Interactional Ethnography An Approach To

Interactional Ethnography:
An Approach to Studying the

Social Construction of
Literate Practices
Maria Lucia Castanheira
Teresa Crawford
Carol N. Dixon
Judith L. Green
University of California, Santa Barbara, CA, USA
What counts as literacy in any group is visible in the actions members take, what they
are oriented towards, for what they hold each other accountable, what they accept or
reject as preferred responses of others, and how they engage with, interpret and
construct text. This article examines the processes through which a set of literate
practices were constructed and reconstructed by the teacher and students across five
classes for a Year 11 student in a vocationally oriented school in Australia. The
comparative analysis of the five classrooms examined what counted as literacy in the
Mathematics, Industry Studies Metal, Hospitality and Food Technology and General
English. Through analysis of what counted as text, as literate practices, and as
participation in each class, we illustrate our research approach, Interactional
Ethnography, and provide a theoretical discussion of the relationships between theory
and method.
This article illustrates what we learned about the literacy demands of subject-
area classes experienced by Aaron, the Year 11 student selected for our
analysis by the Australian research team. The data analyzed were drawn from
all five of his classes: Food Technology, General English, Hospitality, Industry
Studies Metal, and Mathematics. As requested, we begin with a brief definition
of our perspective on literacy. We follow this with a description of our
approach, interactional ethnography, and the presentation of representative
Direct all correspondence to: Judith L. Green, Givertz Graduate School of Education, University of
California-Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA 93106, USA. E-mail: green@edu-ucsb.edu
Linguistics and Education 11(4): 353 ± 400 All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
Copyright D 2001 by Elsevier Science Inc. ISSN: 0898 ± 5898
354 CASTANHEIRA ET AL.
findings on the literacy demands, and literate actions and practices made
visible through this approach.
To illustrate our approach, we elected to include a broad range of analyses
to demonstrate our logic of inquiry (Birdwhistell, 1977; Gee & Green, 1998).
For each analysis, we describe particular analytic tools used and findings
identified. The analyses of literate demands are presented in two parts. In the
first set of analyses, we explored what was happening in each class by
tracing who Aaron interacted with, about what, in what ways, for what
purposes, when and where, and with what outcomes. By tracing Aaron's
interactions across time and events in the five subject-area classes, we made
visible the literate practices, actions, and demands that were shaped by, and in
turn, shaped the opportunities to construct, take up, and display knowledge
and learning.
In the second set of analyses, we compare and contrast the demands for
being literate in the subject-area classes. As part of these analyses, we illustrate
the situated nature of literate practices. Additionally, we demonstrate how,
through such practices, members of each class were afforded particular
opportunities to construct knowledge, as well as identities as readers, writers,
students, and members of a disciplinary community of practice, among other
roles and relationships. The third set of analyses focus on identifying who
shaped the opportunities afforded students for engaging with and constructing
the literate practices and disciplinary knowledge identified in the previous
analyses. Through a process of comparing and contrasting what was con-
structed as curriculum (i.e., the observed curriculum) with statements about
curriculum (i.e., the official curriculum), we examine the relationships between
micro and macro contexts, and how this relationship influenced the opportu-
nities for learning afforded students in each course as well as in the vocational
course he studied.
Table 1 describes the data set provided for analysis.
LITERACY DEFINED: A SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION PERSPECTIVE

The definition of literacy underlying our research approach and theoretical
orientation is grounded in work on the social construction of knowledge. From
this perspective, literacy is a socially constructed phenomenon that is situa-
tionally defined and redefined within and across differing social groups
including reading groups, families, classrooms, schools, communities, and
professional groups (e.g., educators, lawyers, administrators, and plumbers).
What counts as literacy in any group is visible in the actions members take,
what they orient to, what they hold each other accountable for, what they
accept or reject as preferred responses of others, and how they engage with,
interpret, and construct text (e.g., Bloome, 1983, 1991; Bloome & Green, 1984,
INTERACTIONAL ETHNOGRAPHY 355
Table 1. Data Provided for Analysis

Amount of Data
Category Content data received requested
Video English class (1 hour Two videotapes Two additional days
13 minutes) (226 minutes) for these classes to
Industry StudiesÐMetal triangulate patterns
(27 minutes) observed and to insure
Mathematics (35 minutes) representativeness of
Hospitality Studies (34 minutes) day analyzed
Replacement Lessons
in Food Technology
(46 minutes)
Classroom written Reading and Writing quiz One example Other written
artifacts: Aaron's Completed letter of each material (none sent)
work Student responses to Math
worksheet (no artifacts for
Industry StudiesÐMetal)
Teacher handoutÐbackground
information with student
highlights
Printed artifacts Workbook for English One copy Other printed
Math worksheet of each material (none sent)
Excerpts from NSW
resources manual for
National Metal and
Engineering courses
Excerpts from NSW
Board of Studies Industry
Studies syllabus
Teacher handoutÐbackground
information
Recipe
Project description Grant submission
Contextual System
information School
Strands
Subjects
Student (Aaron)
Editing notes
(explain video record)
1992; Green & Harker, 1982; Heap, 1980, 1991; Heath, 1982; Santa Barbara
Classroom Discourse Group, 1992a).
Literacy, therefore is not located in the heads of individuals or a process that is
the same for all people in all situations (cf., Baker & Luke, 1991; Bloome, 1985;
Cook-Gumperz, 1986; Gee, 1990; Street, 1984). Nor is literacy a state of being
that one achieves like a state of grace (Santa Barbara Classroom Discourse
Group, 1992a; Scribner, 1984). Rather, it is a dynamic process in which what

literate actions mean are continually being constructed and reconstructed by
individuals as they become members of a new social group (e.g., classes,
families, professions). Being a member of a class, then, means understanding,
constructing, and engaging in literate actions that mark membership in that class
(Chandler, 1992; Green, Weade, & Graham, 1988; Putney, 1996; Rex, Green, &
Dixon, 1997). In this process, individuals also display actions that mark them as
members of a particular group or subgroup within that classÐi.e., a person who
reads like a member of the top reading group, or like a member of the low
reading group (Allington, 1984; Bloome & Egan-Robertson, 1993; Collins,
1983, 1986; Bloome, 1987; Scribner & Cole, 1981). From this perspective, we
must talk about literacies and not literacy (Barton, 1994, Gee, 1990; Luke, 1995;
Street, 1984) for no one definition can capture the range of occurrence in
everyday life in classrooms, the multiplicity of demands, or the ways of engaging
in literacy within and across groups (e.g., Rex et al., 1997; Santa Barbara
Classroom Discourse Group, 1992a).
Therefore, to conceptualize literacy as socially constructed is to understand
that literacy is both a product of, and a cultural tool for, a social group. In
other words, the practices constructed by and made available to members, in
and through their everyday actions, constitute literacy as a situated process
(Barton, 1994; Bloome, 1983, 1991; Fairclough, 1995; Gee, 1996; Green &
Harker, 1982; Heap, 1991; Street, 1984; Wells & Chang-Wells, 1992). Further,
literate practices are developed as a collective develops (e.g., classroom,
reading group, and a peer group) and serve the purposes and goals of both
the collective and the individual-within-the-collective (cf., Lima, 1995).
Members of a group are afforded, and at times denied, access to particular
opportunities for constructing and acquiring the repertoire of literate practices
needed to participate in socially and culturally appropriate ways (Kantor,
Green, Bradley, & Lin, 1992; Putney, Green, Dixon, Duran, & Yeager, 2000;
Rex et al., 1997; Tuyay, Jennings, & Dixon, 1995). Just what constitutes an
individual's repertoire within as well as across collectives depends on which
opportunities she or he has had access to and which opportunities he or she
takes up (Alton-Lee & Nuthall, 1992, 1993; Floriani, 1993; Heras, 1993;
Ivanic, 1994; Prentiss, 1995).
THEORY ±METHOD RELATIONSHIPS: HOW AN INTERACTIONAL

ETHNOGRAPHIC1 PERSPECTIVE FRAMES ANALYSIS
This view of literacy as literate practices constructed by members of particular
groups requires us, as interactional ethnographers, to ask the question: What
counts as literacy and as literate actions, practices, and demands within the group
being studied? What counts as literacy can be examined across a wide range of
social and cultural contexts. From this perspective, the interactional ethnographer
examines what members count as literacy, literate processes, literate actions,
literate practices, and literate artifacts. The ethnographer also considers how
these processes, practices, and artifacts contribute to situated definitions of and
principles for defining what counts as literacy within and across times and events
in the classroom (and other institutional settings). The interactional ethnographer,
therefore, must look at what is constructed in and through the moment-by-
moment interactions among members of a social group; how members negotiate
events through these interactions; and the ways in which knowledge and texts
generated in one event become linked to, and thus a resource for, members'
actions in subsequent events. In this way, the ethnographer examines how
literacy is talked, acted, and written into being, and how, through their actions,
members make visible to each other what counts as appropriate discursive and
literate practices.
To examine the ties or links between processes, and the repertoire of actions
and knowledge needed across time and events, we draw on the construct of
intertextuality (Bloome & Egan-Robertson, 1993). Using the criteria for
identifying the socially constructed nature of intertextuality proposed by
Bloome and Bailey (1992) and Bloome and Egan-Robertson (1993), we argue
that, as members interact across times and events, they propose, recognize,
interactionally accomplish, and acknowledge, through words and actions, the
existence and social significance of intertextual ties. For this article, we see
them as guiding our exploration of the following: the explicitly stated, and the
implicitly inferred, requirements for participation; the literacy demands entailed
by membership in each of the subject-area classes; the opportunities for
learning afforded members of each class; what members did to learn; and the
consequences for members of using or not taking up such opportunities or
meeting such demands.
Given the data provided by the Australian research team, we were not able
to examine in any depth the intertextual ties across times and events, or to
understand those implicitly recognized by members.2 This state-of-affairs, then,
limited our ability to provide evidence that the practices, created in local
contexts we observed, became principles of practice that members used to
guide their actions in other contexts (cf., Frake, 1980 as cited in Spradley,
1980).3 We were, however, able to use the criteria as a tool for taking a
member's or an emic perspective. For example, in particular classes, we were
able to examine the intertextual references that were explicit in the talk among
members (e.g., ``what we've done for the last two days,'' ``next week there will
be another test''). For those classes for which we had more than 1 day, we were
also able to examine some of the practices and processes that were used by
members across days, and thus to understand their social significance. In these
instances, we were able to meet the criteria proposed by Bloome and his
colleagues. However, given the limited history available to us, the interpreta-
tions proposed, while grounded in the actions of the actors within and across a
limited time, are tentative ones, ones that must be viewed as illustrative
descriptions of our approach, as limited statements about literate practices,
and not statements about literacy in each of these classes.
STUDYING LITERATE PRACTICES AS SOCIALLY CONSTRUCTED:

DEVELOPING QUESTIONS, DATA, REPRESENTATIONS,
AND ANALYSES
As argued previously, we used an ethnographic perspective to address and
analyze the data provided by the Australian research group (Cumming &
Wyatt-Smith, 1995); we did not engage in doing ethnography in the full sense
of this term (cf., Green & Bloome, 1983, 1997). However, as in any ethnography,
we entered with an overarching question, and then engaged in a set of iterative
processes that led to the generation of new questions, ones that were relevant to
the local context being studied. Through these processes, we constructed data
from the raw records and artifacts provided. Figure 1 provides an illustrative
representation of this data construction and analysis process.
As indicated in Figure 1, our overarching question was: How can we
understand the ways in which literate practices are shaped, and in turn shape,
the everyday events of classroom life, and thus, the opportunities that Aaron
(and his peers) had for learning? To construct an answer to this question, we
undertook a series of data representation steps and analyses, each of which was
guided by subsequent questions generated by our interactions with the data and
the findings visible through those interactions. This process constitutes the
Ethnographic Research Cycle as characterized by Spradley (1980). Each
subcycle is represented within a box in Figure 1, as is the interactive ±
responsive nature of the cycles. Thus, while we did not engage in the extended
data collection generally associated with comprehensive ethnography, we argue
that adopting an ethnographic perspective, and engaging in the iterative
research cycle for constructing and analyzing these data, provide a theoretical
approach to examining the relationship of discourse and interpretation in each
class setting (Green & Bloome, 1983, 1997).
The series of events analyzed for the subject-area classes constituted a
4-hour block of time (five class periods as represented in Table 1). As we will
illustrate, the iterative research process enabled us to examine a range of
cultural practices and to explore how these practices, in turn, shaped what was
interactionally accomplished. Our analyses included examining the require-
ments for literate action that were situationally constructed within and across
time and events, the social significance of, and consequences for Aaron of such
actions, as well as what counted as local knowledge within each class.
Figure 1. Logic of Inquiry: Analytic Process.

REPRESENTING AND ANALYZING LITERATE ACTION AS

DIALOGIC PRACTICE
Through our analytic approach (see Figure 1), we created a series of transcripts,
data tables, and domain analyses that we later used contrastively4 to construct a
grounded perspective on literate practices across the subject-area classes. The
initial phase of the analysis of Aaron's literate opportunities entailed three levels
of map construction: a time-stamped description of the chain of activity, an event
map representing the episodic nature of members' activity (dialogue as action),5
and comparative timelines of the events and phases of activity. These structura-
tion6 maps form the basis for subsequent representations and analyses. Thus, they
became core texts within our analytic process. Each was constructed by
observing how time was spent, with whom, on what, for what purposes, when,
where, under what conditions, and with what outcomes (Green & Wallat, 1979;
Green & Meyer, 1991; Green et al., 1988; Santa Barbara Classroom Discourse
Group, 1992a, 1992b; Spradley, 1980) and represents a different level of
differentiation of information.
By observing these aspects of concerted activity among members of each
class, we were able to identify the phases of activity constructed by
participants. The boundary of a phase of activity is interactionally marked
by the participants through discourse and other contextualization cues (Gum-
perz, 1992), and shows the differentiated nature of conversation and action.
By examining which phases of activity tie together around a common task, we
were able to identify events and subevents of everyday life in these class-
rooms. Event maps (as all structuration maps), therefore, represent the ebb and
flow of activity, constituting socially significant processes and practices within
a given period of time, e.g., a school day or a class session (Spradley, 1980,
p. 78).
In the sections that follow, we will present a description of each structuration
map and discuss what each permitted us to understand, examine, and know. As
part of the discussion, we will show how theory ±method relationships guided
our interactional ethnographic approach, and demonstrate the generative nature
of question construction and data analysis practices and processes. Further, we
will demonstrate how the contrastive analysis approach was central to identify-
ing intertextual relationships within and across time and events, as well as other
types of literate practices afforded Aaron and his peers.
However, before describing the analysis steps and what we found from each
type of analysis, we describe our team and the ways in which we addressed the
record provided. The research team consisted of two senior researchers (Carol
Dixon and Judith Green) and a group of doctoral students, with a range of
experience in ethnography. We elected to begin with the video record of
classroom life, given our focus on what is constructed as curriculum, as
opportunities for learning, and as literate practices afforded members of a social

group. Teresa Crawford, at that time an advanced doctoral student and
experienced researcher, acted as the project coordinator. She made running
data records of each of the classes on the videotape (see Table 2). These
running records and copies of the two tapes were then given to members of a
study group that formed to explore issues of analysis and theory ±method
relationships using the Australian data (Maria Lucia Castanheira, Crawford,
Julie Esch, Marli Costa Hodel, Cynthia Hughart, Silvia Neves, Pedro Paz,
Nuno Sena, and Rosemary Staley). Members of the study group formed teams
to conduct a set of parallel analyses, each team focusing on one of Aaron's
classes. Each team made a transcript of one class, event maps of their class
session, and maps representing the use of physical space in their classroom.
These analyses, then, formed the basis for the discussion, interpretations, and
subsequent analyses conducted by the authors of this article.
Analyses of the written artifacts provided by the Australian research team
were undertaken after we identified the lived experiences of the observed
curriculum. These written documents served to inform our understanding of
Aaron's experiences, and to answer questions of what supported and/or
constrained the opportunities for learning to be literate afforded Aaron through
participation in these classes. They also provided information about the original
research team's collection procedures and purpose, the state and school
curriculum, and other related policy information.
This approach provided a theoretically driven way of allowing us to bracket
our own cultural expectations, and to search for evidence of the relationships
between the stated (official) and the lived (observed) curriculum that shaped
Aaron's experiences. While this may underestimate the influence of external
factors, it holds us accountable to the claims of relationship that can be seen or
were available to students within the classroom. This approach was particularly
important given the goal of the original research team in obtaining a student
perspective (e.g., a student cam approach).
ON WHAT EVENTS WERE CONSTRUCTED IN THESE CLASSES,

WHERE, UNDER WHAT CONDITIONS, WITH WHOM, AND WITH
WHAT OUTCOMES?
As discussed previously, to answer this question, we constructed three types of
structuration maps. Each will be presented in turn. To begin our exploration of
what counted as literate practices across the five subject-area classes, we
created a running data record of activity for each class. For the purpose of
illustration, we present an excerpt from the mathematics class (Table 2). The
selection of the running record of mathematics is purposeful in that it provides
a clear example of what a running record affords us as researchers.
Table 2. Constructing a Running Record Identifying Chain Of Activity: Segment of

Time-Stamped Video-Based Fieldnotes of the Mathematics Class
01:42:14 [New environment] Aaron sits at single table against window. Another table in front of him
is empty. [Can hear voices in the room, but cannot see anyone else]
01:43:28 Female (researcher?) sets tape recorder on Aaron's desk (Why didn't we get these
audio tapes?)
01:44:23 Male voice (Teacher?) gives assignment: something about ``consolidation period'' and
``working on consolidating what they've done for the last two days.'' Aaron starts writing
in binder.
01:44:31 Someone (female student?) asks Aaron to close window. He does, then continues writing.
[Can hear voices in background. The male voice heard earlier is talking about mathematics
computations.] (I'm assuming from the tone of interaction that this is the teacher.)
01:46:26 (T?) comes over to Aaron and asks if he's ``got it?'' Can see the half sheet of paper that I
recognize as one of the mathematics artifacts. Aaron answers, `Ìt would be three?'' He says
no and works with Aaron on how to do differentiation. [Can see the man pointing to Aaron's
work and talking with him, but the camera does not show him]
01:47:06 Aaron looks up (as if for affirmation?). The man says ``that's right, let's have a little
confidence in yourself.'' Aaron smiles and keeps working, with interaction and guidance
from (T?)
01:48:29 (T?) leaves saying, ``Very good, that's right. You're getting there.'' Aaron keeps working.
[Can hear the man's voice talking in the background]
01:53:51 (T?) returns to (check on?) Aaron. [can only see hand (T?) pointing at paper]. (T?) takes
Aaron's pen and draws a graph to illustrate what the problem worked out. He tells Aaron
that what they've `àctually worked out gives meaning to the process of differentiation.''
They continue to work together on another problem. (I'm assuming the man left because
there is no more talk) [The camera is zoomed in on Aaron's hand so can't see if there is
anyone standing near him]
01:57:32 [Camera zooms out to show Aaron still working, alone at his table]
01:58:54 Aaron gets distracted by something or someone and watches (other students?) [based on the
voices in the direction he's looking]
01:59:21 He goes back to work; shakes his head
The running data record was created using a software program called C-Video
that allowed us to place a time-stamp in a file that is compatible with Microsoft
Word. A time-stamp was placed on the page each time a change in activity
occurred as indicated by member(s)' actions. This time-stamp served two
purposes. It provided a way of creating a written record of when-in-time a
particular chain of activity occurred, and it allowed the transcriber(s) to return to
the same moment in time on the videotape each time they wanted to examine a
particular chain of activity.
Information placed on this record formed a video-based field note, akin
to field notes taken in situ. Building on the conceptualization of field notes
by Cosaro (1981), the running data record contained three types of
information: general descriptions (descriptive notes) of activity of the focal
group as indicated by the camera angle; data and methodological notes
marked by [ ]; and theoretical and personal notes (e.g., questions or research

assumptions) indicated by ( ). For example, on Table 2 at 01:44:31 (1 hour,
44 minutes, and 31 seconds into the videotape), someone (a female?) asked
Aaron to close the window. While this request for action was hearable, that
is, it was audible, we do not know who this person was, given that the
camera was focused solely on Aaron during this chain of activity. This
interpretation was indicated by writing (female student?). Rather than
assuming who the actors are in a given context, we seek grounded
information about them and the roles and relationships constructed by
members as part of their face-to-face interactions.
By observing Aaron's actions, we saw how he took up and responded to
this request.7 In reaching over and closing the window, Aaron made visible
how he interpreted the request and how he elected to respond. Thus, what
was audible was identified as socially significant, as marked by Aaron's
chain of activity. Also audible in this chain of activity was a male voice
talking about ``mathematics computation'' (emic or folk terms).8
The next step in our data representation and analysis process involved the
construction of an event map (see Table 3). Event maps are constructed in
particular ways from the data in running records. They provide a picture of
part ± whole/whole ±part relationships and the ways in which members structure
their world (cf., Erickson & Shultz, 1981). For example, Table 3 represents a
basic set of relationships that guide our approach to exploring the constructed
nature of events and literate practices. Each column can be read alone or in
combination with subsequent ones. As we move from left to right across the
table, a more fine-grained and differentiated set of information is provided.
The final column on this event map provided space for theoretical, personal,
data and methodological notes that were embedded in the running data
records, thus separating interpretive information and issues from descriptions
of social activity.
The second column, Phase Units, and the fourth column, Literate Practices,
were particularly important to our understanding of the opportunities for
learning to be literate afforded Aaron in this mathematics class. The Phase
Units column allowed us to understand the ways in which time was spent
proportionally in this class. For example, the pattern of activity visible in Table
3 was one in which Aaron shifted from individual work to interactive work
with an adult male (the teacher?) and then back to individual work. The camera
angle did not allow us to see whether or not this pattern was the same for other
students in the class, or how the teacher managed the organization of the class
as a whole. In column three (Sequence Units), the actions/activities which made
up each Phase Unit are visible.
To analyze the data represented in this table, we engaged in a process of
juxtaposing the actions and interactions of members across phases of work (i.e.,
364
Table 3. Identifying Phase and Sequence Units: Segment of Event Map of the Mathematics Class
Sequence units
Time Phase units (actions/activities) Literate practices Notes/comments
01:43:28 CalculusÐ Female (researcher?) sets tape
CASTANHEIRA ET AL.
Individual recorder on Aaron's desk.
work session Why don't we have these audio tapes?
01:44:23 Male voice gives assignment: T? setting assignment, Male voice (Teacher?)
something about ``consolidation T? makes intertextual
period'' and working on consolidating reference, A writing
what they've done for the last two days. in binder
Aaron starts writing in binder.
01:44:31 Someone asks Aaron to close window. A responds appropriately Is the voice a female student?
He does, then continues writing. to oral directive I can hear voices in background.
The male voice I heard earlier is
talking about mathematics
computations. I'm assuming from
the tone of interaction that this is
the teacher.
01:46:26 Interactive (T?) comes over to A responding to academic I can see the half sheet of paper that I
work session Aaron and asks if he's ``got it?'' question, T? provides recognize as one of the mathematics
Aaron answers, `Ìt would be three?'' (T?) information on accuracy and artifacts in the data provided for
says no and works with Aaron on how to do supports student in doing analysis. I can see the man pointing to
differentiation. mathematical problem Aaron's work and hear him talking,
but the camera doesn't show him.
01:47:06 Aaron looks up at the (T?). (T?) says T? responds to work and Aaron's facial expression looks
``that's right, let's have a little confidence to person, encouraging as though he is trying to get
in yourself.'' Aaron smiles and keeps self-confidence, A continues affirmation for his answer.
working, with interaction and guidance writing
from (T?)
01:48:29 Individual (T?) leaves saying, ``Very good, T? gives affirmation, A continues I can hear him walk away and then
work session that's right. You're getting there.'' writing his voice in the background.
Aaron keeps working.
01:53:51 Interactive (T?) returns to ``check on'' Aaron. He takes T? provides graph to illustrate I can only see him pointing at
work session Aaron's pen and draws a graph to problem solution, A and T work Aaron's paper. Assuming T?
INTERACTIONAL ETHNOGRAPHY
illustrate what the problem worked out. together walked away because there is no
He tells Aaron that what they have more talkÐthe camera is zoomed
`àctually worked out gives meaning to on Aaron's hand so can't see
the process of differentiation.'' anything else.
They continue to work together
on another problem.
01:57:32 Individual Aaron writing A writing Camera zooms out to show Aaron
work session still working, alone at his table.
01:58:54 Aaron gets distracted by something or This assumption based on the voices
someone and looks at (other students?) in the direction he's looking
01:59:21 Aaron goes back to work; shakes his A writing
head back and forth.
365
individual or interactive) to identify the kind of literate practices engaged in by

Aaron and the adult. For example, across all phase units, we saw Aaron engage in
a range of literate practices: writing in a binder, responding to an oral directive,
answering a question posed by the adult, and working interactively with the adult
while writing in his binder.
After analyzing the range of literate practices, we then took a focused look at
particular phases of activity to explore further how these practices were related to
Aaron's developing understanding of mathematical concepts. In the second phase
unit (01:46:26, Interactive Work session), Aaron signaled his still developing
sense of mathematical literacy by posing his response to the adult's question as
another question (`ìt would be three'' said with a rising inflection). The adult, in
turn, indicated to Aaron that this response was incorrect and worked with Aaron
to increase his understanding of differentiation. After this interaction, Aaron
again questioned the accuracy of his own response by his action of looking at the
adult. This time he received affirmative responses, after which he continued
working on the assignment.
In a second focused analysis, we shifted from Aaron to the teacher to examine
how his actions helped Aaron understand what was academically significant in
these moments (a process of cultural mediationÐcf., Vygotsky, 1987). This
analysis of the patterns of activity by the adult with Aaron across the phase units
in this segment of the class session made visible what counted as a ``consolida-
tion period'': It was a period in which the adult provided specific support for
Aaron (and other students?) to develop and consolidate their knowledge of the
concept being studied (i.e., the process of differentiation). He (the teacher?)
accomplished this by engaging with Aaron in a number of ways: by requesting
information from Aaron about his understanding, by observing Aaron's response,
by providing guidance in doing the work, by giving affirmative responses about
the processes of thinking (e.g., ``give yourself credit'') and doing (e.g., ``you are
getting there''), and by returning to check once more on Aaron's process. The
segment at 01:53:52 is a telling case (Mitchell, 1984) in that it showed that the
adult (teacher?) continued to provide support for Aaron's work and under-
standing. In this segment, he joined with Aaron in constructing a representation,
and then, indicated that their joint actions were academically significant by
stating that what they have `àctually worked out gives meaning to the process of
differentiation.'' Through the dialogue of action and of talk, the teacher supported
Aaron in talking and acting the mathematical process into being, thus providing
him with a rationale for this work, further defining what was meant by this
mathematic process.
In the brief analyses presented above, we identified ways in which the
teacher shaped literate practices in mathematics. These practices constitute a
situated view of what counts as doing and knowing mathematics. One practice
that Aaron learned was that it was possible to work collaboratively with
someone who had more knowledge to construct jointly an understanding, not

merely an answer. He also had opportunities to see that he was capable, and
that he needed to have ``confidence'' in his ability to do this work. He learned
that mathematical knowledge entailed a range of types of representations:
graphs, numerical data represented as mathematical sentences (visible on
Aaron's written artifacts), and oral data. Finally, through Aaron's interactions
with the teacher, he had the opportunity to understand that mathematical
knowledge was social knowledge, knowledge of a group, and not merely
personal knowledge.
From this perspective, to be literate in mathematics in this class entailed
knowledge of discursive practices (ways of talking mathematics), semiotic
systems (ways of communicating meaning through multiple sign systems),
and cultural resources (prior knowledge of mathematical processes; physical
materials or tools including binders, workbooks, pencils, and paper; and so
forth). It also entailed the construction of identityÐe.g., identity as a mathe-
matics student, as a successful problem solver, and as a worthy, valued, and
appropriate conversational partner.9 Viewed in this way, literate practices and
processes entailed both the interpretation and production of textÐoral, written,
visual, and graphic, through which meanings about the assigned mathematical
problems were constructed.
ON CONTRAST AS A HEURISTIC FOR MEANING CONSTRUCTION:

WHAT CAN BE SEEN BY EXAMINING LITERATE PRACTICES
ACROSS AARON'S CLASSES
In presenting the interpretation of the information inscribed on event maps, we
illustrated the contrastive nature of our interactional ethnographic approach. As
indicated previously, contrast is critical to the process of constructing an
interpretation of what it means to be a member of the social group and what
counts as literate practices. In these examples, we contrasted Aaron's perspec-
tive (angle of vision) on the event with that of the teacher, and particular points
in time with others. These different types of contrasts provide a basis for our
grounded claims about literate practices and opportunities afforded Aaron.
Drawing on Cosaro (1984) and Denzin (1989), we argue that it is possible
to contrast perspectives (e.g., different actors, and actors and researcher), types
of data (e.g., transcripts, videotape, student artifacts, and state documents; or
segments of transcribed activity at one point vs. another), theories (e.g., cultural
theory, interactional sociolinguistics, sociohistorical theory), and methodology
(e.g., discourse analysis, interviewing, artifact analysis). Each of these contrasts
involves juxtaposing texts and interpretations, some of which converge, and
others that show difference. The task facing the interactional ethnographer is to
understand how each bit of data, contrast, convergence, or divergence provides
Table 4. Data Analyses: Ways of Representing Literate Practices

Simon's classes
Forms of data General Hospitality Industry Food
representation English studies studies Mathematics technology
Frame grabs from video x x x x

Spatial maps x x x x x
Transcripts x x x x x
Timeline x x x x x
Structuration maps x x x x x
Literacy domain analysis x x x x x
Contradiction table x x x x x
Consulting analysis by x x
content expert
(beyond team expertise)
Notes: Figure 2 provides a graphic representation of the set of timelines constructed for these classes (Erickson &
Shultz, 1981; Giddens, 1979; Green & Meyer, 1991).
relevant information about the nature of everyday life within the social group or
the subgroup being studied.
To illustrate how the issue of contrast worked for us in the analysis of
Aaron's opportunities for learning to be literate across disciplines (subject-area
classes), we now present additional sets of analyses. In this section, we
demonstrate the logic of inquiry we use to select appropriate and productive
forms of contrast: contrasts using event maps across classes; contrasts across
methods (event mapping, transcript/discourse analysis, and domain analysis)
(see Table 4); and contrasts between stated and observed curricula. As part of
these presentations, we draw on data from two additional classes provided by
the Australian research team, the Hospitality Class and the English class. In this
way, we will demonstrate the evolving and interactive nature of our research
process, while simultaneously making visible the literate demands across
subject areas, and the types of opportunities afforded Aaron in different
subject-area classes.
ON WHAT ANALYSIS OF TIMES AND EVENTS MAKES VISIBLE

Our approach to analysis within time in a particular class was illustrated
previously in the sections on the running data record and event mapping. In this
section, we build on the phase unit level of analysis from the event maps to
construct timelines for each of the classes. These maps represent what members
constructed as events and phases; in other words, how members structured the
times and activity within each classroom. Figure 2 provides a graphic representa-
tion of how time was spent in each class.
Figure 2. Comparative Timelines.
As indicated by each timeline, students were involved in a range of different

types of activity that constituted class on that day. Within each class, we see a
sequence of purposefully tied phases that entailed differential types of activity,
and thus, different conditions and opportunities for learning, exploring, and
using literate practices. When we compared the flow of activity across classes,
what became evident is that there was a similar set of practices for organizing
time used by the majority of teachers to establish the boundaries of events: a
preparatory time, a series of working times, and a closing time, each reflective
of the type of subject matter (see math for an exception).
One limit to the certainty of this interpretation is the nature of the data
provided. We were unable to ascertain whether the videotape recorded the
onset or closing of each class. This is particularly salient in the case of
Mathematics, where we were unable to locate a preparatory time given that the
video began with Aaron already at work, and in Industry Studies Metal, where
the camera simply stopped with Aaron still working. In our own work, we try
to begin the videotaping prior to the official beginning of class and continue
past the observed closing in order to record when and how events begin and
end on a given day (Wallat & Green, 1982).10 The proposed interpretation,
therefore, becomes a hypothesis, or type of theoretical note, that we then use
to examine the practices and processes across times and events. One further
limit to the data is the fact that in four of the five classes, Aaron was already
seated when the tape began. Only in the Industrial Studies Metal class did we
see Aaron entering; in this class, he entered late as indicated by the fact that
all others were engaged in activity. The video angle showed that others
interacted with him, but the sound quality of this tape did not permit analysis
of the content of the interactions.
The contrastive timelines, therefore, provided a text that we read for structur-
ing dimensions of each class, and could be used to identify potential phases for
subsequent analysis. While the timelines allowed us to contrast structuring
dimensions of each class, we were unable to identify whether the phases and
events described for that day were representative of what occurred on subsequent
days in the five classes, an issue that we generally examine to make claims about
the range of literate practices afforded, and/or taken up by members across times
and events. The need to examine whether this day was unique led to a request for
additional days of data. The Australian team sent videotapes of two additional
days that were then viewed to assess whether the types of activity identified
occurred across the new days. We did not undertake event mapping and
transcript/discourse analyses of these days, but rather viewed the chains of
activity for each class to identify a general range of literate practices and events
constructed on each day.
This analysis showed that the range of activity varied across days within each
class. Observation across the days showed that for some classes events were tied
across days (e.g., differentiation in mathematics), while in other classes, the
events differed (e.g., Industrial Studies Metal involved a discussion of a work-
book on one day, and hands on opportunities on the other day). Across all classes,
however, the range of activity and literate practices identified through our
analyses of one day were representative of the range we identified for classes
across all days (1 ± 3 days per class). Given that we did not engage in a detailed
analysis of all class periods, we make no claims of typicality, only claims of
commonality in the range of literate practices afforded Aaron.
ON WHAT CONTRASTING METHODS AND DATA MAKE VISIBLE

To illustrate how contrasting methods and data made visible the situated
nature of literate practices (Heap 1980, 1991), we present analyses of
segments from two classes: Hospitality and English. Analysis of different
data on literate practices across the classes made visible one key difference in
organizing patternsÐthe use of lecture in the Hospitality class. This led us to
ask two questions: What role was lecture playing in this class? What literate
practices were inscribed in and needed to interpret this lecture? To explore
these questions, we undertook the construction of a new event map, one that
included a detailed transcript, information about the physical organization of

and flow of activity among members, and methodological and theoretical
notes on the flow of activity.11 Each column of this transcript provided a text
that could then be read, analyzed, and juxtaposed with other columns to
identify literate practices.
Analysis of the different forms of data represented in Figure 3 showed that the
overall activity was governed by the teacher, as indicated by the dominance of
teacher talk. The inclusion of the physical orientation of members in the camera/
notes column and in the transcript (e.g., codes for gaze and hand positions)
provided information about the activity of the listeners during the lecture, and
formed a basis for examining how, and in what ways, the lecture was jointly
constructed (Lin, 1993). The inclusion of a Notes Column provided further
contextual information about the chains of actions among members and meth-
odological information. Analysis of the drawings in the Camera/Notes Column
showed that students were highlighting written text segments that corresponded
with the teacher talk, a form of intertextuality (Bloome & Egan-Robertson, 1993).
These actions showed what students (those on the videotape) viewed as
academically relevant in the lecture.
Further, by indicating the segment of the transcript and tying this to the
physical orientation captured by the camera angle of vision (close up, panning,
zooming in or out), we were partially able to explore who talked, about what, in
what ways, for what purposes, and with what intended outcomes. For example, at
one time a student commented on the topic, latching on (Tannen, 1984) to the
teacher's talk and topic, indicating that the student was following the flow of
activity and the content of the talk. By latching on, the student made visible a
range of literate actions and provided evidence that he was following the lecture,
interpreting the content correctly, and engaging in the lecture in a dynamic way. It
also showed that the teacher and students were jointly constructing the lecture
through coordinated actions as well as verbal insertions into the lecture text. The
fact that the teacher took up (i.e., latched on to) student comments showed that
such student actions were discursively appropriate and academically relevant
(Collins, 1987).
To examine literate practices inscribed in the lecture itself, we undertook a
domain analysis of the topics and information presented. Through this
approach, we examined what counted as disciplinary knowledge as inscribed
in this lecture. The specific domain analyses guiding this work focused on
adaptations of the semantic relationships proposed by Spradley (1980): x is a
kind of y, x is a part of y, and x is a condition for y.
As indicated in Table 5, the three semantic relationships form whole ±part
relationships, and lay a foundation for the data represented in the columns of
this table. The final column, Intertextual Links, served multiple purposes. First,
by comparing the talk with the student highlighting and student recorded
Figure 3. Transcript and Student in Isolation: Close-up and Panning Shot Sequence.
Figure 3. (continued).
Table 5. Domain Analysis Chart of Occupational Hygiene Lecture: What Counts As

Knowledge of Occupational Hygiene
Topics Topic centered Intertextual
Event (cover terms) discourse and action link to workbook
Occupational Open books T direct-elaborative Power to inspect,
hygiene lecture reading of workbook p. 95 heading
with comments
Practices for Storage and protection Site inspection powers,
of foods and goods p. 96
Meeting certain standards
Protecting contents from
dust and vermine,
e.g., cockroaches
Cleanliness Exceptions on handling
made for bread
Cross-contaminationÐproblems
of handling money and food,
particularly when you are
going to the cash register and
handling money
Dishclothes Dish cloths
The horrible things that harbor
in a dish cloth
Handling Cross-contamination
Bread example and aside on
maggots in the meat
Cleaning ``Means good old scrubbing''
Sanitizing Sanitizing using a commercial
product actually sterilizes the
working areas, stopping
bacterias from continuing to
grow micro-organisms
Sanitizing Equipment preparationÐ Text page 97
systemsÐ Clean/wash
chemicals boards, linen
Storing
Cooking
On television and the
comments on maggots
Q: how often do you
think that tea towels
need to be replaced
Polythene chopping
board
Personal and Food infected without high
environmental standards of hygiene
hygiene Clean hands
(continued)
Table 5. (continued )
Topics Topic centered Intertextual
Event (cover terms) discourse and action link to workbook
Clean clothing
Kitchens with food, heat or
dirt provide an ideal envionment
for bacteria to multiply
Notes: Topics/cover terms were identified by reading the transcript and representing categories of technical terms
used by the teacher. These categories of technical knowledge (topics/cover terms) and the related information in the
column called Topic Centered Discourse and Action represent technical language and knowledge needed by students
in the Hospitality class, if they were going to be successful in this class, and then move into this field.
nonverbal actions, we were able to identify the points that Aaron (and other
visible students) saw as significant to note. Second, by juxtaposing these three
types of textÐi.e., oral text, original printed text, and student-highlighted/
enhanced text (Golden, 1988), we were able to triangulate data to verify our
interpretations. Finally, by examining the talk and actions used and/or taken
up by members, we were able to identify the literate practices used by
members, and to explore the language of the classroom (Lin, 1993; Tuyay,
Floriani, Yeager, Dixon, & Green, 1995) for lexical items and discourse
practices that formed the referential system for this subject-area class. From
our perspective, these terms constitute literate knowledge, and the actions
inscribe practices that members needed to use to be viewed as literate in this
field of study and action.
Having framed our approach to contrasting method and data through the
presentation of the Hospitality Class analyses, we now turn to an examination
of what counted as literate practices and knowledge in the English Class, the
class most commonly associated with the development of literate practices and
processes. As this analysis will show, what students learned in English class
was not literacy in some abstract sense, but a situated view of literate
practices that differed in kind, as well as form, from those in the Mathematics
and Hospitality classes presented in the previous sections of this article.
If we return to Figure 2, the timelines, we see that the events and phases of
activity of this day in the English class revolved around a testing activity and
a workbook activity. There were four phases of activity related to testing
constituting a total of 37:27 min: test instructions, test taking, test correcting,
and record keeping (students' reporting ``marks''). One additional event was
identifiedÐindividual workbook activity constituting 37:01 min of class time.
As our analysis across these two events showed, both were workbook-focused
activities. The testing activity covered previously completed sections of the
workbook. Analysis of the teacher's talk also showed that test taking would
occur following additional workbook activity on subsequent days, thus
providing evidence that these phases of activity and events formed a pattern
common to literate activity in this class, shaping what counted as English for
this group.12
To examine what was tested and written, and thus counted as literate practices
that were institutionally valued by the teacher, we constructed an event map (see
Table 6) of the class period that was parallel to the one presented for the
mathematics class. However, to the template represented in the mathematics
map, we added columns to represent the range of interactional spaces (Heras,
1993) used (e.g., whole class, individual, student/student pairs), and the norms
and expectations, and roles and relationships identified through the analysis of
actions, talk, and texts constructed. The addition of these dimensions of socio-
cultural life was viewed as critical to making visible the similarities and
differences in opportunities for learning afforded Aaron across classes. These
dimensions provided a means of holding constant the ways in which we
represented and analyzed the processes and practices members used to construct
life within the group. These data, therefore, provided a basis for obtaining
evidence across classes that could then be contrasted. Through this contrast, we
identified what counted as literate practices, opportunities for learning, and
identity as a learner.
We began our analysis of the literate demands of this class by examining
the first literacy event, test taking. Specifically, we examined the shifting
demands associated with phases of activity that were related to the end of the
test taking phase, the test correcting phase, and record keeping (``mark''
reporting) phase. We selected these three phases of activity because they held
the potential of making visible what the teacher valued as literate knowledge of
content and practices. After discussing this analysis, we provide a narrative
comparison of these practices with the second event, the workbook activity, to
show how what was tested was directly related to the types of activity
inscribed in the workbook.
To illustrate how we constructed an understanding of what counted as general
English, and thus literate practices and demands, we describe how we used the data
in Table 6 as an anchor for a range of analyses, each designed to provide contextual
information and greater detail about the observed patterns of literate practices. The
approach we used is referred to as triangulation of data and perspectives (Denzin,
1989), a form of contrastive analysis. What became evident as we constructed this
table, and considered the part ± whole relationships inscribed across columns, is
that the teacher took up positions as monitor of the test, as time keeper, as shifter of
activity, and as record keeper. In no instance did we observe her talking about or
providing information that went beyond the workbook, or that addressed the
content of general English. In other words, her talk and actions were focused on
managing the flow of activity and not the academic content. These actions suggest
that she privileged the workbook as the authority, placing the responsibility on the
students for obtaining the content from the text.
An examination of roles and relationships among actors showed that students

took up roles that related to the teacher roles: as test takers, as assessors, as
reporter of ``marks.'' No student initiated questions or asked for information
during the test or during correction time. This coordinated set of actions showed
that these actors shared a common view of task and of the literate practices
associated with this taskÐi.e., what they were supposed to do and how they were
supposed to do it.
Triangulation of the literate demands inscribed in the testing phases of activity
was undertaken using a range of data sources: the map (Table 6), the test/quiz
taken by Aaron, the marks reported by the students (obtained from the transcript),
and the workbook. This same contrastive analysis approach was used to explore
the literate practices, actions and demands of the next event (the workbook period
of 37:01 min). Examination of Aaron's responses to questions on the quiz
showed that he answered correctly 7.5 of the 20 questions, according to the
interpretation arrived at by Aaron and his desk partner, who had exchanged
papers. Further analysis showed that of the 7.5 correct answers, 4.5 required him
to define a specific term by completing a question asking ``what is . . .?'' We
argue that these questions, ones asking for definitions of cartoons, advertise-
ments, diagrams or charts, newpapers, and reviews could have been answered
without reading the workbook. Of the remaining items that he and his partner
marked as correct, he received full credit on two: to name two main kinds of
letters (he wrote: personal and business letters), and to provide an appropriate
closing for business letters (he wrote: Yours Faithfully). He also received partial
(1/2 point) credit on two: to name the five c's of letter writing (he wrote: correct
and concise), and to name seven types of articles in newspapers (he wrote:
classified sales, advertisements, lead heading). These responses represent the full
range of responses that he gave. Analysis of the remaining 11 questions, which he
did not attempt, showed that these items required answers that were specific to
the workbook.
After the students finished reporting their marks, the teacher commented that
she ``was pleased to see that most of you got at least half of them right.'' An
analysis of the reported marks by members of the class showed that there was a
bimodal distribution, with the median score of 10, and modes of 7.5 and 11, but
that only 11 of the 21 students reported a mark of 10 or higher, calling into
question what she counted as ``most of you.'' At no point in this event did the
teacher ever discuss the answers to the questions, nor did she collect the papers or
leave her desk to observe their answers. Rather, she depended on the students'
interpretation of the accuracy of the answers, the appropriateness of their
decision-making, and the trustworthiness of their reporting of their marks. This
chain of actions had consequences for her as well as the students. By leaving their
literate practices and processes invisible to her, and by failing to provide
information about these practices, she limited what students had an opportunity
378
Table 6. Event Map: English
Sequence units Norms Literate Notes/
Time Phase units (actions/activities) IA spaces and exp. Roles and rel. practices comments
00:18:28 TestÐ T? continues Individual Silence during Monitoring Gives quiz on Females are
taking sitting at desk (w/in collective) quiz taking students who workbook on one side and
(cont) watching students are taking quiz chapters from in middle and
workbook males on the
CASTANHEIRA ET AL.
covering nine otherÐstill can't
topics of locate a ``teacher.''
Chapter 1 Camera pans
roomÐdon't know
if it's only one side
or notÐcan see
the other side of
the U the tables are
arranged in
00:18:57 Female voice Whole class The teacher has Aaron (A) Sounds like she's
(T?) says the right to talk writing on talking to someone
somethingÐ during testing quiz form specificÐnot
Aaron looks up AaronÐbecause
someone (male
voice) responds
00:21:48 Aaron puts his Individual When finished Appears to be
pencil down and sit quietly finished
sits backs arms
folded-looks
at his watch
00:22:07 TestÐ Female voice tells Whole class Authority figure (T?) shifter T? controlling Aaron gets a
correcting them to put pens (T?) will signal of activity, task through yellow booklet
down and get out how much time Students limits of time, out and opens it
their (?) booklet given respond T? directs
students to
booklet
00:22:29 Aaron gets a Individual, (some) tests are The booklet A responds Assuming that he
yellow booklet student/student self-corrected. positioned appropriately is correcting his
out and opens pair Talking is okay as the by opening his paper. [Heard the
it [appears to read during this `àuthority'' booklet and word `ìncorrect''],
from booklet and process [has the correct comparing it Can't see if other
then mark answers] to his answers. students haved
on his paper] Students can paired up to do
correct tests this. Do they all
in pairs. The share ``yellow
model for booklets''? [no
correcting longer quiet in
comes from room], Aaron talks
booklet. with his neighbor
throughout this
process. His
neighbor does not
have a yellow
booklet on his
deskÐthey appear
to be sharing
Aaron's
379
(continued)
380
Sequence units Norms Literate Notes/
Time Phase units (actions/activities) IA spaces and exp. Roles and rel. practices comments
00:30:13 They (Aaron and Student/ T? gives Students are Although it was not
his neighbor) trade student pair choice of positioned by visible, it seems as
papers. Aaron how to each other if they traded papers
hands his paper correct quiz and T? as and were marking
to someone [only (self or with assessors (correcting) each
saw a hand reach partner) other's papers and
in to get it] now have given
CASTANHEIRA ET AL.
them back to their
rightful owners.
00:31:33 TestÐ Aaron takes out Student/student Academic Student talk [can't hear]
correcting binder and shares pair conversations to each other
(cont) something with his with partners about content
neighbor. They talk. of binder
00:36:11 Aaron starts Individual A writing
writing in
binder
00:36:33 Record- (T?) says she will Whole class Scores may be Students are
keeping call them and they made public reporters of marks
are to call out what
marks they got.
00:36:45 She calls out Whole class (T?) trusts T? requests stu-
names of students to dents' scores. T?
students and be honest accepts the stu-
they respond about marks dents'; evauation
with the of their own work
number of as valid. Students'
marks they result in the test
got out of 20. are made public.
00:37:51 She calls, `Marshall'. Whole Class Aaron report Can tell he is waiting
Aaron says 7 1/2 his mark for his name. Tone
of voice is low
Camera pans
roomÐcan seea
desk on one side
and a hand marking
a paper (teacher)
00:38:09 Camera pans roomÐ
can see a desk on
one side and a hand
marking a paper
(teacher?)
00:38:48 Individual She makes some Whole class Workbook to Foreshadows T? setting Is the length of
workÐ announcements be completed future activity future work this term 11 weeks
workbook regarding the tests Knowledge T? assigns, goal., T? (the workbook will
coming up. She from workbook work places the be completed by
makes the point to be tested workbook week 11)? How far
that there will be as reference are they in the term
a test on the for guiding (maybe towards the
complete booklet students end because it's
at the end to progress and close enough for the
reinforce they work pace. announcement that
should have all they would be tested
their work done on week 11)?
by week 11.
00:39:22 She tells them to Whole class Students work on T? setting Students work at
finish what work assigned work an assignment their own pace?
they are `ùp to''
until end of the
period.
381
to learn and what types of literate practices they could display as knowing. These
actions further support our interpretation of the authority of the workbook as a
place for information and answers, making the workbook the surrogate teacher,
not the adult in the `òfficial'' position of teacher. Thus, the students learned to
look to the workbook to see how they were doing and what they were learning.
The range of literate practices associated with both teacher and student roles,
relationships, and actions, therefore, constituted a narrow band of practices in this
event (test taking), ones that entailed completing a set of test questions apparently
written by the workbook authors, and using the text (the workbook) to assess
their own, or their neighbor's knowledge.
Analysis of the second event, the individual workbook activity provided
further insights into the roles of the teacher during this class session, how she
viewed her roles in relationship to the text and students, and what literate
practices and processes were afforded students. Her actions across time (phases of
activity and sequence units) showed that she once again positioned the text as
authority. In this event, students were to use the workbook to complete the next
assignment in a chain of assignments before the final quiz (to be given in week
11). Each student was working at his or her own pace as indicated by teacher
comments in the transcript and the fact that she provided them with information
about how many assignments each had completedÐnone for Aaron.
Analysis of the talk showed that she framed this assignment by directing
students to return to their work in the workbook in preparation for the next quiz
(``next week''), and reminding them that ``you are supposed to have all of the
work done by week eleven two weeks from now.'' Aaron turned to the assign-
ment on p. 21, which involved writing a letter of complaint, a task that he
partially completed as indicated by the artifact he gave to the researcher at the end
of the period. As he worked to write the letter, he posed questions to his desk
partner, commenting at one point in time that ``This is hard. Do you know what it
is?'' His partner responded by saying, `Ì'll just have a quick look see.'' The
partner then picked up the workbook that they shared (one between the two of
them), and while he looked at it, Aaron resumed writing. After this, the partner
looked over at Aaron and then replaced the workbook between them, returning to
his own writing without comment. Aaron continued writing until the end of the
period when he turned his paper in to the researcher.
Analysis of this chain of actions confirmed our interpretation that the work-
book, not the teacher, was the source of authority and support for defining and
completing the task. Aaron's verbal and nonverbal actions indicated that he saw
the workbook and his partner, rather than the teacher, as resources. Further,
looking across the transcript of the entire class period, it was evident that none of
the students in the class directed questions to the teacher at any point in time. In
this brief description of the literate practices in the events of this English class
session, we made visible factors that shaped what counted as literate practices,
actions, and demands. In this way, we identified the range of practices used by
members; and described the patterns of practice that the teacher took up and used
to shape the opportunities to develop, use, and display knowledge of literate
processes and practices.
When these processes and practices were contrasted with those from the
mathematics class described previously, we were able to see the ways in which
Aaron was constructed as being literate, knowledgeable, and competent (or
incompetent) in these classes, as well as the range of literate processes he had
an opportunity to access and/or acquire. Analysis of the talk in the sequence
unit column of Table 3 (Mathematics) in contrast to that in Table 6 (General
English) showed marked differences in the technical vocabulary used, who
used it, and the support provided Aaron in acquiring literate knowledge
associated with the different subject areas. In Mathematics, the talk between
the teacher and Aaron provided a key source of technical language and
knowledge (e.g., differentiation, graph, consolidation).13 The verbal and visual
texts (i.e., white- or blackboard, and a student written notebook page) of the
mathematics classroom, then, can be viewed as a space for Aaron (and the
others in the class) to construct common knowledge (Edwards & Mercer,
1987) about key mathematical concepts. The workbook in Mathematics did
not, on this day (and on others observed), play a crucial role in shaping the
talk or actions among members, suggesting that it played a support role, not a
central role. This range of activity and text construction contrasted directly
with what occurred in the English class as discussed previously. The con-
trastive analysis, then, was critical to our understanding of the different ways
in which Aaron was constructed as literate across classes, as well as to our
understanding of the literate demands made on him, and the literate practices
and opportunities afforded to him, and taken up (or not taken up) by him
(Putney et al., 2000).
ON CURRICULUM IMPLEMENTATIONS AND POLICY

IMPLICATIONS IDENTIFIED THROUGH CONTRASTIVE ANALYSES
OF LOCAL DEMANDS
In this final section, we present two further analyses that make visible the range
of literate practices, actions, and demands. The first is an illustrative taxonomy of
literate demands and actions observed across all five classes and days (up to 3 per
class). The second involves a contrast between the demands, practices, and
actions that constituted the observed curriculum, and those valued by the stated
curriculum as inscribed in the state or school documents or descriptions and other
material provided by the Australian research team.
The taxonomy of literate practices and demands was developed by examining
each of the event maps, transcripts, and domain analyses constructed. This
taxonomy represents whole ±part/part ± whole relationships; that is, it represents

key cultural dimensions identified, the actions constituting each, and where in the
cultural times and spaces each was available to members. For the purpose of this
discussion, the parts of this taxonomy are presented using progressive disclosure
to show the range of literate demands placed on Aaron as a participant across the
five classes, and to provide a view of the observed curriculum that Aaron and his
peers jointly constructed with their teachers. This approach to the presentation of
the taxonomy permits exploration of the relationships between and among the
different dimensions. In this way, we show how elements constituting one
dimension were then used in subsequent ones given the complexity of the
relationships among elements.
We use the term observed curriculum, rather than the concept of enacted
curriculum given our approach to understanding knowledge and activity as
socially constructed (Weade, 1987, 1992). The concept of an enacted curriculum
begins with the notion that there is a set curriculum in place that is then enacted
by the teacher. From our perspective, the curriculum is shaped by, and then
shapes, what members do and say to and with each other, under particular
conditions, for specific purposes, in particular times and spaces, in locally
constructed ways. Thus, what members engage in and with becomes the
curriculum that is constructed by, and observable to, members (and by extension
to researchers), and this curriculum can then be contrasted with the planned
curriculum (the curriculum plan of the teacher prior to engaging with the students
on a given day or days), and the stated or official curriculum (the curriculum
designed by those beyond the classroom walls).
Two dimensions will be examined: kinds of texts, and kinds of literacy-
related interactions that made visible what counted as being literate across
these classes. Figure 4 presents the kinds of texts identified across the five
classes and across days available for analysis. As indicated in this figure, eight
types of texts were identified: workbooks/worksheets, recipes, problems on the
black/whiteboard, materials in binders, reference material, materials posted on
the walls or equipment, quizzes, and tools, each with a range of literate actions
afforded to and/or taken up by students. When we examined what was
common and what varied across classes, we found that while literate demands,
text types, and actions varied with the class, there were similar patterns across
some classes that we viewed as shaping an overall set of opportunities for
learning afforded Aaron by this predominantly vocational course of study (as
represented on these videotapes).14 For example, workbooks and worksheets
were the most commonly used texts across classes (i.e., General English,
Hospitality, Industry Studies Metal, and Mathematics), suggesting a common
view of appropriate practice. Further, the workbooks provided a sense of
uniformity of curriculum and experience. While workbooks/worksheets were
not visible in the food technology class, the use of recipes served a similar
Figure 4. Composite Across Days: Taxonomy of Kinds of Written Text.
function, thus contributing to a common view of the nature and use of texts
encountered by Aaron.
Analysis by class of the actions related to each text, however, showed
variation in use. For example, as indicated in the section on workbooks/work-
sheets, in some classes students had to share the workbook and copy their
assignments onto a notebook page that was placed in their binders (General
English, Mathematics). In other classes, students could mark in their workbooks

(i.e., highlighting in Hospitality). Further, how the workbooks were used varied.
In the Hospitality class, the students listened as the teacher lectured from the text
of the workbook, highlighting any points that they saw as relevant. In contrast, in
the General English class, the workbook served as a text that students worked
through in a self-guided manner. Thus, even though workbooks were common,
they were uncommonly (Kelly, Crawford, & Green, in press) used to meet
particular purposes or to promote particular opportunities for engaging with, and
displaying content knowledge.
A number of such variations in use were identified by comparing and
contrasting the actions taken in relationship to particular texts. While space does
not permit a full discussion of each, two additional contrasts make visible the
importance of considering not only what texts existed, but also how they were
used. This relationship defines what counted as text; thus, a workbook was not a
workbook was not a workbook (with apologies to Gertrude Stein), a claim that
was supported when the range of actions across texts in the Mathematics class
was considered. In that class, students had workbooks, but the majority of time
on the days provided (3 days), the teacher engaged students with problems on the
blackboard, that they then copied onto notebook paper and placed in their
binders. Analysis of talk around both the text on the board and the reproduced
text in the notebooks showed that the teacher focused students on examining
ways of doing the problems, provided technical language and concepts related to
those problems, and supported students by illustrating particular approaches, both
at the group level (e.g., addressing the whole class using the blackboard as a
common text) and individual level (e.g., interactions at the student's desk).
The final variation involved the use of tools or nonwritten graphic texts as
texts. While a written text can be viewed as a type of tool, tools can also be seen
as a type of text. For example, the machines in the Industry Studies Metal class
were treated as texts by the teacher and students, as well as used as tools. From
this perspective, the ways in which the tools were talked about constructed them
as texts to be read, understood, named, and used in particular ways for particular
purposes. Further, writing was often placed on these tools by manufacturers,
inspectors, and others concerned with safety of use and instructions for use.
Finally, the teacher also asked students to place ``red tags'' on machines that were
not working properly, thus creating mixed genres. This analysis, therefore,
suggests that members construct something to be a text, and that what counts
as text cannot be defined by merely observing on the basis of an a priori
definition, including commonly held ones that define literacy as solely involving
instances of written language.
Embedded in the discussion above is a second dimension of the taxonomy. If
we bring the kinds of literacy-related interactions to the fore, we provide another
way of understanding the literate demands, one that is grounded directly in the
actions taken by members of the group. Figure 5 revisits the information in

Figure 4, foregrounding the range of actions taken by particular members.
By exploring actions taken by the two most dominant sets of actors (teachers
and students), and examining to and with whom they are undertaken, and when
and where, we are able to identify the range of literate actions and implicated
demands of these actions. For example, there was a clear division of labor across
most classes. The teacher could lecture, but we saw no instances in which
students lectured. Similarly, students could initiate conversations with and work
with other students informally, but the interactions with the teacher were
generally formal, almost always initiated by the teacher. Further, when the
patterns of interactions were examined across classes, clear patterns of differences
in interactional practices were identified. The patterns in the Mathematics, Food
Technology, and Industry Studies Metal classes had participant structures, i.e.,
patterned ways of interacting across time and events (Philips, 1983; Phillips,
1972), that were similar to each other, but contrasted with the participant
structures observed in the Hospitality and General English classes. These
patterned ways of acting and interacting shaped ways of being a student, of
learning to be literate, and of engaging with knowledge construction that were
common within each set but differed across sets of classes.
The analyses presented above demonstrate how the construction of a taxon-
omy of part ±whole relationships between and among literacy demands, actions,
and practices provides a critical tool for examining what counts as opportunities
for learning; accessing academic content and practices; and forming identities as
learners, students, peers, and competent readers and writers among other roles
and relationships within and across content areas. Further, this analysis provided
a basis for comparing the ideological stance (cf., Fairclough, 1995) of the
teachers (as inscribed in their actions and practices) with the stance of those
who shaped the policy and/or curriculum documents that are part of the public
texts that define the goals of ``post-compulsory'' education and training.
We will now turn to this final contrast to explore the consistency (or
inconsistency) between these locally constructed demands, actions, and practices
and the stated goals of the vocationally oriented program, as described by the
documents provided by the Australian research team. This analytic step allowed
us to compare the local moments and classes with the larger schooling context of
both the local school and the Australian educational system. Thus, this approach
provided the means of examining a set of micro± macro context relationships that
shaped the opportunities afforded students in the classrooms observed. A
summary of the Statements Related to the Official Curriculum drawn from the
documents provided is presented in Table 7. These excerpts provide the basis for
our exploration of the micro± macro context relationships, and serve as a means
of confirming hypotheses and/or interpretations constructed during the micro
analyses. Underlying this analysis is work on critical discourse analysis that
Figure 5. Composite Across Days: An Illustrative Taxonomy of Kinds of Literacy-

Related Interaction.
argues that institutional and identity relationships are inscribed in and through the
discourse choices of authors (Fairclough, 1993; Ivanic, 1994).
As indicated in Table 7, five sources of information were identified across the
artifacts provided. The first two excerpts in the table were drawn from written
material contained in the package of data sent to us. The specific section from
which these data were drawn was entitled, Contextual Information. The last three
excerpts were drawn from the classroom artifact materials included in the
package. These data were photocopied pages from the workbook for the General
English class. The first two provided insights into the national and state contexts,
and were treated as elements of the official curriculum. The last three were treated
as a bridge between the official and the observed curriculum.
The first excerpt places this year of courses, the Preliminary year (Year 11) in
the context of the larger schooling system. Analysis of the language of this
document made visible a series of choices made by framers (policy developers)
of the curriculum, and indicated types of knowledge needed, and the conse-
quences for students of acquiring (or not acquiring) this knowledge. Satisfactory
completion of this Preliminary (Year 11) course was necessary for entry to the
HSC (Year 12) course. The content of this Year 11 course constituted `àssumed
knowledge'' for Year 12.
Analysis of the description of the statement about the 2 Unit General
English course provided further inscription of what counted as `àssumed
knowledge'' for Year 12: experience of literary forms and nonliterary forms,
access to Australian literature, and seeks to develop a wide variety of skills in
English. The specific meaning of these terms can be constructed when we
examine the contrast provided by the description of the HSC course. This is a
course in which students will study various literary and nonliterary genres and
develop oral and written English with scope for personal writing and creative
work. The language of the document inscribes an implied contrast between
Year 11 and Year 12. In Year 11, the students will experience (rather than
study) literary and nonliterary forms, and develop a wide variety of skills
(rather than personal writing and creative work). This interpretation is
supported by two additional sources of data: the language and content of
the workbook, and the participant structures and range of literate practices,
actions, and demands observed on the videotapes of the days provided for
analysis. Analysis of the language of the introduction to the first chapter of the
workbook provided confirmation of our interpretation that students in Year 11
would learn about particular dimensions of writing and reading, in order to be
able to apply them critically in Year 12.
Analysis of the distribution of topics in Chapter 1 (the fourth topic of the table)
and the content within the letter writing Section 1.2 (the fifth topic of the table) of
this chapter provided further evidence for this interpretation. What is visible in
the structure, form, and content of this chapter of the workbook is that each topic
Table 7. Statements Related to the Official Curriculum

Document Description provided
Excerpt from the NBEET Report, Year 11 courses are known as preliminary
Post Compulsory Education and courses and Year 12 courses as HSC
Training Arrangements in the courses. Satisfactory completion of the
Australian States and Territories preliminary course is a prerequisite for entry
(December 1993): elements of the to the HSC course. Examinations focus on
curriculum as provided by the HSC content, with preliminary content as
Australian research team assumed knowledge (p. 37)
Statement on 2 Unit General English The preliminary (year 11) course provides
access to contemporary culture. It provides
for a wide experience in literary and nonliterary
forms as well as access to Australian literature.
The course seeks to develop a wide variety of
skills in English. The Higher School Certificate
course incorporates the study of various literary
and nonliterary genres. It aims to develop oral
and written English, with scope for personal
writing and creative work.
Introduction to Chapter 1, General This chapter presents different types of reading
English Workbook and writing. In the HSC you need to be able to
read and critically analyze various types of
writing as well as be able to write in a variety
of styles.
In the HSC Contemporary English Reading and
Writing paper [emphasis in text] you could be
given any of the types of writing contained in this
chapter and be asked questions about it. Or you
could be asked to write in one or more of the styles
presented in this chapter. In addition, you may need
to write in one of the styles presented here in your
HSC Contemporary Issues paper.
Thus, a good knowledge of reading and writing of
many different types is vital to a successful HSC
mark in Contemporary English (p. 12).
Table of Contents, Chapter 1, Contents
Contemporary English Workbook
Reading and Writing
Introduction
1.1. Advertisements 12
1.2 Letters 17
1.3 Diagrams and Charts 22
1.4 Maps 24
1.5 Cartoons 25
1.6 Short Stories 27
1.7 Newspaper Articles 31
1.8 Reviews 33
1.9 Descriptions 43
(continued)
Document Description provided
1.10 Reports 47
1.11 Speeches 53
1.12 Scripts 58
1.13 Diary/Journal Entries 61
1.14 Poetry 63
1.15 Instructions 68
1.16 Interviews 71
1.17 Arguments 74
1.18 Answers to exercises contained in Chapter 1 77
Format of Workbook: Section Headings as an outline of content
1.2 Letters
Why write letters? (personal and business letters)
Setting out a letter
Helpful hints (5 C'sÐclear, courteous, concise,
complete, correct)
Personal letters (thank you, letter of condolence,
congratulation, apology, and sharing news of
mutual interest)
Thank you letters (only one with example)
Business Letters
Job Application Letters (with example of an
advertisement that you might be responding to)
Letters to the Editor (with examples)
Letters of Complaint (with examples)
Letters of Enquiry (with examples)
Exercises
receives a cursory description of a specific set of genre, and a limited set of

examples. Further, the reference to the HSC course in the introduction to this
chapter (the third topic of the table) provides evidence that this workbook was
designed specifically to support the role that the Year 11 course plays in preparing
students to successfully complete the course and be admitted to Year 12. By
juxtaposing these various texts, we identified supporting evidence of the link
between the micro and macro contexts, and for a situated definition of what
officially counted as General English.
FUTURE DIRECTIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS

Our interactional ethnographic approach framed a logic of inquiry that allowed us
to identify literate opportunities available to Aaron across his five classes, and to
identify processes and practices that differed significantly. Of particular note,
were the differences in his two academic classes, Mathematics and English. In his
Mathematics class, he had opportunities to expand his conceptual understanding
of mathematical terms (the language of the discipline) and computational

practices (the actions of mathematicians) through direct interactions with the
teacher, both individually and as part of his participation in whole group
discussions. Through these interactions, Aaron ``learned about'' and `èngaged
in'' a particular range of literate practices of mathematics. In contrast, in his
English class on this day, his interactions, and thus his opportunities to build his
conceptual understandings, were limited to what he could access from the
workbook and from his desk partner, another student. We argue that the
interactional opportunities afforded Aaron in English focused on ``knowledge
about'' literate practices, rather than engaging him `ìn the literate practices he
was reading about.''
By contrasting the different roles and relationships, what we were able to show
is that Aaron acted in appropriate ways in both classes; that is, he took up the
appropriate form of ``studenting'' (Collins & Green, 1992; Fenstermacher, 1986;
Santa Barbara Classroom Discourse Group, 1992a). In taking up this role, Aaron
(and his peers) cooperated with the teacher in shaping a text of activity, and then
being shaped by this text (cf., Fairclough, 1995; Floriani, 1993; Lin, 1993; Tuyay
et al., 1995).
The contrast in teacher approach to instruction showed marked differences
that shaped who or what was seen as an authority on the content of the
discipline. In taking up the role of monitor and of recorder of students' marks,
and by not clarifying with students their understandings, the English teacher
can be seen as handing over (Edwards & Mercer, 1987) to the workbook and
printed test, the role of authority on the content of English. The consequences
of these actions became visible in the contrast between her approach and that of
the Mathematics teacher. When Aaron needed to modify what he was doing in
mathematics, the teacher took up the role of the more capable other (cf.,
Vygotsky, 1987), working with Aaron in a number of ways: providing
information about the accuracy of the process Aaron was using and the solution
that he was constructing; illustrating the processes and practices involved in
working mathematical problems; and confirming Aaron's ability to engage with
and take up this process.
In the English class, as described above, he had help only from the
workbook and from his desk partner. However, our analysis showed that, when
he asked his desk partner for help, he did not receive the help needed, even
though his desk partner attempted to respond. Thus, both the workbook and the
desk partner can be viewed as potential capable others, whose potentiality was
not realized. This situation is an example of how the lack of particular actions
on the part of the teacher (e.g., directly interacting with students to clarify
processes and practices, or inviting questions about their thinking) resulted in
missed opportunities for Aaron to receive the support that he understood he
needed. Thus, the actions shaped consequences beyond this moment for what
Aaron could access in subsequent work, and what he could display as literate
knowledge and practice.
One additional dimension of the relationship between teacher and student
became visible in the contrast with the Mathematics class. In that class, the
teacher's actions showed that he viewed Aaron as capable and that what Aaron
needed was knowledge of particular tools and practices for engaging with the
mathematical content. In interacting with Aaron, he used actions that allowed the
two of them to complete the activity, thus creating a joint response to the problem
and providing Aaron with directly observable information about what counted as
a literate practice for the problem at hand. In this way, he helped Aaron construct
a situated identity, one in which Aaron should (and could) have ``confidence'' in
his ability. This teacher, therefore, expanded Aaron's capacity to know and do
mathematics, while the English teacher's actions provided no such support (Rex,
1997; Rex et al., 1997).
This lack of support for capacity building was explicitly visible in the
teacher's actions during the phase of activity we called recording the marks.
During that part of the class, Aaron reported his score of 7.5. The teacher made
no response to him at that time. However, two additional actions by the teacher
constructed Aaron as not capable. When the teacher talked to the students about
the range of scores, she indicated that she was pleased because ``most of them''
got more than 50 percent right, making visible to Aaron that his performance was
not up to her expected standard. Later she reported publicly on who had
completed their work on class tasks up to this point in time. She told Aaron
that he had completed none of the assignments, again marking his lack of
acceptable performance, and making his performance available for public
scrutiny. These two actions served to position Aaron as not knowing and not
doing in ways that counted to her in this class.
The contrast between the literate practices in these two classes made visible
the situated nature of learning, and how the opportunities for learning shaped
what counted as literate practices, and thus literacy, in each subject-area class.
Further, this contrast showed that the coordination of actions among members
produced the events of life on days observed, as well as the roles and relation-
ships constructed. The analyses presented through our interactional ethnography
are illustrative of those identified across the five classes. We close this discussion
with questions that can be asked in future work by both teachers and researchers:
What are the opportunities for learning to be literate afforded students within
and across discipline-based classes?
Who has access to these opportunities, in what ways, under what conditions,
and with what outcomes?
What is the relationship between the planned and observed curriculum in
shaping opportunities for learning?
How do the actions among actors shape opportunities, and in turn, how do
the opportunities constructed shape what counts as actor, identity,
knowledge, text, and literate practice among other social and cultural
dimensions of life in classrooms?
How is capacity for learning constructed, and what is the role of literate
practices in shaping this capacity?
How is literacy defined, shaped, and taken up by members of local groups?
Who is defined as literate, and how is this definition related to the
opportunities for accessing literate processes and practices within and across
local communities of practice (e.g., families, classrooms, disciplines, work
places, universities)?
Acknowledgments: The authors would like to thank Dr. Gregory Kelly,

University of California, Santa Barbara, for his editorial comments on an earlier
version of this article. Authorship on this article is alphabetical.
NOTES
1. An interactional ethnographic perspective provided the framework used to guide analysis
of data. This framework served as the orienting theory that we used to make theoretical and
methodological decisions including how to enter the data provided, who and what to study on the
videotapes, what additional data to analyze and to request, and what points of view to use in
analyzing data (e.g., the whole class, the individual within the class, and outside influences
acknowledged within the class). This orienting framework is itself composed of mutually informing
theories grounded in cultural anthropology (e.g., Geertz, 1983; Spradley, 1980; Street, 1984),
interactional sociolinguistics (e.g., Gumperz, 1982a, 1982b, 1986, 1992), and critical discourse
analysis (Fairclough,1995; Ivanic, 1994).
From this perspective, the ethnographer seeks to learn about the cultural actions, cultural
knowledge, and cultural artifacts that members need to use, produce, predict, and interpret to
participate in everyday life within a social group, e.g., a classroom, or a small group within a
classroom (Heath, 1982). By observing what members say and do, to and with whom, under what
conditions, when and where, in relation to or using what artifacts, for what purpose(s) and with
what outcomes for self and the group, the ethnographer can identify the ``vast reservoir of cultural
knowledge. . .'' and practices members construct and use to ``. . .interpret experience and generate
behavior [actions] 4'' (Spradley, 1980, p. 6). Spradley suggests ways of understanding the
relationship between the generation and acquisition of such knowledge and how such knowledge,
and experience are used by members to guide participation within the group. Drawing on Frake
(1977), he argues that:
Culture is not simply a cognitive map that people acquire in whole or in part, more
or less accurately, and then learn to read. People are not just map-readers; they are map-
makers. People are cast out into imperfectly charted, continually revised sketch maps.
Culture does not provide a cognitive map, but a set of principles [emphasis added] for
map making and navigation. Different cultures are like different schools of navigation
designed to cope with different terrains and seas (Frake, 1977:6 ± 7 cited in Spradley,
1980, p. 9).
This perspective on culture, along with work on local knowledge from symbolic anthropology (Geertz,
1973; 1983), guides our analyses of the actions, patterns and practices of everyday life in classrooms
(i.e., for this analysis the segment of Aaron's classroom life provided). With an over time data set, this
perspective provides the basis for identifying the principles of practice associated with particular
dimensions of classroom life (e.g., with teaching, with learning, with participating, with knowing how
to be a reader among other literate practices) (Tuyay et al., 1995). Such principles of practice cannot be
inferred with any degree of confidence given the limits of the data provided for this analysis.
The interactional sociolinguistic perspective contributing to this framework was also informed by a
second ethnographic perspective, ethnography of communication (Gumperz & Hymes, 1972). This
approach enables us to study language in the classroom (i.e., languages brought to the classroom), and
the language of the classroom (i.e., discourse processes, and referential systems constructed by
members to guide academic life) (Green & Dixon, 1993; Lin, 1993). Through analysis of these
languages, we are also able to examine and identify the literate practices (textual and intertexual)
guiding text construction and use that are shaped by, and contribute to, the developing language and
literate practices of a community. from this perspective, as members interact over time, they construct
criteria and principles for appropriate and expected language use, text construction and social action that
are always context-bound. Language, therefore, is of a community, and no individual has access to or
knows the full range of cultural knowledge that constitutes a community language or literate practices.
One way to understand the importance of distinguishing between the language in and the language
of the classroom is through the concept of expressive potential proposed by Strike (1974). This
construct provides a means of understanding how a particular theoretical language influences what
can be said, known, studied, and understood, as well as the grammar of researcher actions. For
Strike, the expressive potential of a language refers to what can be said in, and through that
language; what questions can be asked; and what can be examined or understood. from our
perspective, just as a theory has an expressive potential, so does the language of the classroom
community. That is, the patterns and principles of discourse that members construct, and that
individual members must read, interpret, and use to be seen as culturally and socially appropriate
can be viewed as cultural resources that shape and support situated ways of talking, thinking,
perceiving, evaluating, and sustaining particular cultural actions, cultural knowledge, and cultural
artifacts. In other words, what individual students have an opportunity to learn is supported as well
as constrained by the opportunities for learning constructed, and thus available, in and through the
discursive (oral and written) processes and practices that members develop across time and events.
2. Central to the perspective on intertextuality and intercontextuality as socially constructed is

the concept of historicity (Bloome, 1991; Bloome & Bailey, 1992). Historicity refers to the fact that
what occurs in a local situation has a history, including the words we speak, the meanings, members
hold, and the actions they take and the practices they use.
3. In the analyses presented, we cannot examine which practices that we identify become
principles of practice, given that the data represent classes on a single day.
4. Central to our approach is the notion of contrastive relevance (Hymes, 1977). Contrastive
relevance requires the researcher to examine the choices and actions of members and to show how
they are constant or vary across time and events in ways that are relevant to the particular ``bit'' of
social life being conducted.
5. Spindler and Spindler (1987) argue that the ethnographer observes and analyzes both the
dialogue of talk (discourse) and the dialogue of action to obtain an emic, or insider's perspective on,
and understanding of, the patterns and practices of life within a social group. We draw on Bakhtin's
(1986) notion of the reflexive nature of speaker/hearer (reader/writer) relationships to frame our
view of the dialogue of talk and action. A speaker (actor) speaks (acts) in relation to an implicated
hearer (actors), and a hearer (actor, reader) acts in relation to that implicated other. Thus, it is
possible to observe concerted and coordinated activity (verbal and nonverbal) to obtain information
about how members view the activity in which they are engaged, how they hold each other
accountable to that activity, and how, drawing on particular social and cultural resources, they
jointly construct a common activity.
6. Following Giddens (1979), we view people as structuring their social worlds, not living in a
prestructured world. This view is also present in our understanding that contexts are constructed by
members in and through their face-to-face interactions (Erickson & Shultz, 1981). For a key
discussion on context as constructed see Duranti and Goodwin (1992).
7. We view interactions from a Baktinian (1986) perspective on speaker/hearer relationships.
Using this perspective, we see a response as an active process in which a hearer selects from among a
range of discourses and actions. In taking up the speaker or actor position within a conversational
exchange, then, the actor signals to others, the one that she/he sees as appropriate to the situation and
as one that meets his/her own decision about how to position him/herself within the local moment.
Thus, the actor is seen as having agency, not merely being a passive respondent.
8. Terms in `` '' marks are folk terms or actual talk.
9. Identity viewed in this way is related to the notion of positioning articulated by Davies
(1993) and the work of Fernie, Davies, Kantor, and McMurray (1993). They argue that identity is
socially constructed in and through the interaction of members of a social group, as well as in and
through the interactions members have with written texts. This work is also consistent with the work
of Ivanic (1994) on how writers (readers and speakers) inscribe identity in and through their discourse
choices cited previously.
10. See Wallat and Green (1982) for a discussion of boundaries of events and work
accomplished in transition between events.
11. Transcripts were constructed using message units as the basis for recording talk. Green and
Wallat (1979, 1981) define message units as minimal units of communicative or social meaning (i.e.,
bursts of talk) that can be identified by using contextualization cues (e.g., intonational contour, pitch,
stress, juncture, kinesics, proxemics) from a hearer's perspective (cf., Gumperz, 1992; Gumperz &
Herasimchuk, 1975). Each transcript line represents a message unit that was available to be heard or
seen (in the case of nonverbal actions). Green, FraquõÂz, and Dixon (1997), and Ochs (1979) argue that
a transcript is a construction of the researcher and represents researcher theories of roles and
relationships among social dimensions of everyday life.
12. Ethnographic analysis shows that events develop and activity varies across extended periods
of time in classrooms (Green & Meyer, 1991; Putney, 1996; Santa Barbara Classroom Discourse
Group, 1992a, 1992b; Tuyay et al., 1995).
13. This pattern was consistent with observed practices on another day in which the teacher
introduced the concepts of fractional indices, differentiation, reciprocal, among others.
14. The description of the vocational program presented here represents only what was visible on
the tapes and in the supplemental materials sent. We make no claims that this is all that Aaron and his
peers were afforded, given the limited data sources available for analysis.
REFERENCES
Adam, B. (1990). Time and social theory. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University.
Allington, R. (1984). Oral readings. In P.D. Pearson (Ed.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 829 ±
864). New York: Longman.
Alton-Lee, A., & Nuthall, G. (1992). Children's learning in classrooms: Challenges in developing a
methodology to explain òpportunity to learn'. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 27(2), 1 ± 8.
Alton-Lee, A., & Nuthall, G. (1993). Reframing classroom research: A lesson from the private world
of children. Harvard Educational Review, 63(1), 50 ± 84.
Baker, C., & Luke, A. (Eds.). (1991). Towards a critical sociology of reading pedagogy. Philadelphia:
John Benjamins.
Bakhtin, M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays. Austin, Texas: University of Texas Press.
Barton, D. (1994). Literacy: An introduction to the ecology of written language. Oxford: Blackwell.
Birdwhistell, R. (1977). Some discussion of ethnography, theory and method. In J. Brockman (Ed.),
About Bateson: Essays on Gregorian Bateson (pp. 103 ± 144). New York: E.P. Dutton.
Bloome, D. (1983). Reading as a social process. In B.A. Hutson (Ed.), Advances in reading/language
research (Vol. 2) Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Bloome, D. (Ed.). (1985). Classrooms and literacy. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Bloome, D. (Ed.). (1987). Literacy and schooling. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Bloome, D. (1991). Anthropology and research on the teaching of the English language arts. In J. Flood,
J. Jensen, D. Lapp, & J. Squire (Eds.), Handbook on teaching the English language arts (pp.
205 ± 225). New York: Macmillan.
Bloome, D., & Bailey, F. (1992). Studying language through events, particularlity, and intertextuality.
In R. Beach, J. Green, M. Kamil, & T. Shanahan (Eds.), Multiple disciplinary perspectives on
literacy research (pp. 181 ± 210). Urbana, IL: NCRE and NCTE.
Bloome, D., & Egan-Robertson, A. (1993). The social constriction of intertextuality in classroom
reading and writing lessons. Reading Research Quarterly, 28(4), 304 ± 334.
Bloome, D., & Green, J.L. (1984). Directions in the sociolinguistic study of reading. In P.D. Pearson,
M. Kamil, R. Barr, & P. Mosenthal (Eds.), Handbook on research on reading. New
York: Longman.
Bloome, D., & Green, J.L. (1992). Educational contexts of literacy. In W. Grabe (Ed.), Annual
review of applied linguistics (pp. 49 ± 70). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Chandler, S. (1992). Learning for what purpose? Questions when viewing classroom learning from a
socio-cultural curriculum perspective. In H. Marshall (Ed.), Redefining student learning: Roots
of educational restructuring (pp. 33 ± 58). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Collins, E., & Green, J.L. (1992). Learning in classroom settings: Making or breaking a culture. In H.
Marshall (Ed.), Redefining student learning: Roots of educational restructuring (pp. 59 ± 85).
Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Collins, J. (1983). A linguistic perspective on minority education: Discourse analysis and early
literacy. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.
Collins, J. (1986). Differential instruction in reading groups. In J. Cook-Gumperz (Ed.), The social
construction of literacy (pp. 117 ± 137). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Collins, J. (1987). Using cohesion analysis to understand access to knowledge. In D. Bloome (Ed.),
Literacy and schooling (pp. 67 ± 97). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Cook-Gumperz, J. (Ed.). (1986). The social construction of literacy. New York: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press.
Cosaro, W. (1981). Entering the child's world: Research strategies for field study and data collection.
In J. Green, & C. Wallat (Eds.), Ethnography and language in educational settings (pp. 117 ±
146). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Cosaro, W. (1984). Friendship and peer culture of the young child. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Cumming, J., & Wyatt-Smith, C. (1995). Children's Literacy National Projects Number 2: Literacy
demands of the curriculum in the post-compulsory years. Brisbane: Centre for Literacy
Education Research, Griffith University.
Davies, B. (1993). Shards of glass. Australia: Allen Unwin; Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.
Denzin, N. (1989). The research act: A theoretical introduction to research methods, 3rd ed.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Duranti, A., & Goodwin, C. (Eds.). 1992. Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenom-
enon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Edwards, D., & Mercer, N. (1987). Common knowledge: The development of understanding in the
classroom. New York: Falmer Press.
Erikson, F., & Schultz, J. (1981). When is a context? Some issues and methods in the analysis of social
competence. In J. Green, & C. Wallat (Eds.), Ethnography and language in educational

settings (pp. 147 ± 150). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Fairclough, N. (1993). Discourse and text: Linguistic and intertextual analysis within discourse ana-
lysis. Discourse and Society, 3(2), 193 ± 218.
Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. London: Longman.
Fenstenmacher, G. (1986). Philosophy of research on teaching: Three aspects. In M. Wittrock (Ed.),
Handbook of research on teaching, 3rd ed. (pp. 37 ± 49). New York: Macmillan.
Fernie, D., Davies, B., Kantor, R., & McMurray, P. (1993). Becoming a person in the preschool:
Creating integrated gender, school culture, and peer culture positionings. Qualitative Studies in
Education, 6, 95 ± 110.
Floriani, A. (1993). Negotiating what counts: Roles and relationships, content and meaning, texts and
context. Linguistics and Education, 5(3 ± 4), 241 ± 274.
Frake, C. (1977). Language and cultural description. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Gee, J. (1990). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourse. London: Falmer Press.
Gee, J.P. (1996). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses, 2nd ed. London: Taylor
& Francis.
Gee, J. P., & Green, J. L. (1998). Discourse analysis, learning, and social practice: A methodological
study. Review of Research in Education.
Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays. New York: Basic Books.
Geertz, C. (1983). Local knowledge: Further essays in interpretive anthropology. New York:
Basic Books.
Giddens, A. (1979). Central problems in social theory: Action, structure and contradiction in social
analysis. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Golden, J. (1988). The construction of a literacy text in a story reading lesson. In J. Green, & J.
Harker (Eds.), Multiple perspective analyses of classroom discourse (pp. 71 ± 106). Nor-
wood, NJ: Ablex.
Green, J., & Bloome, D. (1983). Ethnography and reading: Issues, directions, and findings. In J.
Niles (Ed.), 32nd yearbook of the National Reading Conference. Rochester, NY: National
Reading Conference.
Green, J., & Bloome, D. (1997). Ethnography and ethnographers of and in education: A situated
perspective. In J. Flood, S.B. Heath, & D. Lapp (Eds.), Handbook for literacy educators:
Research in the communicative and visual arts. New York: Macmillan.
Green, J., & Dixon, C. (1993). Introduction to ``Talking knowledge into being: Discursive and social
practices in classrooms.'' Linguistics and Education, 5(3 ± 4), 231 ± 239.
Green, J., & Meyer, C. (1991). The embeddedness of reading in classroom life. In C. Baker, & A.
Luke (Eds.), Toward a critical sociology of reading pedagogy (pp. 141 ± 160). Philadelphia,
PA: John Benjamins.
Green, J., & Wallat, C. (1981). Ethnography and language in educational settings. Norwood,
NJ: Ablex.
Green, J., Weade, R., & Graham, K. (1988). Lesson construction and student participation. In
J. Green, & J. Harker (Eds.), Multiple perspective analyses of classroom discourse (pp. 11 ± 48).
Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Green, J.L., Franquiz, M., & Dixon, C. (1997). The myth of the objective of transcript: Transcribing as
a situated act. TESOL Quarterly, 172 ± 176.
Green, J.L., & Harker, J.O. (1982). Gaining access to learning. In L.C. Wilkinson (Ed.), Commu-
nicating in the classroom (pp. 46 ± 76). New York: Academic Press.
Green, J.L., & Wallat, C. (1979). What is an instructional context? An exploratory analysis of con-
versational shifts across time. In O. Garnica, & M. King (Eds.), Language, children, and
society (pp. 159 ± 174). New York: Pergamon.
Gumperz, J. (1982a). Discourse strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gumperz, J. (1982b) Language and social identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gumperz, J. (1986). Interactive sociolinguistics on the study of schooling. In J. Cook-Gumperz (Ed.),
The social construction of literacy (pp. 45 ± 68). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Gumperz, J. (1992). Contextualization and understanding. In A. Duranti, & C. Goodwin (Eds.),
Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon (pp. 229 ± 252). New York,
NY: Cambridge University Press.
Gumperz, J., & Hymes, D. (1972). Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography of communication.
New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Gumperz, J.J., & Herasimchuck, E. (1975). The conversational analysis of social meaning: A study of
classroom interaction. In M. Sanches, & B. Blount (Eds.), Sociocultural dimensions of lan-
guage use (pp. 81 ± 115). New York: Academic Press.
Heap, J. (1980). What counts as reading? Limits to certainty in assessment. Curriculum Inquiry, 10(3),
265 ± 292.
Heap, J. (1991). A situated perspective on what counts as reading. In C. Baker, & A. Luke
(Eds.), Towards a critical sociology of reading pedagogy (pp. 103 ± 139). Philadelphia:
John Benjamins.
Heath, S.B. (1982). Ethnography in education: Defining the essentials. In P. Gillmore, & A.A. Glat-
thorn (Eds.), Children in and out of school: Ethnography and education (pp. 33 ± 55). Wa-
shington, DC: Centre for Applied Linguistics.
Heras, A.I. (1993). The construction of understanding in a sixth grade bilingual classroom. Linguistics
and Education, 5(3 ± 4), 275 ± 299.
Hymes, D. (1977). The state of the art in linguistic anthropology. In A.F.C. Wallace (Ed.), Perspectives
on anthropology (pp. 48 ± 69). Washington, DC: American Anthropology Association.
Ivanic, R. (1994). I is for interpersonal: Discourse construction of writer identities and the teaching of
writing. Linguistics in Education, 6, 3 ± 15.
Kantor, R., Green, J., Bradley, M., & Lin, L. (1992). The construction of schooled discourse reper-
toires: An interactional sociolinguistic perspective on learning to talk in preschool. Linguistics
in Education, 4, 131 ± 172.
Kelly, G., Crawford, T., Green, J. (in press). Common task and uncommon knowledge: Dissenting
voices in the discursive construction of physics across small laboratory groups. Linguistics and
Education. Special Issue on Language and Cognition.
Lima, E.S. (1995). Culture revisited: Vygotsky's ideas in Brazil. Anthropology and Education Quar-
terly, 26(4), 443 ± 457.
Lin, L. (1993). Language of and in the classroom: Constructing the patterns of social life. Linguistics
and Education, 5(3 ± 4), 367 ± 457.
Luke, A. (1995). Text and discourse in education: An introduction to critical discourse analysis.
In M.W. Apple (Ed.), Review of research in education (Vol. 21, pp. 3 ± 48). Washington,
DC: AERA.
Mitchell, C.J. (1984). Typicality and the case study. In R.F. Ellens (Ed.), Ethnographic research:
A guide to general conduct (pp. 238 ± 241). New York: Academic Press.
Ochs, E. (1979). Transcription as theory. In E. Ochs, & B. Schieffelin (Eds.), Developmental
pragmatics (pp. 43 ± 72). New York: Academic Press.
Philips, S. (1983). The invisible culture: Communication in classroom and community on the
warm springs Indian reservation. New York: Longman.
Philips, S.U. (1972). Functions of language. In C. Cazden, V. John, & D. Hymes (Eds.),
Functions of language in the classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.
Prentiss, T. (1995). Constructing literacy practices: An analysis of students' lived and perceived
experience in high school English. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 30(2), 27 ± 30.
Putney, L.G. (1996). You are it! Meaning making as a collective and historical process. Aus-
tralian Journal of Language and Literacy, 19(2), 129 ± 143.
Putney, L. G., Green, J. L., Dixon, C. N., Duran, R., & Yeager, B. (2000). Consequential progres-
sions: Exploring collective ± individual development in a bilingual classroom.
Rex, L. (1997). Making-a-case: A study of the classroom construction of academic literacy.
Unpublished Dissertation. University of California at Santa Barbara.
Rex, L., Green, J., & Dixon, C. (1997). Making a case from evidence: Constructing opportunities
for learning academic literacy practices. Interpretations: Journal of the English Teachers
Association of Western Australia, 78 ± 104.
Santa Barbara Classroom Discourse Group (Green, Dixon, Lin, Floriani, and Bradley) (1992a).
Constructing literacy in classrooms: Literate action as social accomplishment. In H. Marshall
(Ed.), Redefining student learning: Roots of educational change (pp. 119 ± 150). Norwood,
NJ: Ablex.
Santa Barbara Classroom Discourse Group (Dixon, de la Cruz, Green, Lin, and Brandts) (1992b). Do
you see what we see? The referential and intertextual nature of classroom life. Journal of
Classroom Interaction, 27(2), 29 ± 36.
Scribner, S. (1984). Cognitive studies of work. Quarterly Newsletter of the Laboratory of Human
Cognition, 6, 1 ± 2.
Scribner, S., & Cole, M. (1981). The psychology of literacy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Spindler, G., & Spindler, L. (Eds.). (1987). Interpretive ethnography of education: At home and
abroad. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Spradley, J. (1980). Participant observation. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Street, B.V. (1984). Literacy in theory and practice. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Strike, K.A. (1974). On the expressive potential of behaviorist language. American Educational
Research Journal, 11(2), 103 ± 120.
Tannen, D. (1984). Conversational style. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Tuyay, S., Floriani, A., Yeager, B., Dixon, C., & Green, J. (1995). Constructing an integrated, inquiry-
oriented approach in classrooms: A cross-case analysis of social, literate, and academic prac-
tice. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 30(2), 1 ± 15.
Tuyay, S., Jennings, L., & Dixon, C. (1995). Classroom discourse and opportunities to learn: An
ethnogrohic study of knowledge construction in a biligual third grade classroom. Discourse
Processes, 19(1), 75 ± 110.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1987). In R.W. Reiber, & A.S. Carton (Eds.), The collected works of L.S. Vy-
gotsky: Problems of general psychology (Vol. 1). New York: Plenum (Including the volume
Thinking and Speech).
Wallat, C., & Green, J.L. (1982). Mapping instructional conversationsÐa sociolinguistic ethnography.
In J.L. Green, & C. Wallat (Eds.), Ethnography and language in educational settings (pp.
161 ± 208). Norwood: Ablex.
Weade, G. (1987). Curriculum `n' instruction: The construction of meaning. Theory into Practice,
26(1), 15 ± 25.
Weade, G. (1992). Locating learning in the times and spaces of teaching. In H.H. Marshall (Ed.),
Redefining student learning: Roots of educational change (pp. 87 ± 118). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Wells, G., & Chang-Wells, G.L. (1992). Constructing knowledge together: Classrooms as centers of
inquiry and literacy. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Interactional Ethnography An Approach To

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Interactional Ethnography An Approach To

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Interactional Ethnography:

An Approach to Studying the

LITERACY DEFINED: A SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION PERSPECTIVE

Table 1. Data Provided for Analysis

Group, 1992a; Scribner, 1984). Rather, it is a dynamic process in which what

THEORY ±METHOD RELATIONSHIPS: HOW AN INTERACTIONAL

STUDYING LITERATE PRACTICES AS SOCIALLY CONSTRUCTED:

Figure 1. Logic of Inquiry: Analytic Process.

REPRESENTING AND ANALYZING LITERATE ACTION AS

opportunities for learning, and as literate practices afforded members of a social

ON WHAT EVENTS WERE CONSTRUCTED IN THESE CLASSES,

Table 2. Constructing a Running Record Identifying Chain Of Activity: Segment of

marked by [ ]; and theoretical and personal notes (e.g., questions or research

individual or interactive) to identify the kind of literate practices engaged in by

someone who had more knowledge to construct jointly an understanding, not

ON CONTRAST AS A HEURISTIC FOR MEANING CONSTRUCTION:

Table 4. Data Analyses: Ways of Representing Literate Practices

Frame grabs from video x x x x

ON WHAT ANALYSIS OF TIMES AND EVENTS MAKES VISIBLE

Figure 2. Comparative Timelines.

As indicated by each timeline, students were involved in a range of different

ON WHAT CONTRASTING METHODS AND DATA MAKE VISIBLE

included a detailed transcript, information about the physical organization of

Table 5. Domain Analysis Chart of Occupational Hygiene Lecture: What Counts As

An examination of roles and relationships among actors showed that students

ON CURRICULUM IMPLEMENTATIONS AND POLICY

taxonomy represents whole ±part/part ± whole relationships; that is, it represents

Figure 4. Composite Across Days: Taxonomy of Kinds of Written Text.

English, Mathematics). In other classes, students could mark in their workbooks

actions taken by members of the group. Figure 5 revisits the information in

Figure 5. Composite Across Days: An Illustrative Taxonomy of Kinds of Literacy-

Table 7. Statements Related to the Official Curriculum

receives a cursory description of a specific set of genre, and a limited set of

FUTURE DIRECTIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS

of mathematical terms (the language of the discipline) and computational

Acknowledgments: The authors would like to thank Dr. Gregory Kelly,

2. Central to the perspective on intertextuality and intercontextuality as socially constructed is

competence. In J. Green, & C. Wallat (Eds.), Ethnography and language in educational

You might also like