advocacy, as
well as an issue dedicated to anti-bullying projects in ELA to advocate
“actions for confronting the kinds of abuse that have become far too com-
mon in schools” (2012, p. 12). NCTE has published works seeking to utilize
social justice and advocacy as core elements, such as Hill’s (2013) work on
school-to-prison pipeline challenges for ELA professionals, Bruce’s (2013)
inquiry into the uses of composition study and practice for socially
just purposes, and Alsup and Miller’s (2014) inquiry into the nature of
professional dispositions. Outside of NCTE, members’ research on respon-
sive pedagogies (Burns & Botzakis, in press) highlights improvements in
student learning, motivation, and engagement when professionals design
equity-based curriculum and instruction in response to local identities, and
longitudinal studies (Miller & Burns, in press) highlight how new teachers
can identify and address inequities in local spaces.
In NCTE’s teacher education and research journals (English Education
and Research in the Teaching of English, respectively), scholars such as
Glenn (2012) have advanced explicit teaching of socially just pre-service
curricula, and Stewart (2012) utilized advocacy research ideologies to exhort
ELA professionals to view education as both a public service and an inher-
ently political project. Simon (2015) advanced arguments like Stewart’s by
describing how collaboration can lead to greater capacity and lower risk for
activists by supporting and even protecting individuals who might otherwise
experience marginalization, isolation, or retaliation for using research to
advocate for certain practices as more socially just than others.
This work has been met with positive support from national accredita-
tion groups like CAEP, which has actively supported other SPAs to pursue
social justice by drawing attention to the concept, demonstrating possibili-
ties by using NCTE’s model, and allowing professional groups to define
their own orientations (P. Yoder, personal communication, March 13,
2016).1 Similarly, implementation of Standard VI has led to multiple
ongoing projects within NCTE, especially its Commission on Social Justice
in Teacher Education Programs (N. Golden, personal communication,
March 12, 2016). The Commission is currently developing interactive
digital platforms to share, discuss, critique, and adapt Standard VI assess-
ment models for pre- and in-service teachers.2 In addition, Commission
members have begun engaging in activism against what they deem
unhealthy and unethical corporatization of NCTE, teacher education, and
public education.
The Critical Centrality of Social Justice 157

NCTE members have also begun highlighting the inherent tensions in

undertaking social justice activism both within the SPA and the institutions
and schools where they are employed. While discomfiting, such tensions
are necessary to the field, as public education professionals are subjected
to national reforms. “Educators and students alike are bleeding,” states
Pepper, for example; “We must use our voices, our weapons” (2013,
p. 100). Thomas reiterates, “Words matter, and it is time for resistance”
(2014, p. 114). Dunn and Certo incite professionals to “join the struggle for
justice and equity, the struggle against neo-liberal reforms that threaten the
future of public education. Here’s hoping that we and other teacher educa-
tors are strong enough to model this fight for them” (2016, p. 107).
Clearly, social justice research is significantly shaping English education
scholarship and practice. In the next section, we discuss the broader implica-
tions of this work for the field at all levels with an eye on curriculum studies,
discourse, ideology, policy, and theory. We conclude with recommendations
for research and scholarship necessary for moving forward not only to
sustain but ethically normalize social justice teaching as a foundational
element of the English language arts.

CRITICALLY CENTERING SOCIAL JUSTICE WITHIN

AND BEYOND ENGLISH EDUCATION
In 2000, 12 years before Standard VI came to be, Fleischer asked and
explored how teachers can organize in productive, sustainable ways to oper-
ate as independent and collaborative agents of local change toward reform
and social justice in Education, a question that echoes Scholes’ (1997) ques-
tion about the broader capacity of English as a field to remain relevant and
affect social change. While establishing a social justice standard in our field
represents a major milestone in responding to such inquiries, English educa-
tors, in their roles as researchers, practitioners, colleagues, and citizens, must
move from merely valuing diversity to realizing actual social justice and
equity interventions by including multiple voices, honoring intersectionalities
(Harris-Perry, 2016), and avoiding false consensus (Apple, 1990). English
educators must increasingly work to reform local and national spaces and
systems toward progressive change for social justice. This is not to argue for
incrementalism nor frame activism as quixotic. Rather, it implies what
Cherryholmes (1999) asserts as critical pragmatism for K-12 teachers and
teacher educators: our presumed authority and truth is always provisional,
historically situated, contextual, and political, rather than fixed, stable,
158 DEBORAH BIELER AND LESLIE DAVID BURNS

universal, or neutral. In order to produce the most useful and

equitable work possible, we as stakeholders must study and document
our representations of social justice “truth” as provisional, regularly re-
examining them to ensure that policies and practices align in an ongoing
process that prevents policy decision making (Bardach, 2005) from creating
unintended negative consequences (Stone, 2002). For example, we believe
that it is crucial for members of our field, as a matter of course, to revisit
and periodically revise the text of Standard VI, along with the formal and
informal policies and practices operationalizing it. Such a practice, of enga-
ging in public, professional self-critique, would honor the humble spirit of
social justice advocacy and address criticism that social justice advocates see
themselves as being beyond reproach. Oakes (1997) refers to this kind of
work as a project of generating and sustaining commitment to developing
discursive cultures that normalize teaching for social justice.
We assert that the centrality of social justice in English Education is
positioning our sub-field to offer leadership in the field of education,
writ large, in answering questions about equity and justice in education.
As Greene (1973) wrote,

Justice is not likely to become the central value unless something is done to deal with
the inequalities existing in a particular school in such a fashion that “the long term
expectations of the least favored,” as John Rawls puts it, are improved. (p. 182)

To improve “the long term expectations of the least favored” in schools

surely requires that we include multiple voices, hear and respond to those
voices fairly, and, especially, avoid the classic critical pedagogy pitfall of
acquiring power in discourse and using it to simply oppress former oppres-
sors. If social justice is a mission of equity and inclusion, advocates must
tell their truths to raise awareness and invite rather than simply critique
and silence others. We call upon English educators to consider how they
are best positioned to increase the visibility and efficacy of social justice
work, in both local and national spaces. Whether through initiating inter-
disciplinary partnerships with art, language, mathematics, music, social
studies, and science educators; partnering with parents and community
members; mobilizing teacher advocacy groups; engaging in direct action; or
another method entirely, we urge members of the English Education
community to overcome fear and instead take bold steps toward equity
and justice. In closing, we note Shaw’s (2001) observation:

There is no simple formula for achieving progressive social change. Tactics that have
regularly proven successful in a particular context are not guaranteed to work under
The Critical Centrality of Social Justice 159

other circumstances …. Tactical activists must therefore be open to creativity, innova-

tion, and provocative, controversial, or even dubious ideas. Remaining silent for
fear … is not the path to progressive change. (274)

We can and must operate strategically to not merely incite resistance to

the status quo acceptance of social inequities. We can and must work for
inclusion, understanding, mobilization, and public realization that our work
is definitively a project for achieving social justice for all, not just some.

NOTES

1. We note, though, that CAEP’s acknowledgment of socially just policies does

not mean CAEP’s own policies are entirely just or even oriented to be so; for exam-
ple, some of us in the English Education field have raised our voices against
CAEP’s support of the edTPA and the new ESSA law, which weaken teacher
education and de-intellectualizes the profession of teaching.
2. Please see https://justice.education/

REFERENCES

Alsup, J., & Miller, S. (2014). Reclaiming English education: Rooting social justice in disposi-
tions. English Education, 46(3), 195
215.
Apple, M. (1990). Ideology and curriculum. New York, NY: Routledge.
Applebee, A. N., & Langer, J. A. (1983). Instructional scaffolding: Reading and writing as
natural language activities. Language Arts, 60(2), 168
175.
Bambara, T. C. (1972). The lesson. Retrieved from http://cai.ucdavis.edu/gender/
thelesson.html
Bardach, E. (2005). A practical guide to policy analysis: The eightfold path to more effective
problem solving (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: CQ.
Bell, L. A. (1997). Theoretical foundations of social justice education. In M. Adams, L. A.
Bell, & P. Griffin (Eds.), Teaching for diversity and social justice: A sourcebook
(pp. 3
15). New York, NY: Routledge.
Biddle, B. J., & Berliner, D. C. (2002). What research says about unequal funding for schools in
America. Educational Policy Report EPSL-0602-102-EPRP. Education Policy Studies
Laboratory, Tempe, AZ.
Bieler, D. (2012). Possibilities for achieving social justice ends through standardized means.
Teacher Education Quarterly, 39(3), 85
102.
Bieler, D. (2016). Staying to talk, talking to stay: Equity-oriented interactions and retention in
schools. Manuscript submitted for review.
Bruce, H. E. (2013). Subversive acts of revision: Writing and justice. English Journal,
102(6), 31
33.
160 DEBORAH BIELER AND LESLIE DAVID BURNS

Burns, L. D. (2011). Language education and social justice in English education policy. In
s. Miller & D. E. Kirkland (Eds.), Change matters: Critical essays on moving social
justice research from theory to policy (pp. 189
196). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Burns, L. D. (2014). Moving targets: A critical discourse analysis of standards and teacher
preparation in English language arts. Saarbrücken: Scholar’s Press.
Burns, L. D., & Botzakis, S. G. (in press). Teach on purpose! responsive teaching for student
success. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Burns, L. D., & Miller, s. (in press). Social justice policymaking in teacher education from con-
ceptualization to application: Realizing standard VI. Teachers College Record, 119(3).
Cherryholmes, C. (1999). Reading pragmatism. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Condron, D. J., & Roscigno, V. J. (2003). Disparities within: Unequal spending and achieve-
ment in an urban district. Sociology of Education, 76(1), 18
36.
Conference on English Education Commission on Social Justice. (2009). CEE position state-
ment: Beliefs about social justice in English education. CEE, Chicago, IL. Retrieved
from http://www.ncte.org/cee/positions/socialjustice
Conference on English Education Commission on Social Justice. (2010). Resolution on social
justice in literacy education. NCTE, Orlando, FL. Retrieved from http://www.ncte.org/
press/2010resolutions
de Maupassant, G. (1907). The necklace. In B. Matthews (Ed.), The short-story: Specimens
illustrating its development. New York, NY: American Book Company. Retrieved from
http://www.bartleby.com/195/1020.html
Dunn, A. H., & Certo, J. (2016). From tested students to testing teachers. English Journal,
105(4), 104
107.
Fleischer, C. (2000). Teachers organizing for change: Making literacy everybody’s business.
Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Freire, P. (1970/2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed (30th anniversary ed.). New York,
NY: Continuum.
Glenn, N. (2012). Developing understandings of race: Preservice teachers’ counter-narrative
(re)constructions of people of color in young adult literature. English Education,
44(4), 327
353.
Gorski, P. C. (2014). Equity literacy: An introduction. Retrieved from http://www.edchange.
org/handouts/Equity-Literacy-Introduction.pdf
Greene, M. (1973). The matter of justice. Teachers College Record, 75(2), 181
191.
Haddix, M. (2015). Preparing community-engaged teachers. Theory Into Practice,
54(1), 63
70.
Haddix, M., & Rojas, M. A. (2011). (Re)framing teaching in urban classrooms: A poststruc-
tural (re)reading of critical literacy as curricular and pedagogical practice. In
V. Kinloch (Ed.), Urban literacies: Critical perspectives on language, learning, and
community (pp. 111
124). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Harris-Perry, M. (2016). My feminism is. Retrieved from http://forwomen.org/my-feminism-is/.
Accessed on March 24, 2016.
Hill, M. L. (2013). A world without prisons: Teaching confinement literature and the promise
of prison abolition. English Journal, 102(4), 19
23.
Janks, H. (2010). Literacy and power. New York, NY: Routledge.
Juvonen, J. (2001). School violence: Prevalence, fears, and prevention. RAND Issue Paper No.
219. Retrieved from http://www.rand.org/pubs/issue_papers/IP219.html
Kinloch, V. (2015). This issue. Theory Into Practice, 54(1), 1
4.
The Critical Centrality of Social Justice 161

Kuhn, T. S. (2012). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of

Chicago Press.
Lindblom, K. (Ed.). (2012). From the editor. English Journal, 101(6), 12.
Miller, s., & Burns, L. D. (in press). Realizing social justice dispositions in teaching and
teacher education: A 4-year study. Scholar-Practitioner Quarterly, 9(3).
Mitchell, T. D. (2008). Traditional vs. critical service-learning: Engaging the literature to
differentiate two models. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 5, 50
65.
National Council of Teachers of English. (2012). Standards for initial preparation of teachers of
secondary English language arts teachers, grades 7
12. Retrieved from http://www.ncte.
org/library/NCTEFiles/Groups/CEE/NCATE/ApprovedStandards_111212.pdf
Nemoy, Y. (2013). Promoting postsecondary success of court-involved youth: Lessons from
the NYEC postsecondary success pilot. National Youth Employment Coalition,
Washington, DC. Retrieved from https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/sites/
default/files/nyec-court-involved-youth-postsecondary201305.pdf
NGO Advisory Council for Follow-up to the UN Study on Violence Against Children. (2011).
Five years on: A global update on violence against children. Retrieved from http://www.
crin.org/en/docs/Five_Years_On.pdf
Oakes, J. (1997). Can tracking research inform practice? In D. J. Flinders & S. J. Thornton
(Eds.), The curriculum studies reader (pp. 247
265). New York, NY: Routledge.
Paris, D. (2012). Culturally sustaining pedagogy: A needed change in stance, terminology, and
practice. Educational Researcher, 41(3), 93
97.
Pepper, A. (2013). Our American future: Creating critical citizens in a democratic nation.
English Journal, 103(2), 97
100.
Scholes, R. (1997). The rise and fall of English. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Sealey-Ruiz, Y., & Greene, P. (2015). Popular visual images and the (mis)reading of black
male youth: A case for racial literacy in urban preservice teacher education. Teaching
Education, 26(1), 55
76.
Shaw, R. (2001). The activist’s handbook: A primer. Berkeley, CA: University of
California Press.
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard
Educational Review, 57(1), 1
23.
Simon, R. (2015). “I’m fighting my fight, and I’m not alone anymore.”: The influence of com-
munities of inquiry. English Education, 48(1), 41
71.
Smagorinsky, P., Johnson, L. L., & Clayton, C. M. (2014). Synthesizing formal and experien-
tial concepts in a service-learning course. In J. Brass & A. Webb (Eds.), Reclaiming
English language arts methods courses: Critical issues and challenges for teacher educa-
tors in top-down times (pp. 123
134). New York, NY: Routledge.
“Social justice.” (2012). In Urban dictionary. Retrieved from http://www.urbandictionary.com/
define.php?term=social+justice
Stewart, T. T. (2012). English teachers, administrators, and dialogue: Transcending the asym-
metry or power in the discourse of educational policy. English Education, 44(4),
373
393.
Stone, D. (2002). Policy paradox: The art of political decision making (Rev. ed.). New York,
NY: W. W. Norton.
Thomas, P. L. (2014). Not the time … to follow the line of least resistance. English Journal,
104(2), 113
114.
162 DEBORAH BIELER AND LESLIE DAVID BURNS

United States Census Bureau. (2014). Poverty: 2014 highlights. Retrieved from https://www.
census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/about/overview/
Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal
of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89
100.
The Critical Centrality of Social Justice 163

APPENDIX
NCTE/NCATE Standards for Initial Preparation of Teachers of
Secondary English Language Arts, Grades 7
12
Approved October 2012
(Excerpt)

Professional Knowledge and Skills

Standard VI. Candidates demonstrate knowledge of how theories and research about social
justice, diversity, equity, student identities, and schools as institutions can
enhance students’ opportunities to learn in English Language Arts.
Element 1: Candidates plan and implement English language arts and literacy
instruction that promotes social justice and critical engagement with
complex issues related to maintaining a diverse, inclusive, equitable society.
Element 2: Candidates use knowledge of theories and research to plan instruction
responsive to students’ local, national and international histories,
individual identities (e.g., race, ethnicity, gender expression, age,
appearance, ability, spiritual belief, sexual orientation, socioeconomic
status, and community environment), and languages/dialects as they affect
students’ opportunities to learn in ELA.
This page intentionally left blank
ADDRESSING LGBTQ-THEMED
TEXTS AND HETERONORMATIVITY
IN ENGLISH EDUCATION

Melissa Schieble and Jody Polleck

ABSTRACT

English teacher candidates have limited opportunities to examine class-

room-based discussions about LGBTQ-themed texts and heteronormativ-
ity in teacher education courses. This chapter presents one effort to
address this issue using a video-based field experience in the English
Methods course that demonstrated a critical unit of instruction about
the play, Angels in America. The chapter provides a description of the
project and English teacher candidates’ perspectives about what they
learned for English educators interested in devising similar projects for
their courses.
Key words: Preservice teacher education; LGBTQ-themed literature;
heteronormativity; English methods course

Innovations in English Language Arts Teacher Education

Advances in Research on Teaching, Volume 27, 165
183
Copyright r 2017 by Emerald Publishing Limited
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved
ISSN: 1479-3687/doi:10.1108/S1479-368720170000027009
165
166 MELISSA SCHIEBLE AND JODY POLLECK

In Melissa’s first year as a teacher educator at Hunter College in New

York City, an English teacher candidate (John) sent her an email asking if
they could meet to talk about his progress in the program. During discus-
sions in Melissa’s class, John identified as a gay man who grew up in a
large, urban city and attended the city public schools. He was an excep-
tionally talented teacher candidate and demonstrated a strong commit-
ment to social justice-oriented pedagogy through projects he devised
focused on gentrification in the city. Because preservice teacher education
is often a vulnerable experience, Melissa was somewhat used to meeting
with candidates to discuss fears and anxieties about the classroom. However,
she found herself inadequately prepared for addressing the situation she
encountered with John.
“I don’t think high school is the place for me …” John began. Curious
and slightly taken aback as John had always shown himself to be a candi-
date who could withstand the demands of the program, Melissa asked him
to explain why he had come to this conclusion. “I just don’t think the high
schools are a welcoming place for a gay man … I’m tired of dealing with
‘that’s so gay’ and feeling like I can’t talk about my life and my partner the
way other teachers can.” Despite encouraging John that he showed tremen-
dous potential, his mind was set. John left the program before student
teaching began and instead completed his degree in English to pursue
teaching in higher education.
At the time, Melissa felt John’s decision to leave the program was a deep
loss for the profession given the potential he demonstrated. Melissa inter-
preted his exit as a sign that candidates such as John who identify with
the LGBTQ community were not well supported; she questioned whether
the English education program adequately infused information and
resources to encourage candidates to adopt an advocacy stance for Lesbian,
Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Questioning (LGBTQ) teachers, youth,
and allies in schools. Would greater visibility about the LGBTQ community
have encouraged John to envision himself as a future teacher who has sup-
port and agency to interrupt the homophobic school culture he witnessed
during his early field experiences? Seven years later, this chapter describes
one effort to address the aforementioned concerns in the English education
program where we (Melissa and Jody) teach. We describe, analyze, and pro-
blematize our endeavor to better prepare English teachers to prioritize and
make visible LGBTQ populations and interrupt heteronormativity (the
assumption that heterosexuality is natural and normal) in school spaces and
beyond. Specifically, we share an innovative field experience in the English
Methods course that helped our teacher candidates (and us) learn more
LGBTQ-Themed Texts and Heteronormativity in English Education 167

about teaching LGBTQ-themed texts and disrupting heteronormativity in

the English Language Arts (ELA) classroom.

LGBTQ (IN)VISIBILITY IN TEACHER EDUCATION

Specific topics related to LGBTQ populations are overwhelmingly absent
across programs of teacher education, even in courses that focus on multi-
cultural approaches (Gorski, Davis, & Reiter, 2013). Gorski et al. con-
ducted a large scale study of syllabi from multicultural teacher education
courses in the United States, including surveys from faculty who teach
these courses. The purpose of the study was to determine how frequently
LGBTQ topics appeared, and if so, how concerns around equity were
approached. Findings revealed that, “little attention is paid to LGBTQ1
identities, oppressions, and resistances” (p. 233). Sherwin and Jennings
(2006) also examined 77 secondary teacher education programs in the
United States and found similar results: sexual orientation remained invisi-
ble in the coursework of 40% of these programs.
Further, researchers found courses that did include LGBTQ topics often
focused on sexual orientation in relation to homophobia without making the
connection to heteronormative discourses in the broader climate of schools
and society (Gorski et al., 2013). LGBTQ discussions in teacher education
and in schools are largely framed through a protect and punish approach,
which locates bullying toward LGBTQ youth as an interpersonal phenom-
enon, rather than an outcome of a broader heteronormative culture.
Implications from Gorski et al.’s study “confirm the concern that teacher
education is inadequately preparing many pre- and in-service educators for
countering heteronormativity or creating equitable … school climates for
LGBTQ youth” (p. 238). Despite evidence that demonstrates teachers play a
key role in improving the school environment and experiences for LGBTQ
youth (Mudrey & Medina-Adams, 2006; Robinson & Ferfolja, 2008;
Russell, Seif, & Truong, 2001), teacher education programs consistently
struggle to provide opportunities to engage teacher candidates in learning
why and how to implement this work in schools. Our search for published
empirical work on how the field of English education fares with representing
LGBTQ identities as part of ELA teacher preparation coursework yielded
limited results, though anecdotally we know of colleagues who address these
topics in their courses and scholarship. Thus, we situate a need for this work
in the English Methods class within these broader concerns. English
168 MELISSA SCHIEBLE AND JODY POLLECK

educators must work to promote greater visibility about LGBTQ topics for
a host of reasons, but importantly because of the powerful role ELA teachers
can play in interrupting homophobia and heteronormativity in schools.

MOVING BEYOND MODELS OF LGBTQ INCLUSION

AND ADDRESSING HETERONORMATIVITY
Even though we know little about how programs of English education
address LGBTQ identities and interrupt homophobia and heteronormativ-
ity, educators and scholars have been voicing the need for queer-inclusive
literacy instruction in K-12 schooling for the past decade (Blackburn &
Buckley, 2005). Clark and Blackburn (2009) examined existing research
documenting teachers’ instructional practices related to LGBTQ-themed
texts and found that a majority positioned their student readers as hetero-
sexual and in many cases “aggressively homophobic” (p. 27). They found
that the overarching purpose of instruction in these cases was to promote
empathy and commonality. According to Clark and Blackburn, positioning
readers in this way, “may lead, at best, to sympathetic responses in straight
students who now feel sorry for gay people, a response that leaves LGBTQ
students in the classroom positioned as pitiable” (p. 28). Rather than teach-
ing LGBTQ-themed literature as a singular classroom event designed to
foster empathy, goals for moving beyond inclusivity could focus on posi-
tioning students as LGBTQ people or potential allies (ibid.). ELA teachers
who move beyond inclusion take on the goals of combating homophobia,
heterosexism, and heteronormativity in and outside of school spaces.
Clark and Blackburn’s (2009) findings are unsurprising given the fact
that, with few exceptions, schools circulate messages that normalize hetero-
sexuality and traditional gender roles. Our recent work as English educa-
tors has been to support teacher candidates to combat homophobia and
make visible heteronormative practices in schools that create and sustain
unsafe spaces for LGBTQ and ally youth and school staff. Cohen (2005)
defines heteronormativity as systemic and institutionalized practices that
“legitimize and privilege heterosexuality and heterosexual relationships as
fundamental and ‘natural’ within society” (p. 24). Heteronormativity circu-
lates often in subconscious ways as a part of normalized discourse in domi-
nant culture. For example, asking a young man if he has a “girlfriend”
assumes he is heterosexual and that this is a normal and natural expression
of sexual desire for an adolescent male. Heteronormativity also poses
LGBTQ-Themed Texts and Heteronormativity in English Education 169

limitations on heterosexual men and women by reinforcing traditional

masculine and feminine behaviors (Blackburn & Smith, 2010). These
repeated subtle messages become entrenched over time and privilege het-
erosexual and traditionally gendered subjectivities as an unquestionable
implied stance for youth. People who identify and perform identities
beyond these gender and/or sexual orientation norms are thus positioned
as deviant, abnormal or different, and are often subject to implicit or expli-
cit messages from friends and family to conform to the heterosexual matrix
(Butler, 2006). Additionally, homophobia merges with sexism
most often
observed in language that characterizes gay men through derogatory female
referents. Further identity intersections such as race, class, and national
identity also complicate how one identifies their sexual orientation and/or
gender identity (Francis & Msibi, 2011). For each of these reasons, adding
texts that feature gay or lesbian characters to existing ELA curriculum is
not enough (Martino, 2009). Critical discussion of how sexual orientation
and gender identity are socially constructed terms also needs to take place
as a frequent and sustained focus of inquiry in ELA classrooms. Thus, the-
oretical perspectives focused on moving beyond mere inclusion of LGBTQ-
themed texts in ELA were brought to this work.

LGBTQ-THEMED TEXTS AND HETERONORMATIVITY

IN ENGLISH EDUCATION
Research supports that teachers avoid LGBTQ topics in the classroom for
a host of reasons that include ambivalence for personal or religious reasons
and discourses about childhood innocence (Hermann-Wilmarth, 2007).
Some language arts teachers express interest in teaching LGBTQ-themed
literature, but fear administrative and/or parental objection (Thein, 2013).
The challenge in how to move English teachers beyond assumptions to
action on this issue is clear. We believe one strategy to encourage action
is to offer teacher candidates models of how English teachers implement
this crucial work during field experiences and in teacher education course-
work. Some studies document literacy teachers’ work with LGBTQ-themed
texts in K-12 classrooms (Athanases, 1996; Hamilton, 1998; Schall &
Kauffmann, 2003). Yet, few studies explore how English teacher candidates
examine the ways English teachers facilitate discussions about LGBTQ
texts and/or heteronormativity in teacher education courses and what
impact this may have on their own future practice.
170 MELISSA SCHIEBLE AND JODY POLLECK

To address this gap, we designed an innovative field experience in the

English Methods course made possible by a university-school partnership.
During the planning phase, Jody taught one section of 10th grade English
at a public high school located near the College. Across the year, Jody and
her students discussed the intersectionality of race, class, gender, sexual
orientation, and other identity markers, both within characters’ lives in
literature and their own, as fluid and situated. Toward the end of the year,
Jody taught a nine-week unit focused on Angels in America by Tony
Kushner. For the unit of study, the high school students analyzed and
discussed homophobia and heteronormativity within the text and in their
own communities. In addition to engaging with and analyzing the text and
its major themes, students participated in weekly Socratic seminars and
paired/small group discussions around critical issues related to the play.
Using Angels in America as a mentor text, during writers’ workshop,
students collaboratively wrote their own one-act plays on a topic that was
important to them. Students’ final assessment was to write an analytical
letter (supported by evidence from the text) to Tony Kushner about the
impact of his play and how it modeled both agency and advocacy for
LGBTQ communities.
Jody shared her unit plan along with instructional materials, videos of
her teaching, and student work with Melissa, who taught the English
Methods course. Melissa designed web-based activities, including video
analysis, to engage candidates in examining how the unit plan is designed
to both address homophobia in society and support youth to recognize and
interrupt heteronormativity. Thus, the project served as an innovative
video-based field experience that candidates referred to at various points
throughout the semester. Even though the unit plan is focused on one
LGBTQ-themed text, which one might argue takes an inclusive approach,
Melissa made clear to candidates that discussions about the text provided
Jody’s high school students with a lens for interpretation that was evoked
throughout the school year. The following questions guided our investiga-
tion of the project:
• How do teacher candidates interpret and respond to an instructional
unit of study focused on Angels in America?
• What impact did the project have on candidates’ perspectives about
teaching LGBTQ-themed texts and interrupting heteronormativity in
their future classrooms?
The focus of this chapter is on the field experience in the English
Methods course; the chapter is organized to provide a description of the
LGBTQ-Themed Texts and Heteronormativity in English Education 171

project and salient findings from our study of the experience for English
educators interested in devising similar projects for their courses.
It is important to note that candidates have some discussion about
LGBTQ literature and topics in courses taken prior to the Methods class.
For example, during a class focused on young adult literature, which
Melissa and Jody alternate teaching, candidates read young adult novels
that are written by authors who identify as LGBTQ and/or explicitly
address gender identity and sexual orientation (e.g., Aristotle and Dante
and the Secrets of the Universe by Benjamin Alire Saenz; I am J by Chris
Beam; and Hero by Perry Moore). Candidates participate in both indepen-
dent reading and book clubs with LGBTQ-themed young adult books.
Issues regarding heteronormativity are also addressed. For example,
Melissa and Jody share statistics about LGBTQ youth in schools from
GLSEN surveys (www.glsen.org) and candidates read and discuss
Blackburn and Smith’s (2010) article, “Moving beyond inclusion of LGBT-
themed literature in English Language Arts classrooms: Interrogating
heteronormativity and exploring intersectionality.” Candidates examine
ways that heteronormativity operates at their college campus and reflect on
their own personal experiences with how gender identity and sexual orien-
tation are normed. They then use these ideas to analyze homophobia and
heteronormativity in whole group discussions and book clubs. To avoid
problematic inclusion models where one week on the syllabus is devoted to
LGBTQ-themed literature, candidates have choice books for different
topics throughout the semester that also feature LGBTQ authors and/or
characters and discuss how heteronormativity operates within all of the
novels they read. These conversations build and/or extend candidates’ prior
knowledge about homophobia and heteronormativity for the video-based
field experience in their subsequent Methods course.

MODELING CRITICAL UNITS OF STUDY IN THE

ENGLISH METHODS COURSE
One of the goals in the English Methods course is to support candidates to
design their own critical unit of study for a semester long project. A critical
unit of study embodies similar yet nuanced theoretical groundings, includ-
ing critical literacy (Janks, 2013), culturally responsive pedagogy (Ladson-
Billings, 1995), a critical inquiry approach (Beach, Thein, & Webb, 2015),
and social justice frameworks (Christensen, 2009). To develop their
172 MELISSA SCHIEBLE AND JODY POLLECK

conceptual understanding of a critical approach to curriculum design, can-

didates read and discuss several articles/books related to these authors’
approaches. However, Melissa found that candidates’ opportunities to
observe critical units of study in practice during assigned fieldwork hours
for the course was limited and varied across placements. Leveraging a brief
but powerful video-based field experience for candidates to analyze,
observe and discuss critical units of study implemented in Jody’s 10th-grade
ELA class ensured that all candidates had at least one experience to
observe critical theories in practice.
To increase candidates’ engagement and motivation with the video-
based field experience, they are given a choice to examine a critical unit
plan focused on The Bluest Eye by Toni Morrison or Angels in America by
Tony Kushner. Melissa encourages candidates to examine both, however.
For the purpose of this chapter, we focus on candidates who selected
Angels in America. To begin, candidates read Jody’s chapter, “Teaching
Angels in America” (Polleck, 2016) from Rethinking Sexism, Gender, and
Sexuality. (See the chapter for further discussion of the unit plan and high
school students’ responses to the play.) In addition to reading the chapter,
candidates examine the unit plan document, which follows the planning
process articulated through Understanding By Design (Wiggins &
McTighe, 2005). The document contains the unit’s essential questions and
enduring understandings, content and skill goals, formative and summative
assessments, primary and supplementary texts, and an outline for nine
weeks of instruction. It also includes all student handouts and materials, so
that candidates can analyze graphic organizers and materials that support
comprehension and interpretations of the major text, for example.
After reading and reviewing these resources, candidates also watch a 10-
minute video clip from the first lesson of the unit. Because Melissa has
found that transcripts support video analysis, the transcript of the video is
provided as both a Word document and captioned in the video. Candidates
access the video clip via a secured, password protected account provided by
Vimeo. The video clip demonstrates Jody’s introduction to the unit and
10th-grade students’ responses to a heteronormativity survey (Sieben &
Wallowitz, 2009). The purpose of the survey is to support students to begin
to think about gender identity and sexual orientation in the context of
heteronormativity. To support class discussion about the critical unit plan
documents and video clip, candidates complete a written response that
analyzes the unit from the different access points provided (see Fig. 1 for
the response prompt). During class, candidates discuss their responses in
small groups with peers who selected the same critical unit of study.
LGBTQ-Themed Texts and Heteronormativity in English Education 173

Fig. 1. Analyzing the Critical Unit Plan Resources.

Candidates’ written responses and Melissa’s observations during small

and whole group discussions demonstrated several points of engagement
with the critical unit plan, which we next describe. The teacher candidates
referred to in this chapter are undergraduate and graduate students work-
ing toward initial ELA certification for grades 7
12; as a group, they are
culturally and linguistically diverse and most were raised in the Northeast
United States. The majority of teacher candidates in the English education
program voice progressive values and support LGBTQ equality.

Scaffolding Candidates’ Analyses of Instructional Methods for

Critical Interpretation

Analyzing a critical unit of study from multiple access points (e.g., reading
a chapter, examining the unit plan document and viewing a video clip)
supported candidates to identify, describe, and analyze elements from the
critical unit of study that demonstrated methods they were learning about
in the course. Beth, one ELA candidate who is white, self-identifies as
heterosexual and in her early twenties, wrote:
The video clip of this unit’s introductory lesson demonstrated how the instructor
initiated students’ responses to the essential questions that they would be exploring and
expanding upon during the following weeks. The instructor began the lesson with an
174 MELISSA SCHIEBLE AND JODY POLLECK

independent writing reflection and then had students share with a partner what they
had written about in response to two of the four essential questions. Next, the students
then were prompted to share their views with the whole class. By utilizing this “think-
pair-share” method, the teacher not only engaged her students, but also supported their
literacy development. Also, this instructor activated students’ prior knowledge by
having them connect the theme of discrimination with novels they had previously read
in the school year. (The Bluest Eye and Night)

The model critical unit of study supported Beth to identify several scaffolds
to help develop students’ understandings about the essential questions for
the unit. From watching the video clip, she identified that engaging
students in a free-write and then sharing answers with their partner was a
“think-pair-share” method that deepened students’ understandings. We
also noted that Beth focused only on the instructional methods, not the
content of what was said that related to LGBTQ themes of injustice.
Additionally, Beth considered how the instructor (Jody) activated students’
prior knowledge about discrimination from previous critical units of study,
and how this instructional move activated students’ schema to consider
ways that the LGBTQ community experiences discrimination in the context
of reading Angels in America. Again, we noted, however, that Beth did not
name the LGBTQ community or reflect on the students’ conversations
about the heteronormativity survey. Instead, she focused on perhaps more
safe and less controversial points about instructional methods and discrimi-
nation in general terms. We noted that an additional question, such as,
How do the instructional methods prompt students’ to engage critically with
the text?, may have supported Beth to focus more on how the method
facilitated students’ critical interpretations of content.

Prompting Critical Curricular Modifications

Several candidates also used the model critical unit of study to suggest cur-
ricular modifications. Melissa encourages candidates to consider modifica-
tions in the context of a class of students at their fieldwork site, because it
supports them to assert their own knowledge and agency in the planning
process, rather than view the model critical unit plan as a finished and fixed
product. Instead, posing a question about modifications encourages candi-
dates to consider their own students, and how the critical unit could be
modified to meet their needs and interests. Michael, an undergraduate can-
didate of color in his early twenties who did not share his sexual orientation
during the course, demonstrated strong interest over the semester in
LGBTQ-Themed Texts and Heteronormativity in English Education 175

teaching about media, suggested the following modification if he were to

teach this critical unit at his field site:

The Angels in America unit represents a good model for teaching this particular play.
I would also teach the play, primarily because it is one of the pivotal LGBT texts that
exists out there that speaks to the majority. I would, however, change some things in
the unit in the context of my field site classroom. I could start it off with an activity
showcasing Act up and what AIDS really looked like during the initial outbreak, which
I know they would be fascinated with since the details of the events of the outbreak are
the kinds of ethical analysis that really gets them going.

Here, the model critical unit prompted Michael to consider additional

resources and activities that would engage the group of students he was
working with in the field. Bringing in his interest in media and activism,
Michael envisioned his own teaching of this unit plan as introducing
students to Act Up (an LGBTQ activist organization focused on challen-
ging the AIDS epidemic) and detailing events from the initial AIDS out-
break. He considered how these resources would engage his students in
“ethical analysis” of the events, and we assume this modification resulted
from observing the ways ethical issues ignite his students’ interests during
his field experience. Thus, examining these materials provided Michael with
an access point for generating additional resources that would engage his
own students in topics of importance to the LGBTQ community.

Initiating Critical Reflection of Field Observations

We also noted that analyzing the documents and video clip as a field
experience prompted a few candidates to reflect on how critical issues were
addressed in the context of their traditional field experience. Ben, a candi-
date who is white, heterosexual and in his early twenties, was completing
fieldwork at a school in a low-income neighborhood for young men of
color. Ben noted:

Considering my field site classroom and teaching I have seen this semester (two differ-
ent sections of 7th grade ELA), I have not seen the explicit incorporation of social
justice as it is modeled in Jody’s Angels in America unit plan. The class is currently
reading Walter Dean Myers’ Monster. The instructor is not, at least thus far, interrogat-
ing the social justice of America’s prison system at the same sort of level at which Jody
pushes students to interrogate LGBTQ issues and heteronormative culture. The
students are, however, developing a deep understanding of Steve Harmon (the protago-
nist of Monster), an understanding which does include some ethical consideration of
Steve’s guilt or innocence, his relatively young age, and his feelings of hopelessness in
176 MELISSA SCHIEBLE AND JODY POLLECK

jail. I think that a certain teaching of social justice is appropriate at the high school
level and not at the middle school level.

Ben’s analysis of the critical unit of study helped him reflect on what he
was observing at his own field site, which by location and demographic
would be a context where students likely have personal experience with
race and class oppression. He noted that his cooperating teacher has facili-
tated students’ comprehension of Monster by considering the main charac-
ter’s guilt or innocence and feelings of despair in the prison system. The
critical unit of study, however, supported Ben to see how his teacher could
push students to think more deeply and examine the structural inequalities
related to the U.S. prison system. His reflection about this issue was
prompted by recognizing that Jody’s critical unit of study pushes students
to consider underlying issues related to the LGBTQ community and a
heteronormative culture, a move beyond analyzing characters’ surface level
actions. Therefore, examining a critical unit of study served as a model for
how candidates might facilitate discussion at a deeper, structural level.
Ben’s response shows that when candidates have models of critical units of
study they have the tools to think about how to interrogate systems of
power in the classroom. Ben questions the appropriateness of discussions
about social justice at the middle school versus high school level, however.
Melissa has observed that discourses about childhood innocence in the con-
text of critical teaching is a common tension for ELA candidates. To
further address this issue, perhaps introducing candidates to critical units
of study for middle grades may help alleviate these concerns.

ASSESSING STUDENT WORK AND CONSTRUCTING A

LESSON PLAN
To support assessment of student work, and to consider how the 10th
grade students made meaning with Angels in America, candidates analyze
two examples of student analytical letters written to Tony Kushner. To
consider issues regarding assessment and grading, candidates also read a
chapter from Linda Christensen’s book, Teaching for Joy and Justice, that
addresses important issues in the assessment and evaluation process, such
as the impact of grades and how to provide encouraging and constructive
feedback on students’ writing. Candidates complete a rubric for each writ-
ing sample and provide feedback in the margins as if they were returning
the papers to the students. To help them analyze and reflect on the
LGBTQ-Themed Texts and Heteronormativity in English Education 177

Fig. 2. Assessing Students’ Letter to Tony Kushner.

assessment process, as well as note patterns to inform future instruction,

they complete an admit slip to facilitate in-class discussion (see Fig. 2).
During small group discussion in class, candidates discuss, analyze and
at times rethink how they assessed the students’ writing according to the
unit goals and rubric, what the students’ letters demonstrate about their
understandings about the play and/or LGBTQ issues and heteronormativ-
ity, and how they would use this information to plan future instruction.
After their discussion, candidates work in pairs to plan one lesson based on
what they have identified as areas of need from identifying patterns during
the assessment process (e.g., using evidence to support claims or deepening
students’ comprehension of key events in the play).

Blogging about LGBTQ-Themed Texts and Heteronormativity

At the end of the semester, candidates also engage in reflection about

LGBTQ topics in the context of ELA instruction for a course blog and
Socratic seminar about the role of the English teacher. At multiple times
throughout the Methods course, candidates create blogs to connect what
they are observing and experiencing in the field to weekly course topics.
For the final blog, they consider the role ELA teachers play in addressing
178 MELISSA SCHIEBLE AND JODY POLLECK

Table 1. Articles for Discussion about LGBTQ-Themed Texts and

Heteronormativity.
Articles for discussion:
○ Sieben, Wallowitz, and Gardner (2009).
○ Curwood, Schliesman, and Horning (2009).
Guiding Questions for the Blog/Socratic Seminar:
○ How do you observe the role of teaching for critical social issues at your field site? What
impact does this have on students? How is literacy engaged in ethical ways?
○ If culturally responsive teaching includes discussion of critical understandings about social

justice, what evidence did you see of this work at your field site? If you did not observe these
issues, how might you have modified a lesson you observed?

critical social issues as part of their professional identities and responsibil-

ities. To align the discussion with LGBTQ topics, two of the articles they
read focus specifically on teaching LGBTQ literature (see Table 1 for the
articles and blog questions for the in-class Socratic seminar).
Similar to findings about teachers’ self-censorship and teaching LGBTQ
literature in ELA (Thein, 2013), candidates found the critical unit of study
about Angels in America, LGBTQ inclusivity and interrupting hetero-
normativity as important topics to teach, but expressed fear and hesitation
in the context of their own future classroom. Beth, a white heterosexual
female in her early twenties, addressed this issue in her blog:
One of the conundrums I have with the ethics of being an English teacher is how to
discuss sexuality in the classroom. While I do agree with many of the arguments for
creating an inclusive curriculum that conscientiously discusses queer theory and includes
literature that discusses sexuality and gender
I still feel a bit daunted by this task. My
conflict lies in that I myself feel that such inclusions of LGBTQ literature and theories
are extremely important, but I fear that my views and rationales in support of this more
inclusive and expansive curriculum that is steeped in the current politics and injustices
that are the civil rights concerns of today, may “butt-heads” with my administration.
I am unsure if I am brave enough to teach a curriculum that could be received as
“controversial.”

One of our initial questions with this project concerned how candidates
would imagine teaching LGBTQ texts and/or addressing heteronormativity
after analyzing the Angels in America unit of study. We wondered if providing
a model of how this text was taught in a 10th grade classroom might prompt
candidates to re-evaluate some of their assumptions and fears. Similar to
Beth, most candidates agreed the issues were important, but felt they could
not address them in the classroom (at least until they had more experience)
LGBTQ-Themed Texts and Heteronormativity in English Education 179

because of assumptions about meeting objection from parents and adminis-

trators. We found, however, that the model unit of study did provide students
with the language and tools for how LGBTQ texts may be taught. Here, Beth
references teaching queer theory and demonstrates an understanding of at
least the importance of a curriculum that is inclusive of LGBTQ topics. We
imagine that if she were to move beyond her assumptions of administrative
backlash, she would draw on these resources with her students to open up
opportunities for LGBTQ representation across her curriculum and engage
students in analyses of text using queer theory as a lens. As a novice teacher,
however, she questions whether she is brave enough to challenge the status
quo and put herself in a contentious place with her school.
Candice, a candidate who self-identified as a biracial lesbian in her early
twenties, expressed similar concerns to Beth. In her blog, she wrote about
an event from her work during an afterschool program that made her ques-
tion coming out to students about her own lesbian identity:

Last year when I was teaching in an after-school program, I noticed that many of my
fifth graders would refer to each other as “faggots” a lot and being a lesbian, that really
bothers me. I didn’t know how to breach the subject with them because they are fifth
graders, so for a while I let it slide. Halfway through the school year, though, I could
no longer stand it and I had to intervene and clear up their misconceptions about the
word. Looking back, I went about this in the worst way possible! When I heard some-
one call another student a “faggot” again, I stopped to address it, asking the student
what that word even means. He replied by saying “stupid.” Another student said “no,
that’s gay.” Then I asked them what gay meant and at least a third of the students
thought gay also meant stupid. I proceeded to tell them that both terms are negative
words used to make fun of people who like someone who is the same gender as them.
I also told them that nothing is wrong with that and that it’s offensive to people who
identify that way when you use those words to be mean to others. I also proceeded to
tell them that I take offense to those words because I identify that way and would
appreciate if they don’t use those words in my class or in the after-school program. As
soon as I disclosed that information, one student raised her hand to say it’s cool that
we have a gay teacher, which was relieving but made me think twice about whether
I should have said that much at all …

Here, we see Candice grapple with the ethical issue to intervene when
students use homophobic language. She noted that her own personal iden-
tity as a lesbian who is “bothered” by this language finally prompted her to
interrupt students use of the word “faggot” in class, to discuss their misper-
ceptions about the meaning of this word, and to share why using this
language is offensive. (It is also interesting to note that, like Ben, Candice
drew on discourses of innocence as a resource that at first limited her inter-
ruption of this derogatory use of language.) Even though she received
180 MELISSA SCHIEBLE AND JODY POLLECK

positive affirmation from a student regarding her personal identity as a les-

bian, Candice further reflected on the event in her blog from a place
of fear:

When I went home, I discussed it with my girlfriend and although she knew my inten-
tions were good, she yelled at me for putting myself in such a compromising situation. In
the moment, all I thought about was righting the wrong in their minds so they won’t use
the word again, but I also opened myself up to much ridicule from parents and adminis-
trators. I also didn’t breach the subject in a skillful or tactful way, which could have
backfired on me horribly had I not had the great rapport with those students that I did.
This is one of the moments I will never forget and which haunt me a little as a prospec-
tive teacher. I can’t imagine ever being closeted again, but I am especially fearful of dis-
closing my sexuality to high school students who are exploring their own sexualities and
who I can possibly be only 6 years older than. As the articles highlight, there are many
horrible, overtly sexual stigmas attached to sexualities other than heterosexual and I am
very nervous about how to navigate being a lesbian in a space that is very heterosexual.
I really appreciated the article about how to incorporate LGBT texts into the curriculum
and the list of LGBT YA lit titles provided. I look forward to becoming more versed in
this area so I can be a better advocate for myself, my students, and their learning.

Candice’s fears after interrupting the event during the afterschool program
centered on whether parents or administration would “ridicule” her for
coming out to her students, and her girlfriend worried that she had compro-
mised her teaching position at the school. Clearly, the blog reveals that
Candice felt extreme vulnerability after the event occurred. She questioned
whether she handled it effectively (which we believe she did) and expressed
fear and anxiety about “how to navigate being a lesbian in a space that is
very heterosexual.” Candice’s vulnerability and fear after interrupting stu-
dents’ homophobic use of language has been a point of reflection for Melissa
as the Methods instructor. For example, Melissa often questions how her
own identity as a heterosexual woman privileges her ability to adopt a criti-
cal stance, teach texts that feature gay or lesbian characters, or interrupt
homophobia and address heteronormative culture with students. Because
she does not have personal experience with the vulnerability or fear that
Candice ascribes to her own struggles with being out as a teacher, she can
talk about these issues from the stance of a heterosexual woman. This is an
important issue for teacher educators to reflect upon and talk about openly
with candidates, and demonstrates the need to encourage multiple view-
points to support Candice. What is noteworthy, however, is that Candice
appreciated the resources from the course and felt they invited her interest in
learning more about how to take on an advocacy stance. Perhaps Candice’s
experience demonstrates the important role that LGBTQ visibility plays in
teacher education coursework and, unlike John who we opened with at
LGBTQ-Themed Texts and Heteronormativity in English Education 181

the beginning of the article, supported Candice to envision a future where

the classroom is a place for her to do this work. (For teacher-written narra-
tives that offer support about coming out to students, see Rethinking
Sexism, Gender and Sexuality published by Rethinking Schools).

DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS

Throughout the course, teacher candidates engaged in complex and
nuanced understandings of the potential ways to teach LGBTQ-themed
texts and interrupt heteronormativity in the ELA classroom. Candidates
noted that viewing the video of instruction helped them to focus on how
Jody used language to discuss heteronormativity. Specifically, the video
demonstrated an introduction to the text through a survey of heteronorma-
tive statements. During discussion in the Methods class, candidates pointed
to specific instances where Jody engaged effective language and questions
to address students’ reactions to the survey. Candidates shared that they
would not have known if or how to discuss heteronormativity with students
and that the video provided a helpful model.
As a result of the project, some but not all candidates stated they would
use LGBTQ-themed literature and texts for whole class study; many shared
they would include LGBTQ-themed literature in their classroom library
and include classroom discussions about heteronormativity with more
traditional ELA texts (e.g., Romeo and Juliet). Melissa experienced a few
instances during whole group discussions when candidates interrupted their
peers who made heteronormative comments. Overall, while some candi-
dates still felt unsure about using texts that featured gay or lesbian charac-
ters due to their novice status in the profession, many felt more confident
about how to address homophobia and heteronormativity with their future
students.
Thein (2013) found that teachers in an online multicultural literature
course generally supported LGBT rights but felt they could not teach
LGBT-themed texts in their own classrooms because of assumptions about
administrative or parental objections. Within broader censorship concerns,
it is most often teacher self-censorship that limits teaching LGBTQ texts
and addressing heteronormativity (Beach, Thein, & Webb, 2015). To dis-
rupt the self-censorship cycle, Thein engages teachers in troubling these
assumptions and examining the discourses that prevent them from imagin-
ing implementation of this important work. We feel this is a generative
182 MELISSA SCHIEBLE AND JODY POLLECK

next step when ELA teachers express these concerns in our courses. (See
Thein (2013) for further discussion about disrupting these assumptions and
useful questions for implementing these conversations.)
Overall, we found that that modeling critical teaching practices using
LGBTQ texts may not be enough to move candidates from assumptions to
action. It did, however, provide candidates with tools for noticing important
critical issues at their fieldwork sites and suggesting beginning or “safer”
steps for bringing LGBTQ texts and conversations about heteronormativity
into the ELA classroom. Given the general invisibility of LGBTQ topics in
teacher education, the project supported new teachers who were already
committed to or interested in building their knowledge and pedagogical
skills. As English teacher educators, we learned a great deal from our own
students about how to open up opportunities for making in and out of
school spaces more just for LGBTQ students, teachers, and allies.

NOTE

1. Acronyms used differ across the research literature. Where possible, the
specific acronym used by authors in the publications referred are used.

REFERENCES

Athanases, S. Z. (1996). A gay-themed lesson in an ethnic literature curriculum: Tenth graders’

responses to ‘dear Anita’. Harvard Educational Review, 66(2), 231
256.
Beach, R., Thein, A. H., & Webb, A. (2015). Teaching to exceed the English language arts com-
mon core standards: A critical inquiry approach for 6
12 classrooms (2nd ed.).
New York, NY: Routledge.
Blackburn, M. V., & Buckley, J. F. (2005). Teaching queer-inclusive English language arts.
Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 49(3), 202
212.
Blackburn, M. V., & Smith, J. (2010). Moving beyond the inclusion of LGBT-themed litera-
ture in English language arts classrooms: Interrogating heteronormativity and exploring
intersectionality. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 53(8), 625
634.
Butler, J. (2006). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. New York,
NY: Routledge.
Christensen, L. (2009). Teaching for joy and justice: Re-imagining the language arts classroom.
Milwaukee, WI: Rethinking Schools.
Clark, C., & Blackburn, M. V. (2009). Reading LGBT-themed literature with young people:
What’s possible? English Journal, 98(4), 25
32.
Cohen, C. J. (2005). Punks, bulldaggers, and Welfare queens: The radical potential of queer
politics? In E. P. Johnson & M. G. Henderson (Eds.), Black queer studies: A critical
anthology (pp. 21
51). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
LGBTQ-Themed Texts and Heteronormativity in English Education 183

Curwood, J. S., Schliesman, M., & Horning, K. (2009). Fight for your right: Censorship,
selection, and LGBTQ literature. English Journal, 98(4), 37
43.
Francis, D., & Msibi, T. (2011). Teaching about heterosexism: Challenging homophobia in
South Africa. Journal of LGBT Youth, 8, 157
173.
Gorski, P., Davis, S., & Reiter, A. (2013). The (in)visibility of sexual orientation, heterosexism,
homophobia, and other LGBT concerns in U.S. multicultural teacher education course-
work. Journal of LGBT Youth, 10(3), 224
248.
Hamilton, G. (1998). Reading jack. English Education, 30(1), 24
43.
Hermann-Wilmarth, J. M. (2007). Full inclusion: Understanding the role of gay and lesbian
texts and films in teacher education classrooms. Language Arts, 84(4), 347
356.
Janks, H. (2013). Doing critical literacy: Texts and activities for students and teachers.
New York, NY: Routledge.
Kushner, T. (2003). Angels in America: A gay fantasia on national themes. New York, NY:
Theater Communications.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). But that’s just good teaching! The case for culturally responsive
pedagogy. Theory into Practice, 34(3), 159
165.
Martino, W. (2009). Literacy issues and GLBTQ youth: Queer interventions in English educa-
tion. In L. Christenbury, R. Bomer, & P. Smagorinsky (Eds.), Handbook of adolescent
literacy research (pp. 386
399). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Mudrey, R., & Medina-Adams, A. (2006). Attitudes, perceptions, and knowledge of pre-ser-
vice teachers regarding the educational isolation of sexual minority youth. Journal of
Homosexuality, 51(4), 63
90.
Polleck, J. (2016). Teaching Angels in America. In A. Butler-Wall, K. Cosler, R. Harper,
J. Sapp, J. Sokolower, & M. Bollow Tempel (Eds.), Rethinking sexism, gender and sexu-
ality. Milwaukee, WI: Rethinking Schools.
Robinson, K. H., & Ferfolja, T. (2008). Playing it up, playing it down, playing it safe:
Queering teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 846
858.
Russell, S. T., Seif, H., & Truong, N. L. (2001). School outcomes of sexual minority youth in
the United States: Evidence from a national study. Journal of Adolescence, 24,
111
127.
Schall, J., & Kauffmann, G. (2003). Exploring literature with gay and lesbian characters in the
elementary school. Journal of Children’s Literature, 29(1), 36
45.
Sherwin, G., & Jennings, T. (2006). Feared, forgotten, or forbidden: Sexual orientation topics
in secondary teacher preparation programs in the U.S. Teaching Education, 17(3),
207
223.
Sieben, N., & Wallowitz, L. (2009). “Watch what you teach”: A first-year teacher refuses to
play it safe. English Journal, 98(4), 44
49.
Thein, A. H. (2013). Language arts’ teachers resistance to teaching LGBT literature and issues.
Language Arts, 90(3), 169
180.
Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design (2nd ed.). Alexandria,
VA: ASCD.
This page intentionally left blank
TOWARD CLINICALLY RICH
ENGLISH AND LITERACY
TEACHER PREPARATION: A
TALE OF TWO PROGRAMS

Peter Williamson and Marshall A. George

ABSTRACT

Teacher education in the United States has been widely criticized for its
uneven and often poorly supported approach to preparing novices for
clinical practice. In 2010, the Blue Ribbon Panel on Clinical Preparation
and Partnerships for Improved Student Learning (commissioned by the
National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education) released
a report titled “Transforming Teacher Education Through Clinical
Practice: A National Strategy to Prepare Effective Teachers.” The
report called for teacher education to “be turned upside down,” a
dramatic shift from traditional approaches to preparing teachers to
“programs that are fully grounded in clinical practice and interwoven
with academic content and professional courses” (p. ii). Many prepara-
tion programs in the United States are engaged in efforts to become
more clinically rich in their approach to teacher preparation. This
chapter will examine the call for more clinically rich approaches to

Innovations in English Language Arts Teacher Education

Advances in Research on Teaching, Volume 27, 185
202
Copyright r 2017 by Emerald Publishing Limited
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved
ISSN: 1479-3687/doi:10.1108/S1479-368720170000027011
185
186 PETER WILLIAMSON AND MARSHALL A. GEORGE

English language arts teacher education, and will highlight how such a
shift is integral to more socially just teacher preparation programs.
Particular features of two clinically rich English language arts teacher
preparation programs, one in California the other in New York, will be
described and research focusing on the programs will be highlighted in an
effort to share lessons learned.
Keywords: Teacher education; clinical focus in teacher education;
university-school partnerships; pre-service teachers

Questions about how to strengthen teacher preparation are increasingly at

the forefront of national conversations about improving public education
in the United States. At the same time, the demands on teachers are ever
increasing as schools become more diverse and curricula become more
complex. This challenge is particularly acute in English and literacy teacher
education, as instruction adapts to the evolving texts of our multimodal,
interactive information economy. There is renewed enthusiasm for focusing
more deeply on clinical practice as a means of strengthening candidates’
learning through guided experience before they assume responsibility for
classrooms of their own (Lampert et al., 2013; McDonald et al., 2014).
While scholars have long proclaimed the importance of learning through
experience (Dewey, 1938/1963), recent research highlights an emerging con-
sensus that authentic experience participating in the actual settings of work

in hospitals or schools, for example
is essential for developing clinical
expertise (Billett, 2010). But critics of teacher education highlight that many
programs’ approach to clinical practice is uneven and poorly supported
(Esch, 2010; Zeichner, 2010). These criticisms have led educators, researchers,
and policymakers to call for teacher preparation to be “turned upside down”
to focus more centrally on the development of effective clinical practice (Blue
Ribbon Panel on Clinical Preparation and Partnerships for Improved
Student Learning, 2010). And while a focus on practice in professional educa-
tion is not new, the current press to “turn once again toward practice-based
teacher education” (Zeichner, 2012) is aligned with calls from recent decades
to address the best ways to help teachers “learn in and from practice” across
the trajectories of their professional careers (Ball & Cohen, 1999).
As researchers converge on what Darling-Hammond (2014) has called
the “critically important pedagogical cornerstones” (p. 549) of powerful
teacher education, it is increasingly clear how each of these has implications
Toward Clinically Rich English and Literacy Teacher Preparation 187

for the clinical component of programs. For example, strong teacher educa-
tion programs must have coherence and integration across fieldwork and
coursework. This can occur by sequencing courses so that they build upon
the developmental levels of teacher candidates while making deliberate con-
nections between course assignments and real artifacts of practice such as
student work and lesson plans. Programs can also make explicit links
between theory and practice so that candidates can learn from extensive,
highly supervised clinical work that helps them learn from expert practice
in classrooms that serve divers learners. By tightly integrating fieldwork
and coursework, candidates can learn “in and from practice” (Ball &
Cohen, 1999) as a part of their daily apprenticeships in classrooms. By
establishing new relationships with schools, teacher education programs can
develop what Zeichner (2010) has referred to as a “third space” for schools
and universities to level relationships and exchange ideas and practices.
These pedagogical cornerstones provide a framework for what we mean
by the term clinically rich teacher preparation. Clinical richness is not
necessarily achieved by providing longer, more sustained clinical experi-
ences, though these can certainly be features from which to begin. Also,
moving teacher education courses into P-12 schools so that they are
embedded in the spaces where practice happens does not necessarily mean
that they are integrated into those environments or make explicit connec-
tions between the theories and practices that govern practice in those
settings. Strengthening clinical practice means more than increasing field-
work or more practice; it means breaking down the barriers between course-
work and fieldwork so that candidates can learn to “see” complex practice
with new tools and understandings (Grossman, Hammerness, & McDonald,
2009; Grossman et al., 2009; McDonald et al., 2014; Warren-Little, 2003).
In this chapter, we describe clinically rich English teacher preparation in
two different teacher education programs, the Stanford Teacher Education
Program (STEP) and the Hunter College Urban Teacher Residency
Program for English (UTR). We address how these programs work toward
coherence and integration, how they weave theory and practice, and how
they forge new relationships with schools. Our examples attend to how
practice-based clinical work is embedded in the coursework of these pro-
grams, and how coursework is connected with fieldwork. For example, we
discuss pedagogical tools for practice-based learning such as the study of
cases and other representations of teaching (like student work and video),
as well as pedagogical innovations such as the use of enactments and
rehearsals in coursework. We also address the design and settings of clinical
practice. For example, we discuss placing teacher candidates in the settings
188 PETER WILLIAMSON AND MARSHALL A. GEORGE

where they can learn the most about serving particular populations of
students, pedagogical tools like clinical instructional rounds, and efforts
to “contextualize” teacher education to prepare candidates for specific
schools, districts, and cities.

CLINICALLY RICH ENGLISH TEACHER

PREPARATION IN THE STANFORD TEACHER
EDUCATION PROGRAM
The Stanford Teacher Education Program (STEP) is a one-year credential-
ing and Master’s program that annually enrolls 15
18 candidates who are
planning to become secondary English teachers. Candidates complete two
field placements over the course of the year, one in the summer and the
other during the academic year. During the summer, STEP collaborates
with a local school district to run a middle school that serves students in a
diverse, high-need community on the San Francisco peninsula. The teacher
candidates work in groups of two to three with cooperating teachers who
are selected and supported jointly by STEP and the school district. During
the academic school year, STEP students are placed in a Bay Area middle
or high school with one cooperating teacher for two periods a day.
Candidates participate in both classes, and over the course of the year they
gradually assume full responsibility for teaching one of the two classes.
This model of “graduated responsibility” is based on theories of learning
through apprenticeship, where novices begin learning by participating
“legitimately” at the periphery of classroom practice. During this time, the
cooperating teacher models expert practice while the novice observes, colla-
borates, and begins to enact some aspects of teaching. Over time and as the
novice gains more experience, he or she assumes more responsibility for
participating more fully and expertly in all aspects of classroom practice
(Lave & Wenger, 1991).

PRACTICE-BASED LEARNING IN STEP

Studying teaching must be at the core of learning to teach. This means that
clinical practice must be both the subject and the activity of teacher educa-
tion coursework, and that the historical “curricular divides” between course-
work and fieldwork
between theory and practice
must be dismantled
Toward Clinically Rich English and Literacy Teacher Preparation 189

(Grossman et al., 2009). Studying practice, not just studying pedagogy, is

the core of the teaching curriculum. STEP courses put key aspects of prac-
tice under study using a variety of strategies. First, STEP courses make
representations of practice such as case studies, videos, and artifacts such as
lessons and examples of student work, into key texts for study. Second,
STEP courses are structured to help candidates enact aspects of practice
through structured, guided activities that invite them to “try on” the role of
the teacher within the relatively controlled environment of the university
classroom. Third, STEP courses invite candidates to examine student think-
ing by inquiring into students’ experiences, thought processes, and work.
The real work of teachers is at the heart of each of these courses, interwoven
with the theoretical frameworks that teachers can use to make connections
between practical and conceptual tools for developing expertise.
Much scholarship in teacher education explores ways of bringing repre-
sentations of practice into university classrooms to help novices consider
the dilemmas that teachers negotiate in their daily work (Grossman, 2006;
Lampert & Ball, 1998). Different representations of practice allow for dif-
ferent opportunities to learn, given that they capture different aspects of
practice and allow novices to focus on more narrow aspects of tasks. In the
STEP Adolescent Development course, candidates study cases written about
the connections between students’ learning and theory, and then they write
an extensive case study about one of their own students. To write their
cases, they draw upon data that they gather from their own classrooms, by
observing the student in other in-school and out-of-school settings, through
home visits, and through multiple scaffolded interviews with the student
about both social and academic topics. The final case study product is an
in depth examination of how the student sees his or her own identity,
growth, and needs.
Scholarship in teacher education also focuses on methods for helping
novices practice key aspects of teaching through enactments in the settings
of their coursework. For example, teacher educators have examined the use
of role plays and “replays” in the teaching of methods (Horn, 2010;
Lampert et al., 2013) as a way of helping novices approximate teaching
activities so that they can practice difficult skills before trying them out
with real students in the classroom (Grossman et al., 2009; Williamson,
2013). Enactments provide special teaching opportunities because they can
be repeated, slowed down, and paused. Teacher educators can use enact-
ments to provide feedback to candidates in the moment, highlighting parti-
cular pedagogical moves and guiding novices to attend to the clarity of
their instructions or the tone of their voice.
190 PETER WILLIAMSON AND MARSHALL A. GEORGE

In the STEP Curriculum and Instruction in English course, enactments

are used to practice complex pedagogies such as literature discussion facili-
tation. Facilitation strategies are particularly difficult to learn given that
dialogic discussions are less scripted than other forms of instruction and
they are often more fluid and open-ended. Facilitators must act under
“conditions of unavoidable uncertainty” (Shulman, 1998) as they respond
to student literary interpretations in the moment while also paying atten-
tion to both the content and the social dynamics of the group. Research
indicates that providing candidates with robust opportunities to enact com-
plex pedagogies such as discussion facilitation can help them develop the
confidence they will need to experiment with more open-ended, dialogic
instruction (Williamson, 2013).
Across courses, STEP assignments invite candidates to examine student
thinking in order to both diagnose student understandings and develop
intellectual empathy for student knowledge and experiences. The ability of
the teacher to understand student understandings is at the core of effective
clinical practice, given that instruction should build from what students
already know and are able to do. Candidates can practice drawing
upon a range of data sources such as student writing, classroom talk, and
student questions in order to develop deeper understandings about student
understandings.
In the Curriculum and Instruction in English course, candidates are asked
to interview students to learn more about them as readers and writers, to
discover how students perceive their strengths and weaknesses, and to learn
what interests them and why. Candidates also use these interviews to
practice engaging students in conversations about school while at the same
time building relationships with them and establishing rapport. Though
candidates sometimes worry that the interviews will seem intrusive to
students, they frequently report that student were eager to share informa-
tion about themselves and that, surprisingly, students seemed surprised
that an adult was interested in learning from them.
Candidates also practice learning about student understandings by scaf-
folding opportunities for students to conduct think-alouds and other meta-
cognitive strategies for making thinking explicit (Schoenback, Greenleaf, &
Murphy, 2012). In an assignment for the Curriculum and Instruction
in English course, candidates learn to model think-aloud strategies for
students by enacting this practice in the methods course, and then they
conduct and record think-aloud protocols with their students in school.
After analyzing their students’ thinking with their peers in the methods
course, candidates plan instruction that aims to improve students’ reading
Toward Clinically Rich English and Literacy Teacher Preparation 191

and literary interpretation. As this example illustrates, each step of assign-

ments like these is organized to highlight clinical processes that teachers
can use to develop intellectual empathy with and for students.

DESIGN AND SETTINGS OF CLINICAL PLACEMENTS

IN STEP
Of course, much of what makes teacher education clinically rich is the qual-
ity, design, and settings of its clinical placements. Candidates must be able
to see expert practice that is aligned with what they are learning in their
coursework, and they must be able to “see” teachers being successful work-
ing with diverse students. STEP has a particular focus on preparing tea-
chers for high-need schools, which poses additional challenges regarding
field placements given Stanford’s location in Silicon Valley. Whitford and
Metcalf-Turner (1999) warned that “basing clinical learning in the context
of more affluence and less diversity runs the risk of developing teaching
practices that may not be as effective in under-resourced schools” (p. 260).
Conversely, conducting fieldwork in under-resourced schools can run the
risk that candidates will learn to “swim with the tide” in low performing
urban schools by adopting the low expectations, stale practices, and deficit
views that sometimes plague the views of these schools. Teachers who
“swim upstream” have learned to engage students in relationships and
enact practices that enhance student learning (Hollins, 2012).
To create, support, and sustain high-quality fieldwork placements, STEP
adheres to a robust clinical model that brings highly prepared fieldwork
supervisors together with carefully selected cooperating teachers to provide
a network of support for candidates as they gradually develop into expert
practitioners. This model allows STEP to offer professional development
for both supervisors and cooperating teachers, and it also allows STEP to
maintain clear channels of communication between the university and the
field. STEP relies on partner schools to strengthen teaching and learning
across the settings of the schools and the university and is a partner of the
San Francisco Teacher Residency (SFTR) program, which aims to provide
contextualized teacher education in order to prepare teachers who can be
successful in San Francisco’s highest needs schools and communities. STEP
also enacts clinical instructional rounds (City, Elmore, Fiarman, & Teitel,
2009) so that candidates can see a range of expert practices through guided
observations in classrooms beyond the four walls of their field placement.
192 PETER WILLIAMSON AND MARSHALL A. GEORGE

Together these innovations allow STEP to provide clinically rich fieldwork

for all candidates in the program.
Over the past 15 years STEP has established relationships with a group
of schools that we have identified as “partners” in our collective work of
teaching students and preparing teachers. While connections between the
program and the schools shifts and oscillates over time, important reforms
have been accomplished through these collaborations. Partnerships have
led to a significant restructuring of the large comprehensive high school
into small learning communities as well as a significant overhaul of the
school curriculum. Partnerships have also focused on teacher professional
development and preparation, and STEP has provided additional supports
by allocating liaisons to help bridge the school and the university curricula.
Focusing teacher education more directly on the teaching of clinical
practice necessarily means teaching about the clinical settings where the
candidates will work. The charge to focus on context as part of the content
of teacher education resurfaces Haberman’s argument that “generic” tea-
cher education too often ignores the actual places where candidates will
teach, and that reforms should “emphasize the importance of contextual
distinctions” in the diverse ways children experience content and participa-
tion through cultural activities in their communities (Haberman, 1996,
p. 749). Much teacher education does not focus on these particular aspects
of student learning, which means that coursework and fieldwork can be
misaligned, leading candidates neglect developing contextualized expertise.
To deepen STEP’s focus on preparing teachers for urban contexts
and to broaden our network of partner schools, STEP collaborates with
the San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD), the University of
San Francisco, and the United Educators of San Francisco to jointly run the
San Francisco Teacher Residency (SFTR) program. Launched in 2010, the
program’s mission is to recruit and prepare highly qualified teachers who
can commit to teaching in San Francisco’s highest-need schools and subjects.
Candidates who successfully complete the program are guaranteed early con-
tracts with the district, and district staffing needs govern how many residents
are annually admitted for each high-need subject area. Now in its seventh
year, SFTR has focused recruitment and admission on high-need content
areas as well as candidates who are historically underrepresented in teaching.
The curriculum of the SFTR program aims to provide candidates with
information that will help them understand the particular promises and
pitfalls of teaching in San Francisco’s public schools. Research on what
the candidates seem to learn from the SFTR curriculum indicates that
they develop “context-knowledge” that allows them to adopt an assets
Toward Clinically Rich English and Literacy Teacher Preparation 193

perspective toward historically underserved schools and communities in

San Francisco. The candidates reported feeling more prepared to under-
stand the various factors that shape the educational opportunities of
SFUSD students. Overall, candidates indicated that they felt prepared to
teach in San Francisco’s urban schools, a finding that runs counter to
the popular narrative about new teachers in urban settings (Williamson,
Apedo, & Thomas, 2016).
Clinical instructional rounds have recently gained attention as a peda-
gogical tool that can help administrators and sometimes teachers move
beyond the problem of silo-ed classrooms to study teaching and learning
across classrooms, schools, and even districts. Originally conceived as a
vehicle for helping administrators traverse districts to consider strategies
for instructional improvement (City et al., 2009), rounds are now also being
used by teachers seeking to strengthen their own professional learning
(Teitel, 2014; Troen & Boles, 2014). For example, the teachers at one of
STEP’s partner schools observe each other in teams to provide one another
with feedback as a form of self-directed professional development.
A drawback to the yearlong placement model is that candidates can
come to know one teaching context extremely well, but have limited access
to other teaching contexts beyond the four walls of their fieldwork class-
rooms. While rounds are an increasingly widespread form of professional
development for administrators and teachers, they are less commonly used
in pre-service programs with teacher candidates. To broaden candidates’
view and expand their access to a variety of teaching practices, STEP
conducts instructional rounds to help candidates see a range of teaching
strategies and settings. Working in teams to observe and unpack multiple
examples of practice, STEP aims to help candidates see features of complex
teaching that can seem invisible in the blur of everyday work.
Through rounds, candidates can visit classrooms of different grade
levels, schools, and neighborhoods. Some visits are organized so that
candidates can see particular pedagogical practices such as strategies for
assessment or cooperative learning; other rounds are organized so that
candidates can gain a deeper understanding of the school system itself. For
example, rounds conducted in conjunction with SFTR take candidates
through the English classroom in the San Francisco Juvenile Justice center
so that candidates can consider literacy strategies that can be successful
with students who have struggled at the fringes of our school systems and
society (Williamson & Hodder, 2015).
While the STEP program offers strong examples of each of the corner-
stones to clinically rich English teacher education that we introduced at
194 PETER WILLIAMSON AND MARSHALL A. GEORGE

the beginning of this chapter, The Hunter College program provides

another strong example of a program that was jointly developed and admi-
nistered by a university and public school partnership.

HUNTER COLLEGE/NEW VISIONS FOR

PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Graduate Urban Teacher Residency in English Language Arts

The Urban Teacher Residency (UTR) program is a partnership between

the Hunter College School of Education (HC), and New Visions for Public
Schools (NV), in conjunction with the New York City Department of
Education (NYCDOE).
Since its inception, the UTR program has graduated approximately 300
teacher candidates in six different certification areas, with 75 in English
language arts education. NV is a nonprofit organization that supports a
network 70 NYCDOE schools and seven charter secondary schools serving
more than 50,000 students in grades 6
12. The NV mission statements
suggests that they are “dedicated to ensuring that all New York City public
school students, regardless of race or economic class, have access to a high-
quality education that prepares them for the rigors of college and the work-
force” (New Visions for Public Schools, 2016a). The UTR program is one
way in which they believe they can attain this mission. “Residents,” as they
are called in the UTR, are placed at NV schools that have self-identified as
being “committed to the idea that teacher preparation and induction are
integral to [teachers’] ongoing development” (New Visions for Public
Schools, 2016b)
The 18-month HC/NV UTR program is supported through external
funding from the U.S. Department of Education Teacher Quality
Partnership Grant Program. Residents receive a stipend during the first
year of the program, as do their mentors. This is the major cost of the
program that is offset by the grant funding. In addition, the NYCDOE
provides a tuition subsidy, paying residents’ full tuition up front. In the
second year of the program, when residents are earning a salary, they pay
back 50% of the cost of tuition to the NYCDOE. Residents agree to teach
a minimum of five years in a high needs NYC public school as a condition
of this financial support. The HC School of Education partners with NV
for all aspects of program management and facilitation.
Toward Clinically Rich English and Literacy Teacher Preparation 195

COLLABORATIVE RECRUITMENT, ADMISSIONS,

AND ORIENTATION
NV and HC work collaboratively to recruit candidates for the UTR pro-
gram. The program attempts to recruit an applicant pool that reflects the
diversity of students in the New York Public School system. Many of the
program’s applicants are career changers who want to move into the teach-
ing profession. Completed applications are first reviewed by the staff at NV
to determine their match with the network’s mission and vision for instruc-
tional staff. Candidates who make the initial cut are invited to an interview
process that includes them giving a demonstration lesson, engaging in 1:1
interviews with NV principals and teachers and HC staff/faculty, an inter-
active group activity, and an on-demand writing task.
In the 18-month UTR model, teacher candidates begin their 39 credits
of graduate studies as a cohort in June. During 10 weeks of the summer,
UTR residents take nine credits of foundational course work at HC,
including Adolescent Development and Learning, Teaching Students
with Special Needs in Inclusive Settings, and Curriculum Planning and
Instruction in English Language Arts. Residents make school visits during
the month of June to meet with potential mentors at the host schools and
to learn about the various schools’ culture. Through a matching process,
mentors, school leaders, and residents all express their preferences, and
UTR program staff then match residents to schools and mentors. Once the
matches are made, residents and mentors spend 15 hours meeting together
to plan for the beginning of school in September. This collaborative
summer work includes becoming familiar with the curriculum and students
they will be team teaching in the upcoming year, developing lesson plans
for use during the first week of school, co-creating a classroom manage-
ment plan and establishing shared expectations for classroom routines
and procedures, and developing a plan for completing a baseline assess-
ment of students. In addition, the mentors orient the residents to the school
culture
building, resources, student population, policies.
In addition to this collaborative planning, for five weeks in July
and August, residents participate in summer school programs in NV schools.
Whenever possible, these summer field experiences occur in inclusive
classrooms in the same schools where the residents will be placed for the
regular school year. Following a Gradual Release of Responsibility model
(Pearson & Gallagher, 1983), residents move from a mostly observational
role, focusing on learning about the adolescent students with whom they are
working, instructional approaches utilized by their cooperating teacher, and
196 PETER WILLIAMSON AND MARSHALL A. GEORGE

the elements of the daily ELA lesson plans (all aligning with the content of
the three course they are concurrently taking) to a collaborative teaching
model, in which they work with individuals or small groups of students.
Toward the end of the summer program, residents are expected to plan and
teach at least one whole class lesson. Each day, residents meet with their
cooperating teacher to reflect on the lessons of that day as well as plan for
the following day. NV and HC also provides professional development at
the summer school site for residents and their cooperating teachers.

RESIDENTS’ GRADUAL ENTRY INTO

THE PROFESSION
Throughout the school year, beginning the same day that full time teachers
return in September, residents participate in all teacher orientations and
professional development experiences at their new school, taking part in all
general faculty, grade level, and department meetings. They work with their
mentor teacher to set up the classrooms and plan instruction for the first
week. An important part of the UTR program is that residents have a
clearly delineated, active teaching role from the first day of school, includ-
ing teaching routines, systems, and procedures in a focus class. The focus
class is one period of the mentor teacher’s academic program in which the
resident will serve as lead co-teacher.
Similar to the STEP program, at the beginning of the year residents
receive a great deal of real-time support from the mentor. Gradually
throughout the year, the mentor has less and less direct involvement in the
focus class until he or she spends most of the time observing while the resi-
dent teaches. Residents are in the school four days a week, with the fifth
day being reserved for graduate coursework at Hunter. On that day, the
mentor teaches the resident’s section. Residents take 7
9 credits per seme-
ster, with some of the credits being in general teacher education, others in
English education, and a practicum reflective seminar class. In addition,
they take graduate content coursework in the English Department.
While the mentor teacher is the lead teacher during the rest of the day,
the resident engages in a number of activities. These include observing the
mentor’s class at least one period per day, co-teaching or lead teaching
lessons in the mentor’s other sections, working with a small group of
students or tutoring a student one-on-one, conferencing and co-planning
with colleagues (such as special educators or teachers of English language
Toward Clinically Rich English and Literacy Teacher Preparation 197

learners), administrators, or parents, and observing another teacher at the

school and documenting reflections. During the second summer of the pro-
gram, residents take nine credits of coursework (education and English
content) at HC. They are not required to be involved in a summer teaching
experience.
After the successful completion of year 1 of the, residents seek to be
hired as teachers of record in a high needs school within the NYCDOE.
About 30% are hired in the school where they completed their residency,
30% at other NV schools, and the rest in other NYC schools. During the
fall of that year, they take their remaining coursework toward the Master’s
degree, including a final practicum course in which they complete their cul-
minating project and prepare for the EdTPA assessment which is required
by NYS for initial certification. If they have successfully completed all pro-
gram requirements, residents graduate in December. Some elect to take the
additional spring semester to complete program coursework.

MENTORING, SUPERVISION, AND ASSESSMENT

Key to the success of UTR residents are the members of the professional
team who support them while they are in their residency. This team
includes their mentor teacher, their NV coach, their HC field supervisor,
and their HC reflective seminar leader. These team members are in varying
but regular contact with the resident as well as with each other throughout
the school year. Sometimes, a single person serves in more than one of
these roles. For example, a reflective seminar leader may also serve as a
field supervisor. Other times, a single person is hired by both HC and NV
to serve as supervisor and coach.
Mentor teachers are nominated by administrators at their school
based on their effective instructional practices, ability to be reflective and
support the development of another adult, and interest in working with
new teachers. Before they begin mentoring, mentors engage in a 20-hour
professional development course to develop their capacities to act as
teacher educators in supporting the growth and learning of a new teacher.
Throughout the year, mentors participate in monthly mentor seminars and
quarterly professional development days to support them and to provide
them the opportunity to reflect on their coaching and mentoring practice
with UTR staff and other mentors.
198 PETER WILLIAMSON AND MARSHALL A. GEORGE

Residents and mentors are required to have two “sacred” meeting times
each week. The first focuses on planning of a lesson that the resident will
teach, and the second on feedback: both for the resident about her teaching
of the lesson and on providing meaningful feedback to students that will
best facilitate their learning. Somewhat similar to the STEP program clini-
cal rounds, mentors and residents are expected to observe other teachers in
the school together and discuss those observations, review, and reflect on
video of themselves teaching a lesson, and engage in ongoing inquiry pro-
jects focusing on their own instruction (i.e., a new or modified teaching
strategy). In short, the mentor-resident partnership is one focused on
mutual learning, growth, and reflection.
Each semester, residents are expected to make a 20
30 minute formal pre-
sentation, known as a Defense of Learning (DOL) to their mentor, a non-
UTR teacher, a school administrator and a member of the HC faculty. The
objective of the DOL presentation is to demonstrate how the resident used
the inquiry cycle throughout the semester to establish goals for students, plan
instruction, monitor, and revise instructional and classroom management
strategies, and to present evidence of, analyze, and reflect on the learning that
they facilitated for students over the course of the semester. DOL presenta-
tions are expected to include student work samples that support the resident’s
assertions about student learning and utilize technology to facilitate the audi-
ence’s understanding. These presentations are aligned with HC coursework
and residents are able to use them to fulfill requirements in at least one course
they are taking at the college as well as the EdTPA.
Other members of the support team, though involved less than the men-
tor, also play important roles in the professional development of the
resident. HC field supervisors visit the residents monthly during the fall
semester and at least twice in the spring semester of year 1, and twice
during the fall of year 2. In addition, NV coaches are in the classroom with
their assigned residents monthly during the first year. Finally, instructors of
the reflective seminar/practicum course that is taken each semester view
teaching videos submitted by the residents as part of their required course-
work, providing feedback and support. This team approach to coaching,
supervision, and assessment provides residents with far more support than
students in traditional teacher preparation programs (or first year teachers,
for that matter) receive.
One commonality in the success of both STEP and UTR is definitely the
partnerships that exist between the two universities and the public schools
in the cities in which they are located. Indeed, the two programs provide
Toward Clinically Rich English and Literacy Teacher Preparation 199

strong examples of the “third space” described by Zeichner (2010) needed

for effective new teacher preparation.

DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS

The charge to improve English teacher preparation by putting clinical prac-
tice at the core of the enterprise is both compelling and complex. The
examples that we provide here illustrate some methods for accomplishing
this goal
some new, some recycled
and they also illustrate some of the
challenges that make this work uneven across contexts. Reforms can be
ephemeral given the organic nature of institutions that are governed by
interpersonal connections and motivations. They can also shift with chan-
ging political priorities and incentives. We are hopeful that the current
press to improve clinical preparation can be sustained given the renewed
enthusiasm we are seeing from both researchers and educators across the
k-12 and university sectors.
Some of the challenges we face are constraints in terms of the human
time and effort that the reforms will demand. While there is growing evi-
dence that candidates benefit from structures like clinical instructional
rounds and coursework that extends into the field through additional sup-
ports, we also know that as clinical components of teacher preparation pro-
grams are enhanced, so is the cost of such programs. Among the challenges
of supporting clinical learning is financing the increased time commitments
needed for key components such as collaboration, supervisor and cooperat-
ing teacher training, and supervision.
Similarly, the challenge of reconceptualizing the teacher education curri-
culum rubs against traditions holding that the schools or the academy
knows best. Traditionally, curriculum has been the domain of one institu-
tion or another, and we are now being encouraged to invert our thinking
and conceptualize curriculum as a series of carefully designed clinical
experiences that span the contexts where candidates learn. In particular,
new approaches to teacher education blend coursework and fieldwork
in ways that demand new kinds of instruction and new kinds of instructors.
Some scholars have called for “mediated” field placements, where field-
based faculty support candidates and cooperating teachers around
the learning and enactment of specific practices (McDonald et al., 2014).
We are a long way off from realizing this sort of professional practice as
200 PETER WILLIAMSON AND MARSHALL A. GEORGE

a component of faculty responsibilities at most institutions in the United

States.
Finally, the call for renewed commitment to partnerships between univer-
sities and schools has been championed by recent Federal incentives and per-
haps new legislation, and we believe that progress in this area will go a long
way toward achieving these other goals. As Darling-Hammond argued,

Schools of education must design programs that help prospective teachers to under-
stand deeply a wide array of things about learning, social and cultural contexts, and
teaching and be able to enact these understandings in complex classrooms serving
increasingly diverse students; in addition, if prospective teachers are to succeed at this
task, schools of education must design programs that transform the kinds of settings in
which novices learn to teach and later become teachers. This means that the enterprise
of teacher education must venture out further and further from the university and
engage ever more closely with schools in a mutual transformation agenda, with all of
the struggle and messiness that implies. (2006, p. 302)

Achieving these goals will require teacher preparation programs that can
continuously strive for coherence, simultaneously preparing teachers for the
schools that we have while also preparing them for the schools that we want.

REFERENCES

Ball, D. L., & Cohen, D. (1999). Developing practice, developing practitioners: Toward a
practice-based theory of professional education. In G. Sykes (Ed.), Teaching as the
learning profession (pp. 3
32). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Billett, S. (2010). Learning through practice. In S. Billett (Ed.), Learning through practice:
Models, traditions, orientations and approaches (pp. 1
20). London: Springer
Science + Business.
Blue Ribbon Panel on Clinical Preparation and Partnerships for Improved Student Learning.
(2010). Transforming teacher education through clinical practice: A national strategy to
prepare effective teachers. Washington, DC.
City, E., Elmore, R., Fiarman, S., & Teitel, L. (2009). Instructional rounds in education: A
network approach to improving teaching and learning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
Education.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Constructing 21st century teacher education. Journal of Teacher
Education, 57(3), 300
314.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2014). Strengthening clinical preparation: The holy grail of teacher
education. Peabody Journal of Education, 89, 547
561.
Dewey, J. (1938/1963). Experience and education. New York, NY: Macmillan.
Esch, C. (2010). Training better teachers: The bulk of U.S. teachers receive training that is
disconnected from what they will experience in actual classrooms- that must change.
LA Times, November 16.
Toward Clinically Rich English and Literacy Teacher Preparation 201

Grossman, P. (Producer). (2006, May 10). Goldman-Carnegie quest program. Retrieved from
http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/index.asp
Grossman, P., Compton, C., Igra, D., Rondfelt, M., Shahan, E., & Williamson, P. (2009).
Teaching practice: A cross professional perspective. Teachers College Record,
111(9), 2055
2100.
Grossman, P., Hammerness, K., & McDonald, M. (2009). Redefining teaching, re-imagining
teacher education. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 15(2), 273
289.
Haberman, M. (1996). Selecting and preparing culturally competent teachers for urban
schools. In J. Sikula, T. Buttery, & E. Guyton (Eds.), Handbook for research on teacher
education (2nd ed., pp. 747
760). New York, NY: MacMillan Reference Books.
Hollins, E. (2012). Learning to teach in urban schools: The transition from preparation to prac-
tice. New York, NY: Routledge.
Horn, L. (2010). Teaching replays, rehearsals, and re-visions: Learning from colleagues in a
mathematics teacher community. Teachers College Record, 112(1), 225
259.
Lampert, M., & Ball, D. L. (1998). Teaching, multimedia, and mathematics: Investigations of
real practice. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Lampert, M., Franke, M. L., Kazemi, E., Ghousseini, H., Turrou, A., Beasley, H., … Crowe,
K. (2013). Keeping it complex: Using rehearsals to support novice teacher learning of
ambitious teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 64(3), 226
243.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McDonald, M., Kazemi, E., Kelley-Petersen, M., Mikolasy, K., Thompson, J., Valencia,
S. W., & Windschitl, M. (2014). Practice makes practice: Learning to teach in teacher
education. Peabody Journal of Education, 89, 500
515.
New Visions for Public Schools. (2016a). About us. New visions for public schools. Retrieved
from http://www.newvisions.org/pages/about-us.
New Visions for Public Schools. (2016b). Program details. Urban Teacher Residency.
Retrieved from http://www.newvisions.org/pages/join-the-urban-teacher-residency
Pearson, P. D., & Gallagher, M. C. (1983). The instruction of reading comprehension.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8, 317
344.
Schoenback, R., Greenleaf, C., & Murphy, L. (2012). Reading for understanding: How reading
apprenticeship improves disciplinary learning in secondary and college classrooms
(2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Shulman, L. (1998). Theory, practice, and the education of professionals. Elementary School
Journal, 98(5), 511
526.
Teitel, L. (2014). Teachers at the center of improvement: School-based instructional rounds in
a Connecticut district engages teachers as classroom observers, leading to instructional
adjustments. School Administrator, 1(71), 1
8.
Troen, V., & Boles, K. (2014). Rounds process: Puts teachers in charge of learning. Journal of
Staff Development, 35(2), 20
28.
Warren-Little, J. (2003). Inside teacher community: Representations of classroom practice.
Teachers College Record, 105(6), 913
945.
Whitford, B. L., & Metcalf-Turner, P. (1999). Of promises and unresolved puzzles: Reforming
teacher education with professional development schools. In G. A. Griffin (Ed.),
The education of teachers, ninety-eight yearbook of the national society for the study of
education (Pt. 1, pp. 257
278). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
202 PETER WILLIAMSON AND MARSHALL A. GEORGE

Williamson, P. (2013). Enacting high leverage practices in English methods: The case of discus-
sion. English Education, 46(1), 34
67.
Williamson, P., Apedo, X., & Thomas, C. (2016). Context as content in urban teacher educa-
tion: Learning to teach in and for San Francisco. Urban Education, 51(10), 1170
1197.
Williamson, P., & Hodder, L. (2015). Unpacking practice with clinical instructional rounds in
the San Francisco teacher residency program. International Journal of Educational
Research, 73, 53
64.
Zeichner, K. (2010). Rethinking the connections between campus courses and field experiences
in college-and-university-based teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education,
61, 89
99.
Zeichner, K. (2012). The turn once again toward practice-based teacher education. Journal of
Teacher Education, 63(5), 376
382.
TELLING OUR STORIES:
NAVIGATING SOCIAL
JUSTICE-ORIENTED
TEACHING ON THE GROUND

Terri L. Rodriguez, Catherine (Kate) M.

Bohn-Gettler, Madeleine (Madey) H. Israelson,
Madeline (Maddy) A. O’Brien and Lauren Thoma

ABSTRACT

This chapter weaves together the voices of five teachers and teacher edu-
cators (two first-year classroom teachers and three teacher education
faculty) collaborating to better understand socially just outcomes in the
field of English language arts teacher preparation. Building from the pre-
mise that it is the seeking of multiple perspectives and the notion of voice
that lie at the heart of socially just pedagogy, this collaboration aims to
tell one story
a research narrative
through many voices. As White,
female educator-researchers who experience privilege along a multitude
of dimensions (e.g., socioeconomic status, language, race, ability, sexual
orientation), the authors embrace activist-ally identities that seek to
understand systemic injustices; act with an empowered and critically

Innovations in English Language Arts Teacher Education

Advances in Research on Teaching, Volume 27, 203
223
Copyright r 2017 by Emerald Publishing Limited
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved
ISSN: 1479-3687/doi:10.1108/S1479-368720170000027010
203
204 TERRI L. RODRIGUEZ ET AL.

self-reflective sense of agency; and mobilize their resources in concert

with others. This chapter narrates the authors’ learning of how activist-
oriented teaching and research is (and might be) conceptualized and
realized in the contexts of their work in one public high school, one K-12
charter school, and one teacher education program. Each author will
share the inspirations, successes, and barriers she encountered while
purposefully eliciting the perspectives, questions, and voices of multiple
stakeholders, including K-12 students, cooperating school personnel,
families, and other community members. Through the telling of this story
as a collage of many voices, the authors hope to encourage others to act
as allies for social justice on the ground
that is, in the teacher educa-
tion and K-12 classrooms where we learn to teach as we consider how
that learning impacts those it most directly affects.
Keywords: Social justice teaching; activist-oriented teaching;
activist-ally identity; teacher agency

As beginning teachers (Lauren and Maddy) and teacher educators (Terri,

Kate, and Madey), we describe a collaborative research study that exam-
ined how to better understand socially just outcomes in teacher prepara-
tion. Throughout the study, we aim to show how our understandings of
social justice teaching and learning “on the ground”
that is, anchored in
practice and framed within our particular contexts
evolved throughout
our work together. Building from the premise that it is the seeking of multi-
ple perspectives and the notion of voice that lie at the heart of socially just
pedagogy, we weave a single story, a research narrative, through many
voices. As white, female educators who experience privilege along a multi-
tude of dimensions (e.g., socioeconomic status, language, race, ability, sex-
ual orientation), we construct activist-ally identities as we narrate our
journey of learning how activist-oriented teaching and research is (and
might be) conceptualized and realized in the contexts of our work in one
public high school, one K-12 charter school, and one teacher education
program. We narrate the inspirations, successes, and barriers we encoun-
tered while purposefully eliciting the perspectives, questions, and voices of
multiple stakeholders, including the K-12 students, cooperating school
personnel, families, and other community members who participated in
Telling Our Stories 205

the study. We story our identities and our work here because we believe in
the power and promise of narrative as a way of knowing (Bruner, 1990;
Polkinghorne, 1988). The goal of our chapter is to explore themes in the
intersections of our stories, including labels and the complexities of identi-
ties; privilege, authority and our role in social justice work; definitions of
success in social justice teaching; and who we are as activist-allies.

SOCIAL JUSTICE TEACHING IN ENGLISH TEACHER

PREPARATION
In our research study, social justice-oriented teaching is broadly understood
as a framework that encompasses teachers’ beliefs, actions, and identities.
Grant and Sleeter (2007) define multicultural and social justice education
as the belief that schools in a democracy can and should prepare citizens to
work actively and collectively on problems facing society. The actions that
result from this belief include providing students opportunities to engage in
critical questioning, practicing democracy, analyzing systems of oppression,
and encouraging social action. In addition to motivating socially just beliefs
and actions, we also hope to foster the development of social justice
oriented professional identities. Swalwell (2014) outlines a framework for
teachers working with privileged students that fosters an “activist-ally”
identity, or that of “justice-oriented citizens with a deep understanding of
systemic injustices, a sense of agency that is empowered and critically self-
reflective, and the ability to mobilize their resources in order to act in con-
cert with others” (p. 108). Along with Gorski (2013), Swalwell maintains
that traditional conceptions of social justice education are unable to effect
change because they do not go far enough in addressing how social class
and economic structures impede justice. Together they propose an emer-
ging framework that moves beyond a focus on culture (cultural competence
or culturally relevant teaching) to a renewed focus on equity through
“equity literacy,” or the “skills and dispositions that enable us to recognize,
respond to, and redress conditions that deny some students access to the
educational opportunities enjoyed by their peers” (p. 6). We chose this
framework for our study partly because our teacher education program
demographics, typical of both our preservice teachers and our teacher edu-
cators, mirror those of many in the United States
a majority experience
privileged identities along a multitude of dimensions (e.g., race, class, socio-
economic status, ability, sexuality, religion, language).
206 TERRI L. RODRIGUEZ ET AL.

Research affirms that teacher education programs can provide teachers

opportunities to juxtapose personal narratives with broader social contexts
in ways that allow for the cultivation of social justice orientations.
McDonald (2008) cautions about limitations, but also highlights promises,
of assignments and types of field experiences designed to promote the
development of social justice pedagogies. Similarly, Johnson (2012) finds it
important to “explicitly name, and then teach, specific literacy practices
that lead to becoming a social justice educator” (p. 177). One successful
model for methods coursework consists of a “meta-framework” for sup-
porting preservice teachers through the developmental stages of tolerance
(or critical reflection), acceptance, respect, and affirmation, solidarity and
critique in concert with the 6 “re-s”: reflect, reconsider, refuse, reconceptua-
lize, rejuvenate, and reengage (CEE, 2009). Admittedly, socially just teacher
preparation is messy and unfolds in rich and complex ways. Preservice
teachers’ experiences and the contexts in which they practice vary greatly.
There is no single framework or pedagogy that is more likely than another
to change the world toward justice; rather, naming oneself a social justice
educator implies that one has taken a stance/position that seeks to “notice
and name inequities, disrupt hierarchies of power and privilege, and inter-
rupt current practices that reproduce injustices” (CEE, 2009).

STORYING OUR WORK

Social justice work demands an attention to voice and perspective that, in
turn, benefits all. In the varying capacities through which we have
explored this topic, we have found voice and perspective to be a powerful
tool in revealing critical issues and possible solutions in diverse contexts.
Here, we focus on how our converging interests, voices, and perspectives
as beginning teachers and teacher educators led us toward new under-
standings about social justice teaching and learning. We purposefully situ-
ate our telling on the ground
in the practice of our work together as a
collaborative partnership. In the larger study from which this telling
emerges, we posed research questions that explored conceptions, goals,
enactments, and outcomes of socially just teaching within our teacher edu-
cation program and the cooperating schools with which we collaborated.
We employed narrative methodologies that provided tools for understand-
ing the nuanced complexities of experience, beliefs, identities, and actions.
We chose narrative inquiry because it is a collaborative endeavor that
takes place over time, in situated contexts, and through social interaction
Telling Our Stories 207

(Clandinin & Connelly, 2000, p. 20). It provides a way of understanding

how teachers’ personal experiences influence narratives of professional
identity (Bruner, 1986; Connelly & Clandinin, 1999). We generated data
over the course of one academic year through observations and interviews
of preservice and beginning teachers, their cooperating teachers and
administrators, and their K-12 students at various school sites.
In this chapter, we step back and reflect on our data collection and ana-
lysis. We narrate our identities and position ourselves in relation to each
other and to our work to deepen our understanding of how personal
experiences influence both our professional identities and our work as
researchers. Each author’s story is first kept intact, then later woven into a
single research narrative that illuminates our collective understandings. We
alternate voices as teacher educators and teachers to emphasize the impor-
tance of our collaboration across what can sometimes seem like a theory-
practice divide between universities and K-12 schools, beginning with Terri
as the primary investigator of the study, then moving to Lauren, a new
teacher. We purposely position Kate and Madey’s voices in the middle as
co-investigators invited into the study because of expertise in relation to
emerging questions, then end with Maddy’ voice as an exemplar of a begin-
ning teacher working at the situated puzzle of her experience in a new class-
room. We approached writing our stories from the perspective of the
following questions: Who are you, both personally and professionally?
Why do you do this [social justice] work? What issues, challenges, and
barriers do you navigate? What are you learning? Who are your allies?

Terri

I am a teacher educator/researcher, wife, and mother in a bicultural family

with roots in Puerto Rico (my husband) and the Midwest (me). For as long
as I can remember, I have chased opportunities to play school. At the age
of 12, I taught Sunday school to 4-year-olds in snowy, central Minnesota.
As a 19-year-old nanny, I cared for two young children in sunny
California. Five years later, English degree in hand, I substitute taught at
the Berlin American High School during my husband’s military assignment
in Germany. That job began my official teaching career, and I went on to
teach English language arts and, for a brief stint, Spanish, to young people
in public and private schools in two states and a commonwealth. I left the
often-grueling conditions of those classrooms for graduate school, and
have since prepared English teachers in a variety of roles, in urban and
208 TERRI L. RODRIGUEZ ET AL.

rural communities, and in traditional and alternative licensure programs.

Twenty-five years after moving away from central Minnesota, I returned to
teach, this time Ph.D. in hand, at a small, liberal arts college less than 10
miles away from where I grew up.
While marveling at the shifting landscapes outside my window, I became
a people-watcher. I began to notice, and then imitate, the slight accent and
turn of phrase that held the potential to unmark me as an outsider in each
new place. I would update my wardrobe, style my hair differently, and do
what I thought I could to fit in. Luckily for me, I am white, female, and a
native English speaker in a professional field dominated by people who
look and talk like me.
In graduate school, I learned new meanings for the word “critical” and
was trained to examine issues of race and power in classrooms (Delpit,
1995). I began to understand how my own literacies are sponsored (Brandt,
2001). Through this theoretical grounding, I try to notice how literacy edu-
cation is always a political act; that social identities are complex; and how
issues of diversity and equity intersect. Graduate school gave me a lan-
guage through which to narrate my life. I am committed to this work
because of my personal and professional experiences and a desire for advo-
cacy and action.
It is a challenge to embed social justice ideals across all of the courses
that I teach, especially English language arts methods (pedagogy) courses.
It seems that many students and some faculty think issues of diversity and
equity are the domain of one or two particular courses. For example,
I teach one section of a foundations course that is carefully constructed to
house most of the diversity standards. Another challenge is to find middle/
secondary English language arts methods texts with explicit social justice
goals, language, orientations, and pedagogies. While I consistently rely on
several wonderful titles, they are admittedly aging, and I struggle to locate
new titles that speak to current realities (e.g., common core standards,
standardized testing, and edTPA) and how we, as teacher educators and
prospective teachers, might engage with these issues from a social justice
perspective. On another level, larger institutional commitments to the
college’s common curriculum are under discussion and revision. With little
debate, the words “social justice” were recently removed from our learning
goals. Barriers exist outside of the college as well. For example, a large
school district nearby did not grant access for this research because focus
group interviewing would take time away from instruction.
I am grateful for the opportunity to pause and reflect upon how this
study represents, if not a milestone, then at least a mile marker, in my
Telling Our Stories 209

journey as a white teacher educator and researcher. I returned to a town

that is nicknamed “White Cloud” for its demographic make-up and, I think,
stubbornness to welcome racial change. It is with this study that I more
consciously and deliberately chose the terms “social justice,” “equity,” and
“activist ally” as descriptors for my work and myself. I wanted to come
back to my family dinner table and start conversations
about diversity,
poverty, access to opportunity, and the blatant racial inequities that seem
to me to characterize this place (my home). I am often frustrated by what
I perceive as resistance to change, and I am learning that “fighting for social
justice,” as heroic as it sounds, means taking part in an epic battle that may
never yield a clear-cut victory. But as my colleagues will recount in their
own stories, inspirations abound in the allies we are making and in the
personal and professional connections and collaborations in which we
engage. I am learning that like-minded warriors surround me.
My husband and my children are my strongest allies. They feed me,
literally and figuratively, as they strengthen my resolve to bring these conver-
sations to the table. As a Puerto Rican man, my husband’s experience of
living in “White Cloud” is markedly different from mine. My blonde, blue-
eyed daughter’s experience of having an anonymous classmate scrawl on her
school locker that “she’s not even Mexican” is one I can empathize with, but
never really fully understand. I wonder why this teenager didn’t know a
Rodriguez could be from somewhere other than Mexico and that a Latina
can be blonde. Some students come into my classes eager to engage in our
discussions, while others resist the “agenda” they “feel is being shoved down
their throats” (a comment on one end-of-semester evaluation). My depart-
ment is filled with allies
like Kate and Madey
who are also passionate
about social justice and who seek productive collaborations. I have been
graciously awarded funding for this work through both internal and external
grants, including support from NCTE/CEE. Most importantly, I am
connecting with allies in schools who have welcomed us to pursue our
research questions and engage in conversations about what social justice
means and looks like within the situated contexts of their communities.

Lauren

I recently earned a bachelor’s degree from a small liberal arts college in the
Midwest with teaching licenses in English Language Arts (ELA) and
Teaching English as a Second Language (TESL). I began my teaching
career that same year at a highly diverse urban school. I teach English as
210 TERRI L. RODRIGUEZ ET AL.

a second language (ESL) to students who are new-to-English. Most of my

students are refugees who have been in the United States less than a year.
I have recently begun working on a master’s degree in Teaching English to
Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL).
I first got the itch to teach English because I felt that the introspection
and articulation that it leads to are life changing. I imagined my students
digging into Asimov’s laws of robotics and finding something very human.
Later, I became curious about the growing refugee population around me.
Remembering the drive that lead me to English teaching in the first place,
I realized that education for the new Americans joining the community
around me did, indeed, help them find something very human. English,
suddenly, was less of an art that illuminated the person my students were,
and more of a tool with which my students could advocate and navigate
their new position in the world. I do this work for the countless ways
this job is rewarding, challenging, and humbling. I also do it because my
students are incredible and deserve a voice that will be recognized.
Language is the obvious barrier between my students and me, but there
is so much more going on outside of the academics of my class. My
students come to school with a myriad of distractions. Many of my female
students have children or husbands at home or in other countries; many of
my male students have pressures to make money to send to their family
across the world. It is common to have issues with legal documentation,
health insurance, and changing homes. My students have dual duties
at
school, they fulfill one identity that comes with its own set of expectations
and tasks, and at home a whole different one. It becomes a lot for them to
juggle, and often some difficult decisions as to what gets dropped.
One major component of my students’ dual identities is the culture of
school. Many of my students have never attended a formal school, and if
they have, it was likely very different than my classroom. Students might
not know how to hold a pencil. They might not know how to hold a book.
They might not know to raise their hand to talk or answer a question.
School can be a very complex system to navigate when it is all so unfami-
liar. My “job” is to teach students English
but first things have to come
first. And that can be a problem sometimes
the first things coming first.
General education has a lot of assumptions about the students for which it
makes rules. It is difficult to know that my students’ priorities are some-
times different than the expectations for my classroom and that my hands
are tied. My students need to know dialog for calling the doctor and how
to count American currency in a financial transaction. This knowledge will
keep them safe in an unfamiliar culture. Instead, I have pressures to teach
Telling Our Stories 211

Venn Diagrams and American History. (Do my students know the history
of their own birth country?)
The root of most of our problems is my own lack of understanding and
the education systems’ lack of understanding for where my students are.
No matter how informed I make myself or how deeply I want to compre-
hend my students’ lives, I never will. I will always live indoors. I will always
be able to choose where I live. I will always live with clean water, enough
food, and basic human rights. That my students have not, I know
but
I will never understand. The same is true for most people, in and out of
school, who make a lot of decisions, experiences and rules for my students.
It’s complicated when we need to be patient with our students’ ideas,
experiences, and needs but we don’t have the means to sit down and really
understand each other.
One Friday, knowing that I’m a fan of tea, a student brought me a mug
of “Somali tea.” I asked the student how to make it
I loved it. He said,
“It’s just tea. You put it in hot water.” After more prodding, I discovered
that the whole recipe called for black tea, milk, sugar, and Somali spices.
Neither the student nor I knew what the mystery spices were. The kind stu-
dent encouraged me, “Miss, you have to just keep trying until it is right.
That’s how you will learn.” Now, I make a lot of tea, and I am learning
that “differentiation” and “affective domain” are more than dusty terms in
pedagogy textbooks. I am learning that they are an act of acrobatics to
maintain, but they are central to my students’ well-being. They allow for
better understanding of my students, and better understanding of my
students allows for better advocacy. I am learning to teach the student who
comes to class each day. My students are teaching me to listen.
Parents are surprisingly great allies. Most of my families don’t know any
English, but they (everyone!) bravely come in to the school to support
student learning and behavior any way they can. I also have amazing
co-workers who are a library of resources and a shoulder to cry on all in
one. The biggest support, no doubt, is my students who LOVE to be in
school! They value every aspect of education as a real privilege and want to
make the most of it. By helping me and each other, they exaggerate all the
good in our classroom.

Kate

When confronted with the question, “Who am I?” I first reverted to

listing my professional and demographic labels, such as being a white,
212 TERRI L. RODRIGUEZ ET AL.

female, middle class, associate professor of educational psychology.

Writing about myself initially felt uncomfortable: Although many fields
embrace a participant-observer-researcher stance (Stotsky & Mall, 2003),
I typically write research reports in which I strive to remove myself and
provide objective interpretations of data. But is this possible, and is this
always for the best? Truthfully, my identity is complex. I am also a wife
and a mother; an aunt, sister and daughter; a friend and a colleague; a
fierce advocate who also seeks harmony; and someone who often pushes
against the dualities of my existence. Even my scholarship bridges gaps
between sometimes opposing worlds (e.g., connecting emotion to cognition
by using empirical methods in educational settings). My life and work
strive to embrace life’s complexities and interconnections. This pattern
followed me when working with beginning and expert teachers in northern
Indiana schools; when testing experimental interventions to improve read-
ing for students in the Midwest; or when chasing preschoolers around play-
grounds with hopes of demonstrating the need for holistic education.
Increasingly, I am understanding how the contexts in which we live, love,
and learn profoundly influence our opportunities, perceptions, and more.
My scholarship, experiences in schools, and interactions with preservice
teachers all converge on social justice. I consider myself a novice to the
area, with my orientation and knowledge continually evolving. However,
the work is of incredible importance, and my training in psychology pro-
vides a unique lens through which to view how societal structures present
barriers or opportunities to promote or detract from thriving. In short,
I do this work because we cannot provide equitable opportunities to diverse
students without recognizing the institutional discrimination inherent in the
system, and such discrimination directly affects students’ cognitions, emo-
tions, and holistic development.
In this work, I face challenges in teaching, research, and my personal
self. Working with preservice teachers presents many opportunities, chal-
lenges, and successes toward developing activist-allies. However, I see my
students for short windows of time, work with 50
90 students each seme-
ster, while also teaching the plethora of state and national standards
assigned to my courses (all challenges familiar to any teacher). Further,
many of my students, although not all, did not experience or witness
the inequities their future students will experience. How, in the short time
I have them, can I expose preservice teachers to diversity, help them under-
stand and relate to the challenges their students may face, yet still meet
required standards? This challenge is not unique, and although I try to
infuse every lesson with aspects of social justice, the conflict remains.
Telling Our Stories 213

On another level, finding the harmony between teaching concrete strate-

gies and developing critical thinking is challenging. It is vital to provide
preservice teachers with concrete strategies and advice for working with
students, staff, colleagues, and the community. However, developing skills
to think critically, become self-motivated learners, and understand that
they must be advocates for their students may be more important (and
more challenging). Simple statements to highlight this are not enough, nor
is one semester enough time, but I hope to contribute to their development
in thinking, creativity, empathy, and motivation to navigate a variety of
academic and social environments.
Like many others, I also struggle with how to respond when students
express views that proliferate inequity. How do I balance learning, perspec-
tive-taking, and positive relationships (which are vital for learning)? A
critical aspect of my work is to encourage students to consider multiple per-
spectives and critically reflect on their cultural lenses … not because I want
them to think in a “right” way, but because of the importance of such tasks
to better our world. However, students sometimes respond with discomfort,
anger, ambivalence, and more. Recognizing that each person is at a differ-
ent point in their developmental journey toward understanding inequity,
I strive to meet students where they are and scaffold their thinking in the
zone of proximal development (something I teach them to do; e.g., Collins,
2006; Dixon-Krauss, 1996; Rosenshine & Meister, 1992; Vygotsky, 1978).
However, this is murky, emotional work.
My scholarship continually demonstrates the holistic nature of learning.
For example, emotions modify our abilities to be creative, generate
inferences, and attend to particular information. I often wonder how I can
extend my experimental work to be increasingly meaningful in diverse
settings, but I often wonder if I am doing enough. This is also reflective in
my personal journey … am I doing enough? Although I have always taught
social justice concepts in my coursework, it is only recently that I began to
investigate it in my research, and I therefore consider myself to be relatively
new to the field of social justice. That, coupled with being a white female,
I often suffer from imposter syndrome (Clance & Imes, 1978). Do I actually
have the knowledge necessary to enact meaningful change? Have I thor-
oughly thought through my cultural lenses, engaged in the necessary self-
reflection, and researched ways to effectively implement change for social
justice? Am I acting, and not just talking? Who am I to act like an expert
(Dahlvig, 2013; Overall, 1997)?
Through these challenges, I am learning. I am learning that our different
journeys and perspectives form pieces of a puzzle to address inequities.
214 TERRI L. RODRIGUEZ ET AL.

I am learning that working with others to mobilize resources, such as colla-

boration across courses in discussing equity literacy, can have lasting
effects. I am learning that as my knowledge of social justice increases, it
leads to thousands of new questions. I am learning how one person can
change a life by seeing and fostering potential, caring, advocating, and
teaching self-advocacy.
I am proud to know inspiring individuals who, day in and day out,
work with students to promote social justice. When I hear of the important
work my students engage in, how they helped a student self-advocate and
thrive, it motivates me to push through personal barriers. When I hear of a
school policy change related to my scholarship (i.e., attempts to provide
enriched free play time, especially in low-income districts where children
often do not have places to play freely), it reminds me that small efforts
matter. Most importantly, I am learning that we may never see or hear of
the results of our efforts, but they can make all the difference in the world.

Madey

I remember hearing long ago that answering the question “Who are you?”
is very clear-cut and straightforward for men. Men will respond with their
professional title: “I’m a lawyer,” “I’m an electrician,” “I manage a restau-
rant.” I believe women struggle more to respond to this question. So
I begin there, I am a woman; a wife and a mother (perhaps the roles I hold
most dear). I am a teacher-I also think of myself as a learner. I’m an assis-
tant professor, a teacher educator. It is these roles that lead me to
this work.
I do this work because I believe in social justice and equity. I entered the
field of education with well-intentioned, albeit missionary, goals of making
a difference in communities that I myself did not belong to (Cochran-
Smith, 2004; Ladson-Billings, 2001). I am a person who experiences
unearned privilege because of my race (white) and socioeconomic status
(middle class). I believed “I just want to help them,” a performative tool of
Whiteness that maintains existing systems of racial privilege (Picower,
2009, p. 209). The more time I spent working as an educator, the more
I had experiences that disrupted and dismantled my missionary thinking,
clearing the way for new learning, understanding and insight into systems
of inequity, my own identity and what is means to be an activist ally. This
is why I do this work.
Telling Our Stories 215

To explain the issues, challenges and barriers I navigate I describe some

of my experiences as a preservice teacher, a classroom teacher and a teacher
educator. The most significant challenge that I encounter over and over is
how to create experiences, dialogues and provocations that transform
educators’ perhaps well-intentioned, yet often misguided, beliefs, actions
and words into social justice-oriented teaching practices. And it is impor-
tant for me to note: the first time I encountered this challenge it was with
my own well-intentioned and misguided beliefs, actions and words. These
are the stories I share.
I chose education because I whole-heartedly believed that every child
has a right to a high quality education and I wanted to be a part of a move-
ment working toward this. So I joined a controversial alternative teacher
licensing program that espoused this narrative. I dropped out after the
initial training, convinced my future students deserved a better-prepared
teacher; five weeks of training was not good enough for any child.
I enrolled in a traditional teacher preparation program. I requested
“urban” placements for student teaching and practicum (“urban” being a
euphemism for schools with high free/reduced lunch counts serving predo-
minately students of color). Reflecting back, I believe I did not have mali-
cious intentions. I did not understand that I was positioning myself as
savior or missionary, rather than ally. Although I felt strongly that socially
constructed systems of privilege are morally reprehensible by positioning
myself in such a way I was fully complicit with these. It was during my
years as an elementary teacher I began to be challenged to understand
systems of privilege and oppression more deeply; to understand the privi-
lege I was afforded solely because of my whiteness. I began to understand
the presumptuousness of the thought I could save or “empower” students
or a community. I wanted to learn more, to understand what I could do,
how I could align myself with social justice objectives. I entered graduate
school and became a teacher educator.
I began to wonder how the experiences had by preservice teachers during
their preparation could foster the ability to teach in socially just ways,
rather than reinforcing existing systems that privilege some and marginalize
others. I realized how important this was about a month later as I was
observing preservice teachers working with their elementary reading
buddies. I noticed a book entitled “The Little Black Sambo” on the top of
a stack of books a young white woman had brought to read with the nine-
year-old African-American boy she was working with. I immediately pulled
her aside and explained the racist origins of the book. Flushed with embar-
rassment she shoved the book back into her bag with repeated apologies,
216 TERRI L. RODRIGUEZ ET AL.

she hadn’t read the book but the black boy on the cover made her think
her student might like it … she didn’t mean any harm …. This incident was
the catalyst for my first scholarly inquiry into the topic of preparing
teachers in ways that cultivate socially just teaching practices.
In my current position I had the opportunity to join this research team
and continue to learn about preparing social justice activist educators. And
I am learning a great deal. Perhaps most significantly, I am struck by how
this work consistently underscores the power of stories. It is through the tell-
ing of stories that truths are uncovered, new insights gained and beliefs are
transformed. Hearing stories from multiple perspectives and different voices
is one of the most powerful lessons I’ve experienced through this work.
I consider my allies to be my students, past and present, K-12 and higher
education. My teacher education colleagues are my allies; those I see and
collaborate with daily, and those whose scholarship has challenged, pro-
voked and inspired me. And finally, I think of social justice activists both
local community and nationally to be allies. These individuals I don’t know
personally have to courage to speak out objecting to the oppression, harm
and marginalization of communities. All of these individuals teach me and
inspire me, guiding me in the lifelong work of advocating for social justice.

Maddy

I am the story of a young urban teacher. I am a white, small-town girl

teaching Spanish in a K-12 diverse urban charter school. I received my
bachelor’s degree recently from a small liberal arts college in the Midwest
with licenses to teach both secondary Language Arts and Spanish, and
I am now in my second year of teaching. Aside from my role as a class-
room teacher, I have acquired more responsibilities in my school that allow
me to have a greater voice amongst students and staff. I am a middle
school Professional Learning Community (PLC) chair and a member of my
school’s K-12 leadership team. I also advise our middle school student
council and coach track and field.
I love what I do because I get to watch both students and adults grow
through inquiry, taking risks, and reflection. I believe these elements are
key to understanding our world. I love the work that I do because it
requires both patience and a sense of humor. I strive every day to facilitate
conversations about justice because through these conversations students
and teachers are able to learn from each other and develop a sense of
understanding for one another.
Telling Our Stories 217

Racial and linguistic diversity is important to me and my work. It also

dramatically influences the dynamics and perspective of justice in and
around my school. I grew up in a public school with zero non-white or
Latino employees. My school currently has only two white students; the
rest are primarily Latino, African-American, and Hmong. As a white,
female teacher, students have unfoundedly called me mean, racist, sexist,
and unfair. Students have also called me patient, kind, understanding,
funny, and caring.
These labels are the roots of tensions that both divide and unite us

teachers and students alike. In any context, we choose and receive our
words primarily from our personal perspectives and experiences. We take
them very personally when they are directed at us. Such words are also the
obstacles to justice in my school. The emotional, social, and hormonal
chaos in the hallways and classrooms leaves little room for clear and expli-
cit assessment of learning objectives. The developmental stages of students
in grades 6
12, mixed with the pressures and demands of academic rigor
and standardized testing creates an environment where, at times, indivi-
duals feel tense and insecure. This environment also makes it difficult to
facilitate solution-driven conversations about justice.
This environment leads often times to the label “unfair.” Students are
treated “unfairly” by teachers. Schools are judged “unfairly” by the govern-
ment. Teachers are perceived as “unfair” by parents. As much as I take to
heart the words I hear my students say to each other and to me, I’ve come
to realize that a majority of the time, students’ name-calling is an outward
projection of their own internal conflicts. They focus on how they are being
treated, how their friends are being treated, or problems not even remotely
related to school. I believe that a lot of times when people use the label
“unfair,” they are correct in their own perspective. What we often times fail
to see is the other side of each and every “unfair.”
When reflecting on their behavior, students in my classroom are asked
the question “How did my behavior affect others in the class?” To this
question, a majority of students write: “IDK,” text-speak for “I don’t
know.” Students do not often realize the impact of their actions on each
other and on their classroom environment. They often times resort to deny-
ing the behavior all together, or blame others for taking their pencil. In
these instances, I turn to student reflection as the greatest behavior man-
agement tool. At times, I engage small groups of students in a discussion of
the intentions behind school rules or the logic of working and learning
together in a classroom. I have facilitated small group “to be honest”
circles where students are able discuss what’s on their mind. At times, I ask
218 TERRI L. RODRIGUEZ ET AL.

students to talk while I listen, to hear and understand their side of the story
before determining a consequence.
With these labels of “unfair,” “racist,” and “mean,” around our social
sphere, the biggest obstacle for me being an activist ally is fitting many
diverse emotional, social, and instructional needs into the time and space
allotted for a classroom. Imagine trying to weave together conversations
about gender equality with Spanish vocabulary, grammar and culture,
literacy benchmarks with content differentiated by student lexile levels, all
in 47 minutes. The emotional needs of 30 students are not going to be satis-
fied by one teacher in a single class period. The small size of my school, less
than 1,000 students K-12, greatly impacts students’ and staff’s perspectives
on justice because in this environment everyone can be heard.
Since I began student teaching two years ago, I have experienced the
innumerous ways by which a school can be “successful.” There are days
when the pressures of standards-driven curriculum takes the wheel and
teachers must design lessons to improve assessment data and make our
school more successful from a government perspective. There are days
when success is bringing students on a field trip to a skating rink and seeing
the smiles on their faces as they grow in community with one another.
There are days when success is understanding that a seventh grade student
didn’t finish her homework because she had to go to work with her mom
last night. I am learning that teachers can’t listen to every student at every
moment of need, but that we can make our classrooms and hallways places
that encourage conversations about privilege alongside and interwoven
with rigorous academic work.
My allies are my students, because they hold other teachers and me
accountable for our words and actions. My allies are my co-workers,
because we want to make our school a safe and strong community where
students have opportunities to grow and learn from each other. My allies
are also friends, family, and strangers who ask questions and continue the
conversation about our education system in the hopes of re-defining success
in American schools.

WEAVING OUR STORIES TOGETHER

The weaving of individual threads creates a tapestry. Our chapter is a col-
lective story … no longer our individual journeys or experiences, but a
shared effort that has created a unique narrative greater than the sum of its
parts. Individually, we first wove stories of identity and social justice
Telling Our Stories 219

teaching as a way to reflect upon how we position ourselves in this work

and what we are learning from it. Then we placed our stories alongside
each other. In considering how and why these tellings matter, we now
weave a new story, a research narrative, because we believe that under-
standing each other and ourselves through our stories can inform how we
might promote a more equitable world for our students. As we gaze upon
the tapestry of our work, we find the most compelling patterns in the
barriers and challenges. Our inspirations are our allies. In the following
section, we discuss four themes that emerged as central threads.

Labels and the Complexities of Identity

The task of responding to the question “Who am I?” surprised us and took
on Herculean proportions, not only because we first allotted ourselves only
100 words (it seemed like such a simple question), but because we worried
about what to include in our personal narratives. Questions arose about
intersections (or divisions?) between our personal and professional identi-
ties. “What is appropriate or relevant to tell?” we asked each other. Our
ensuing conversation both reaffirmed our collective knowledge and raised
important questions for reflection. We embody complicated identities that
reflect complex realities. We are not just an occupation, nor do we have
just one role in our classrooms or in our journeys. Yet how do we find the
language to name who we are and where we belong? We hesitate to label
ourselves as “white,” “women,” and “middle class” because we understand
how limiting labels are. In order to be helpful, we think labels must be
personally meaningful, especially in the ways we view our students. We
understand that questioning how we view our students and who we are
relative to them is an important undertaking in social justice teaching. If
we struggle with defining ourselves, we know that we must translate that
thinking to our students, their families, and our work; to how we define
“diversity;” to the euphemisms and labels we casually throw around (e.g.,
urban, at-risk, English learner, reluctant reader, low socioeconomic status).

Privilege, Authority, and Our Role in Social Justice Work

We recognize the seemingly contradictory ways that privilege can act as a

barrier and a resource in social justice teaching. For example, our racial
privilege necessarily impacts the ways we engage in this work and what we
220 TERRI L. RODRIGUEZ ET AL.

can know. There is a certain amount of uncertainty in learning about social

justice work. Although we share experiences of grounded practice in K-12
settings, we question our authority. As Kate aptly states, we suffer from
“imposter syndrome.” Do we have the knowledge necessary to enact mean-
ingful change? Have we thoroughly thought through our cultural lenses,
engaged in the necessary self-reflection, and researched ways to effectively
implement change? Who are we to act like experts? Or, as Terri questions,
how are we marked as insiders or outsiders in relation to each other, our stu-
dents, and the school communities with which we hope to build alliances?
We also recognize the opportunity that our privilege affords as a
resource. We came together to build this work from within an “elite” edu-
cational institution (Swalwell, 2014), but we are also connected by experi-
ences that were humbling and disrupting of dominant perspectives and
catalysts for new ways of thinking and changing beliefs. We understand the
construction of an elite education by welcoming and reflecting on diverse
perspectives and confronting its issues. We have understood privilege and
inequities through teaching and learning. Although our collective answer to
the question, “Can we ever do enough for our students?” is a resounding
“No,” we embrace it as an opportunity and a challenge.

Defining “Success” in Social Justice Teaching

For all of us, teacher educators and beginning teachers alike, success is
externally defined as the attainment of measurable objectives in relation to
academic standards. We carefully align our teacher preparation coursework
with one set of standards while ensuring that beginning teachers are
aligning their instruction and assessment of K-12 students with another set
of standards. But what is success in terms of social justice teaching? Is it, as
earlier referenced, dispositional movement through developmental stages
(Miller, 2008; Nieto & Bode, 2008, as cited in CEE, 2009)? Is it action?
What if social justice is embedded in paradigm shifts when there is a focus
on critical reflection, or as Kate earlier described in her teaching, “A critical
aspect of [social justice] work is to encourage preservice teachers to
consider multiple perspectives and critically reflect on their cultural
lenses … not because I want them to think in a ‘right’ way, but because of
the importance of such tasks to better our world.” Could successful social
justice teaching be considered micro-advocacy
the little bits and pieces of
every-day and all-the-time interactions between teachers and students on
the ground, so to speak, in the myriad and complex contexts and
Telling Our Stories 221

circumstances of daily classroom life? As Maddy narrates, “I have experi-

enced the innumerous ways by which a school can be ‘successful’… [W]e
can make our classrooms and hallways places that encourage conversations
about race and fairness alongside and interwoven with rigorous academic
work.” In gazing upon our research tapestry, we see how our story threads
exemplify careful acts of social justice teaching, that is, establishing safe
places for students to be heard and to grow and balancing content and
standards with students’ actual needs, strengths, and abilities. Getting to
know students in all of the complexities of their identities; hearing their
voices and perspectives; and learning from them lie at the heart of “suc-
cess” in social justice teaching.

How Are We Activist-Allies?

When Kate asks if she is “acting, and not just talking,” she illuminates a
central concern of social justice teaching. How does telling our stories
translate into our work? Could the act of reflection in itself be considered
activism? If we focus on the “ally” in “activist ally,” we remember that all
listening doesn’t require change
that sometimes listening without change
is the act. Our intent, at times, may be to focus on understanding, rather
than changing, others’ perspectives. We remind ourselves that “we don’t
know what we don’t know,” and as Madey describes, come into teaching
without “malicious intentions” even as we realize we are complicit in
oppressive systems.
Do our beliefs and definitions of social justice change with the stories we
tell and hear? Should they? Implicit in these questions is a reiteration of the
focus we see in our stories on seeking the perspectives and listening to the
voices of students. We enter the social justice world with one perspective,
but through experience and critical reflection, we see that perspective
change and evolve. Only through becoming a learner of our students
and recognizing the critical importance of a broad community: parents, stu-
dents, teachers, professors, community agencies, etc., can we work against
oppression and embrace disruptive change. Our allies range from those
closest to us to strangers to many in-between. We are encouraged to find
that we count our students as a major alliance; we see these alliances as
purposefully built through modeling and opportunity to practice. Being an
activist ally means learning from our students
how to listen, how to care,
how to act, how to inspire, and how to persevere. As Lauren’s young
Somali teacher-student said, “Miss, you have to just keep trying until it is
222 TERRI L. RODRIGUEZ ET AL.

right. That’s how you will learn.” As activist-allies, we take heart in the
wisdom and patience of our teacher-students who graciously allow us to
keep trying until it is right.

REFERENCES
Brandt, D. (2001). Literacy in American lives. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Bruner, J. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press.
Bruner, J. S. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
CEE. (2009). CEE position statement: Beliefs about social justice in English education.
Conference on English Education Commission on Social Justice. First Biennial CEE
Conference. CEE, Chicago, IL. Retrieved from http://www.ncte.org/cee/positions/
socialjustice
Clance, P. R., & Imes, S. A. (1978). The imposter phenomenon in high achieving women:
Dynamics and therapeutic intervention. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice,
15(3), 241
247. doi:10.1037/h0086006
Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (2000). Narrative inquiry. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Cochran-Smith, M. (2004). Walking the road: Race, diversity, and social justice in teacher
education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Collins, A. (2006). Cognitive apprenticeship. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook
of the learning sciences (pp. 47
60). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Connelly, F. M., & Clandinin, D. J. (Eds.). (1999). Shaping a professional identity: Stories of
educational practice. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Dahlvig, J. E. (2013). A narrative study of women leading within the council for Christian
colleges & universities. Christian Higher Education, 12(1
2), 93
109.
Delpit, L. D. (1995). Other people’s children: Cultural conflict in the classroom. New York, NY:
New Press.
Dixon-Krauss, L. (1996). Vygotsky in the classroom. Mediated literacy instruction and assess-
ment. White Plains, NY: Longman Publishers.
Gorski, P. (2013). Reaching and teaching students in poverty: Strategies for erasing the opportu-
nity gap. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Grant, C. A., & Sleeter, C. (2007). Turning on learning: Five approaches for multicultural teach-
ing plans for race, class, gender, and disability (4th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Johnson, J. (2012). “A rainforest in front of a bulldozer”: The literacy practices of teacher
candidates committed to social justice. English Education, 44(2), 147
179.
Ladson-Billings, G. (2001). Crossing over to Canaan: The journey of new teachers in diverse
classrooms. The Jossey-Bass education series. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc.
McDonald, M. (2008). The pedagogy of assignments in social justice teacher education. Equity
and Excellence in Education, 41(2), 151
167.
Miller, s. (2008). Fourthspace-revisiting social justice in teacher education. In S. Miller,
L. Beliveau, T. DeStigter, D. Kirkland, & P. Rice (Eds.), Narratives of social justice
teaching: How English teachers negotiate theory and practice between preservice and
inservice spaces (pp. 1–21). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Nieto, S., & Boyd, P. (2008). Affirming diversity. Boston, MA: Pearson Press.
Telling Our Stories 223

Overall, C. (1997). Feeling fraudulent: Some moral quandaries of a feminist instructor.

Educational Theory, 47, 1
14.
Picower, B. (2009). The unexamined whiteness of teaching: How white teachers maintain and
enact dominant racial ideologies. Race Ethnicity and Education, 12(2), 197
215.
Polkinghorne, D. (1988). Narrative knowing and the human sciences. Albany, NY: State
University of New York Press.
Rosenshine, B., & Meister, C. (1992). The use of scaffolds for teaching higher-level cognitive
strategies. Educational Leadership, 49(7), 26
33.
Stotsky, S., & Mall, C. (2003). Understanding research on teaching the English language arts:
An introduction for teachers. In J. Flood, D. Lapp, J. R. Squire, & J. M. Jensen (Eds.),
Handbook of research on teaching the English language arts (pp. 135
138). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Swalwell, K. (2014). Educating activist allies: Social justice pedagogy with the suburban and
urban elite. New York, NY: Routledge.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
This page intentionally left blank
ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Richard Beach is Professor Emeritus of English Education, University of

Minnesota. He is co-author of Identity-Focused ELA Teaching: A
Curriculum Framework for Diverse Learners and Contexts; Teaching
Literature to Adolescents, 3rd ed.; Teaching to Exceed the English Language
Arts Common Core State Standards: A Critical Inquiry Approach for 6
12
Classrooms, 2nd ed.; and Teaching Climate Change to Adolescents:
Reading, Writing, and Making a Difference. He also served as President of
the Literacy Research Association.
Deborah Bieler is Associate Professor in the Department of English at the
University of Delaware and is a former high school English teacher and
writing center director. Her research concerns the preparation and reten-
tion of equity-oriented secondary English teachers. She has published in
journals including English Education, Teachers College Record, and The
New Educator. Awards include the Conference on English Education
Research Initiative Award and the University of Delaware Trabant Award
for Women’s Equity.
Catherine (Kate) M. Bohn-Gettler is Associate Professor of Educational
Psychology at the College of St. Benedict & St. John’s University. Her
research focuses on the interconnections between emotions, learning,
and development. Such work has been published in a variety of outlets,
including the Journal of Educational Psychology, Memory & Cognition,
the Journal of Experimental Child Development, Discourse Processes, the
Journal of Research in Reading, and the Journal of Contemporary
Educational Psychology, among others.
Leslie David Burns is Program Chair of English education at the University
of Kentucky. He served on the NCTE/NCATE Task Force for National
Standards and was lead author of the first formally implemented standard
for social justice teaching and teacher education in the history of U.S.
Education. Dr. Burns is a widely published winner of the Edward Fry
Book Award and is a co-editor of Peter Lang’s Social Justice across
Contexts in Education book series.

225
226 ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Samantha Caughlan, PhD, is currently an Independent Scholar, project

director, and Consultant working out of Lansing, Michigan. From 2004 to
2014 she directed English education programs at two universities, while
studying classroom discourse and the use of video and Web 2.0 technology
with pre-service teachers. Current interests and research foci include the
effects of policy on teacher preparation in the United States and teacher
preparation in Africa and Southeast Asia.
Ross Collin is Associate Professor of English education at Virginia
Commonwealth University in Richmond, Virginia. His interests center on
literacy, curriculum theory, and socio-economic transformation. His work
has appeared in journals including Research in the Teaching of English,
Reading Research Quarterly, and Journal of Literacy Research.
Jen Scott Curwood is Senior Lecturer in English education and media
studies at the University of Sydney, Australia. Her research focuses on
literacy, technology, and teacher professional development, and her work
has appeared in the Journal of Literacy Research, Journal of Adolescent and
Adult Literacy, Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, and Teaching
Education. She also co-authored the book Conducting Qualitative Research
of Learning in Online Spaces (Sage, 2017).
Todd DeStigter is Former High School English and Social Studies teacher.
He is Associate Professor of English at the University of Illinois at
Chicago. His principal scholarly interests are secondary English teacher
education, urban literacies, and the role of literacy teaching and learning
in fostering democracy. He is the author of Reflections of a Citizen
Teacher: Literacy, Democracy, and the Forgotten Students of Addison High
(NCTE, 2001).
Marshall A. George holds an endowed chair, the Olshan Professor of
Clinical Practice, at Hunter College
City University of New York.
Previously, he was a Professor of English Education at Fordham
University and taught language arts in grades 7
12 for 10 years. Marshall
is a former Chair of the Conference on English Education and also served
on the Executive Committee of NCTE. His scholarship focuses on litera-
ture for adolescents, pre-service education, and teacher professional
development.
Christian Z. Goering is Associate Professor of English education at
the University of Arkansas where he directs the Northwest Arkansas
Writing Project and the licensure programs in English education and
About the Authors 227

Theatre/Communications. He writes mostly about the varying uses of

music in the teaching of English and recently co-edited Recontextualized: A
Framework for Teaching English with Music (Sense, 2016). He also writes
about education policy and is an outspoken advocate for public education.
Heidi L. Hallman is Associate Professor of English education at the
University of Kansas. Her interests include “at risk” students’ literacy
learning as well as the preparation of prospective English teachers. Her
research has been published in English Education, Teacher Education
Quarterly, Equity & Excellence in Education and Journal of Adolescent &
Adult Literacy. She is author of Millennial Teachers: Learning to Teach in
Uncertain Times (Routledge, 2017) and co-author of Community Fieldwork
in Teacher Education: Theory and Practice (Routledge, 2015).
Madeleine (Madey) H. Israelson, PhD, is Assistant Professor of Literacy
Education at the College of Saint Benedict & St. John’s University. Her
research interests include teacher education, social justice pedagogy, early
literacy instruction, digital literacies, and technology integration in literacy
instruction. Her work has been published in Educational Researcher, The
Reading Teacher, and Research in the Teaching of English.
Anthony Johnston is Assistant Professor at the University of Saint Joseph
in West Hartford, Connecticut. He is a co-author, along with Richard
Beach and Amanda Haertling Thein, of Identity-Focused ELA Teaching
(Routledge, 2016). Johnston’s research examines the intersection between
identity development and literacy practices for adolescents. His current
project looks at the use of donated Kindle e-readers to enhance access
to literature for non-dominant youth in high poverty, under-resourced
secondary schools.
Jayne C. Lammers is Assistant Professor and Director of the secondary
English teacher preparation program in the Warner Graduate School of
Education and Human Development at University of Rochester (USA).
Her research explores adolescents’ writing and literacy practices, particu-
larly in “in the wild” online spaces, for the purpose of informing literacy
classrooms. Her scholarship has appeared in Research in the Teaching of
English, Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, and Literacy.
Kati Macaluso is Fellow of the Institute for Educational Initiatives and
an Assistant Professor of the Practice in the Alliance for Catholic
Education’s (ACE) MEd Program at the University of Notre Dame. Her
research focuses on English Education, including ELA teacher preparation
228 ABOUT THE AUTHORS

in a 21st century context, the value of poetic literacy practices, and the
spiritual and embodied dimensions of literary reading.
Michael Macaluso is Fellow of the Institute for Educational Initiatives and
an Assistant Professor of the Practice for English Education in the Alliance
for Catholic Education at the University of Notre Dame. In addition to
teaching methods and education-related courses in this role, he works with
new and beginning teachers of all disciplines and grade levels
and their
school systems
across the country. His primary research focuses on criti-
cal approaches in English Education.
Alecia Marie Magnifico is Assistant Professor at the University of
New Hampshire, where she coordinates the English Teaching program.
She teaches courses on teaching methods, digital literacies, and research
methods, and her research interests focus on understanding, supporting,
and encouraging adolescents’ and teachers’ writing. Her recent work can be
found in Literacy and the Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, and she
is a co-author of Conducting Qualitative Research of Learning in Online
Spaces (Sage).
Cori McKenzie is Doctoral Student in the Curriculum, Instruction and
Teacher Education program at Michigan State University. She is interested
in exploring how contemporary theory might help scholars and teachers
re-imagine English teacher preparation, approaches to literature instruction
in secondary classrooms, and qualitative research methodologies.
Madeline (Maddy) A. O’Brien is 2010 graduate of the College of Saint
Benedict in St. Joseph, Minnesota, where she majored in English and
Hispanic Studies. She spent two years teaching middle school and high
school Spanish in Brooklyn Park, Minnesota and currently teaches high
school Spanish in Hastings, Minnesota. She has worked both locally and
internationally to learn and teach about social justice and continues to use
language education as an integral tool for social justice activism.
Donna L. Pasternak is Professor of English Education in the Department
of Curriculum and Instruction at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.
She directed the English education Program from 2001 through 2011 and
is the site director for the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Writing
Project. Her scholarship has focused on the teaching of literature and
writing, critical inquiry, teacher development, and the integration of tech-
nology into the teaching of English. She has published widely in these
areas.
About the Authors 229

Robert Petrone is Associate Professor of English education at Montana

State University. His research interests include learning and literacy in
youth cultures, re-conceptualizing “adolescence/ts” in English education,
the role of critical literacy and popular culture in secondary English class-
rooms, and English education within rural contexts. Recent publications
can be found in Journal of Literacy Research, Teaching and Teacher
Education, English Education, and Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy.
His co-authored book (with Sophia Tatiana Sarigianides and Mark A.
Lewis), Re-Thinking the “Adolescent” in Adolescent Literacy, is due in 2017.
He can be reached at robert.petrone@gmail.com
Jody Polleck is Associate Professor and Coordinator for the literacy pro-
gram at Hunter College of the City University of New York and a literacy
intervention teacher and coach in New York City. Her research focus is
with urban adolescents, focusing on critical, culturally responsive, and
differentiated literacy instruction across the curriculum. She has published
in journals such as Reading and Writing Quarterly, The Clearinghouse
Journal of Educational Strategies, Reading Horizons, ALAN Review, The
High School Journal, and The English Journal.
Laura Renzi is Associate Professor of English at West Chester University
of Pennsylvania. She currently teaches methods courses, young adult litera-
ture, and supervises the student teaching experience for English teacher
education candidates, as well as serves as the coordinator of the English
Education program.
Terri L. Rodriguez is Associate Professor of Middle/Secondary Literacy
Education at the College of St. Benedict & St. John’s University. She is
also a former high school English teacher. Her forthcoming book, entitled
Beyond Hijab and Halal: A Practical Guide for Educators of Muslim
Students, will be available in Spring 2017 published by Rowman &
Littlefield. Other recent publications are featured in Literacy Research and
Instruction (2015), Multicultural Perspectives (2013), and Linguistics and
Education (2012).
Leslie Rush is Professor in the Department of Secondary Education and
Associate Dean for Undergraduate Programs in the College of Education
at the University of Wyoming. A former high school English teacher,
Dr. Rush currently focuses her research on disciplinary literacy in English
Language Arts and English methods courses in English teacher education
programs. Dr. Rush also serves as a member of the Conference on English
Education’s Executive Committee.
230 ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Sophia Tatiana Sarigianides is Associate Professor of English Education at

Westfield State University. Her research interests include conceptions of
adolescence in teacher thinking, young adult literature, and the role of race
in English teaching. Recent publications can be found in Curriculum
Inquiry, Educational Theory, Journal of Literacy Research, and Journal of
Adolescent & Adult Literacy. Re-Thinking the “Adolescent” in Adolescent
Literacy, her co-authored book (with Robert Petrone and Mark A. Lewis),
is due in 2017.
Melissa Schieble, PhD, is Associate Professor of English education at
Hunter College of the City University of New York. Her research investi-
gates English teacher preparation to meet the needs of diverse youth. She is
co-author with Dr. Amy Vetter of the book, Observing Teacher Identities
through Video Analysis (Routledge), and her work has appeared in the
Journal of Teacher Education, Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy,
English Journal, and Changing English among others. She is a member of
NCTE and coordinates the MA program in English education.
Amanda Haertling Thein is Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and
Graduate Programs, and Associate Professor of Language, Literacy, and
Culture in the University of Iowa’s College of Education. Her scholarship
has been published in Research in the Teaching of English, English Journal,
and Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy. She is co-author of Teaching
to Exceed the English Language Arts Common Core State Standards
(Routledge, 2016) and is co-editor of English Teaching: Practice & Critique.
Lauren Thoma is English as well as Second Language teacher. She teaches
high school learners who are gaining their first exposure to English. Most
of these students are refugees who have limited formal education. Lauren
also has a license to teach English as a first language in an ELA setting.
Currently, Lauren is starting her third year of teaching and finishing a
Master’s degree in TESOL.
Peter Williamson is Associate Professor, Teaching, at Stanford University.
He is the Faculty Director of the Stanford Teacher Education Program for
Secondary Teachers. Before coming to Stanford, Peter was an Associate
Professor at the University of San Francisco, were he co-founded the San
Francisco Teacher Residency Program. Peter earned his doctorate at
Stanford, and he studies urban education, English education, curriculum,
and literacy. He began his career as a special education teacher for students
with emotional and behavioral challenges and later taught English and
journalism in the Bay Area’s urban public schools.
About the Authors 231

Shelbie Witte, the Kim and Chuck Watson Endowed Chair in Education, is
Associate Professor of Adolescent Literacy at Oklahoma State University.
Witte has published extensively on 21st century literacies and teacher repre-
sentations in popular culture. Witte is journal co-editor of NCTE’s Voices
from the Middle, directs the OSU Writing Project, and founded the
Initiative for 21st Century Literacies Research, a think tank of 21st century
literacies practitioners and researchers.