TEACHING READING AND WRITING BEYOND HIGH-STAKES TESTING:

ONE HIGH SCHOOL EXEMPLARY CHINESE LANGUAGE ARTS

TEACHER’S EFFORTS IN NURTURING READERS AND WRITERS
UNDER A TEST-DRIVEN CULTURE

By

RONGRONG DONG

A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO GRADUATE SCHOOL

OF UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

2018

1
© 2018 Rongrong Dong

2
To my beloved families and friends

3
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I thank Dr. Danling Fu for being such a great mentor to me. She is always

supporting and encouraging me academically and emotionally. She is the one who

brings the joy in reading and writing back to me again. I will never forget how much I

enjoyed her classes and how she helped me construct my writer’s identity step by

step. I learned so much from her, as an educator as well as a human being.

I also thank Dr. Elizabeth Bondy, who teaches me to look at the world with a

critical perspective and be aware of my own identity “bubbles”. I thank Dr. Angela

Kohnen for being a great supervisor to me. I really appreciate her for preparing me

well teaching one of the undergraduate courses in the program. I send my sincere

gratitude to Dr. Ying Xiao, who gives me great support and comfort during my

dissertation writing. I am grateful to my committee. I would not be able to complete

this dissertation writing journey without them.

I thank my families and friends for their support and understanding during my

dissertation writing. I would like to express my deepest gratitude for my beloved

parents, who love me so much and are always there for me. I would like to thank my

friends in both U.S. and China. Han, Min, Hao, Xiaoqian, He, Ying, Chen, Buyi,

Xuezi, and Rui. They all give me great comfort in my writing this dissertation. They

make me never feel lonely all these years.

Lastly, I would like to thank my participant teacher and his school. I really

appreciate my participant teacher, who shows expertise, dedication, passion and

honesty in his teaching practices and enlightens me as an educator.

4
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................................... 4

LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................. 8

LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................... 9

ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................ 10

CHAPTER

1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 12

Statement of the Problem ............................................................................ 13

Purpose of the Study ................................................................................... 19
Research Questions .................................................................................... 21
Significance of the Study ............................................................................. 22
An Overview of the Chapters ....................................................................... 24

2 LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................... 26

Theoretical Framework: Social Constructivism ............................................ 26

Learning Under Social Constructivism .................................................. 26
Mediations’ Role Under Social Constructivism ...................................... 29
Literacy Research Under Social Constructivism .................................... 31
Authentic Literacy Instruction ....................................................................... 33
Literacy Instruction and High-Stakes Testing............................................... 35
Qualities of Exemplary Teachers ................................................................. 38
Teachers’ Interpersonal Knowledge ...................................................... 42
Teachers’ Intrapersonal Knowledge ...................................................... 44
Exemplary Reading/Writing Teachers ................................................... 45
Chapter Summary ........................................................................................ 47

3 OVERVIEW OF RESEARCH DESIGN ........................................................ 49

Theoretical Perspective: Social Constructivism ........................................... 49

Methodology: Case Study ............................................................................ 50
Subjectivity Statement ................................................................................. 53
Pilot Study.................................................................................................... 56
Selection of the Participant Teacher ............................................................ 57
Research Site .............................................................................................. 59
Data Collection ............................................................................................ 60
Field Observations ................................................................................ 61
Interviews .............................................................................................. 62
Archival Data ......................................................................................... 63
Data Analysis ............................................................................................... 64
Ethical issues ............................................................................................... 68

5
 Trustworthiness ........................................................................................... 69
Chapter Summary ........................................................................................ 70

4 TEACHING CONTEXT, CLA CLASS, AND THE CRITERIA FOR

EXEMPLARY TEACHERS .......................................................................... 72

China’s Long History with the Test-Obsessive Culture ................................ 72

A Brief Introduction to High School Teaching and Learning in China .......... 77
C’s Working Environment ............................................................................ 80
ShiSan High School .............................................................................. 80
Chinese Language Arts Class ............................................................... 81
Monthly Test .......................................................................................... 83
C’s Recognized Exemplary Teaching .......................................................... 84

5 ENGAGING STUDENTS IN MEANDINGFUL READING AND WRITING ... 86

C’s Attitudes Toward Literacy Teaching....................................................... 86

Create a Safe Learning Environment ........................................................... 89
Bonding with Students ........................................................................... 91
Building Class Community..................................................................... 92
Celebrating Students’ Work ................................................................... 94
C Modeled and Shared His Literate Life as a Reader and Writer ................ 97
Modeling Himself As A Reader and Writer ............................................ 98
Sharing His Literate Life ...................................................................... 101
Engaging Students in Meaningful Reading and Discussion ....................... 104
Before Class: Preparation for Engaged Reading and Discussion ....... 105
During Class: Mini-Lessons and Guided Discussions ......................... 106
After Class: Reflective Notes and the Follow-Up ................................. 110
Making Reading and Writing Relevant to the Real-World Issues............... 111
A Letter to the Mayor ........................................................................... 111
Integrated Literacy Project of a Social Debate .................................... 113
Speeches on News Headlines............................................................. 116
Chapter Summary ...................................................................................... 118

6 CREATING A SCHOOL-WIDE LITERATE LIFE ........................................ 121

An Overview of the Literate Life in ShiSan High School ............................ 121

School-Wide Reading and Writing Celebration ................................... 121
School-Wide Literacy Projects............................................................. 123
Mentoring Students into the School-Wide Literate Life .............................. 125
Sharing Reader Identity ....................................................................... 125
Setting Peer Models ............................................................................ 126
Handing Over Responsibility to Students ............................................ 126
Setting Diversified Assessment ........................................................... 127
The Lead Teacher in The CLA Teaching Community ................................ 128
The “Mini-Talks” Among CLA Faculty .................................................. 128
Recognizing Experts in CLA Faculty ................................................... 129
Mentoring New Faculty ........................................................................ 130
Gaining Support from School Administration ............................................. 131
Initiating Communication with the Principal ......................................... 132
Making Project Plan Concrete ............................................................. 133

6
 Searching for External Funding ........................................................... 134
Collaboration with Scholars and Educators Beyond the School ................ 135
Inviting Authors as Guest Speakers to School .................................... 135
Collaborating with Educators Beyond School ...................................... 136
Chapter Summary ...................................................................................... 137

7 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................... 139

Intrapersonal Knowledge ........................................................................... 140

Teachers’ Interpersonal Knowledge .......................................................... 143
Teachers’ Practical Knowledge .................................................................. 146
A Cross Cultural Perspective on Exemplary Teachers .............................. 148
Implications of the Study ............................................................................ 151
Implication for Teachers ...................................................................... 151
Work within the system ................................................................. 151
Reflect and develop self-knowledge ............................................. 152
Build a literate life and become a lifelong learner .......................... 153
Collaborate within the teaching community ................................... 154
Implications for Policy-Makers and Teacher Educators ....................... 155
Implications for Future Research ......................................................... 157
Limitations of the Study.............................................................................. 158
Concluding Thoughts ................................................................................. 159

APPENDIX

A ORIGINAL IN-CLASS FIELDNOTES SAMPLE ......................................... 161

B TYPED BILINGUAL FIELDNOTES SAMPLE ............................................ 162

C ORGINAL INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPTION SAMPLE ................................ 163

D TRANSLATED INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPTION SAMPLE......................... 164

E SEMI-STRUCTURED SAMPLE INTERVIEW QUESTIONS ...................... 165

F RESEARCH MEMO FOR DATA ANALYSIS SAMPLE .............................. 166

G CONSENT FORM ...................................................................................... 167

LIST OF REFERENCES .................................................................................. 170

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ............................................................................... 186

7
 LIST OF TABLES

Table page
3-1 Overview of Data Collection Time ........................................................... 61

3-2 Data Collection Categories and Answered Questions ............................. 63

3-3 Data Coding Category Sample ................................................................ 67

8
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure page
3-1 Initial Codes Sample................................................................................ 66

3-2 Final Theme Conceptual Map Sample .................................................... 68

9
 Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

TEACHING READING AND WRITING BEYOND HIGH-STAKES TESTING:

ONE HIGH SCHOOL EXEMPLARY CHINESE LANGUAGE ARTS TEACHER’S
EFFORTS IN NURTURING READERS AND WRITERS
UNDER A TEST-DRIVEN CULTURE

By

Rongrong Dong

August 2018

Chair: Danling Fu
Major: Curriculum and Instruction

The purpose of this case study is to examine an exemplary high school

Chinese language arts teacher’s effort in nurturing life-long readers and writers

under the test-driven culture in China’s society. This study looks closely at this

exemplary teacher’s everyday literacy practices in and out of his classroom, focuses

on his ways of creating authentic reading and writing spaces for his students beyond

test preparation, listening to his words about how he achieves his goals in teaching

“in the cracks” in a test-driven culture.

This study adopts the lens of social constructivism. It offers the researcher a

view toward the participant’s teaching practices in nurturing life-long readers and

writers. The research procedures involve data collection through observation of the

participant teacher, semi-structured and unstructured interviews with the participant

teacher, his students and colleagues, as well as class artifacts and students’ writing

samples. The collected data are analyzed using thematic analysis. Major themes

and sub themes are presented in the finding chapter.

Research findings show the participant teacher in the study engages students

in meaningful reading and writing by creating safe learning environment, modeling

10
his literate life, connecting real life to literacy learning and building a school wide

literate life for students. Under the severe testing pressure in China society, he also

collaborates with other CLA faculty, reaches out to school administrators and

educators beyond campus to gain every potential teaching resource for students.

The findings indicate exemplary teachers are not only equipped with

professional knowledge but also develop inter/intrapersonal knowledge and practical

knowledge in their teaching career. These knowledges are the inner strengths

behind their exemplary practices under the high-stakes testing culture in today’s

world. This study calls for teachers to examine and reflect on their own teachers’

knowledge, researchers to pay attention to future exemplary teachers’ studies, and

educators to restructure some teacher education programs.

11
 CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

Before I met Mr. C, I didn’t read books, I didn’t write for myself.
I read textbooks and wrote for tests. After I met him, I read dozens
of books in a year. I wrote my heart out. I even published my own
book before I graduated from high school. He is my mentor for sure
(Interview with student, 6.12.2015).

The above account was given by a student who studied in my participant

teacher’s class from 10th to 11th grade and graduated from high school in the

summer of 2015. That was also the summer I first walked into my participant

teacher’s class to conduct my pilot study on exemplary teachers of Chinese

Language Art (CLA). In this nearly one-hour interview, this student shared with me

how Mr. C, my participant teacher in this case study, turned him from a reluctant

reader and writer to a passionate one.

His words brought back my own high school reading and writing memories in

China. Unfortunately, I had an opposite experience. I loved reading and writing

before high school years and regarded myself as a writer since I was 8 years old.

But high-stakes testing in high school crushed my passion for reading and writing.

Like majority of high school students in China, I was trained into a test-taking robot.

This student’s words also brought me back to some English language arts

classrooms I had observed in U.S. during my doctoral program. I was surprised to

find students moaned in pain the minute they were informed the writing task of the

day. As I taught an undergraduate class to some pre-service teachers during my

doctoral program, I also listened to many of their own reading and writing stories.

Very few of them shared happy memories of in-class reading and writing during their

adolescent years. Moreover, as they were placed into their practicum classrooms,

these pre-service teachers found many ELA teachers’ practices were dominated by

high-stakes testing. Consequently, there were many reluctant readers and writers in

12
their practicum classrooms. Those memories flashed back to me as I interviewed

this student that summer in 2015. I kept wondering what CLA/ELA teachers can do

to bring the reading/writing joy back to students under today’s high-stakes testing

pressures.

The interview further triggered my curiosity towards my participant CLA

teacher, who kept fighting for students and to provide meaningful reading and writing

instruction despite of China’s severe test-driven educational context. This curiosity

finally became the impetus for this case study, in which I explored “How an

exemplary teacher nurtures student into becoming lifelong readers and writers in a

high-stakes testing environment.” I want to dig deep to explore what makes this

teacher exemplary, his specific teaching engagement and endeavors, as well as the

driving forces behind his exemplary practices.

Statement of the Problem

Highly developed literacy is in demand in today’s information technology-

based society. Such literacy does not simply involve reading words, but the capacity

to “write about, talk about and extract meanings from knowledge and experience in

all the ways that school, work, and day-to-day life demand in the twenty-first century”

(Langer, 2000, p.6). Slater (2004) further argues that highly developed literacy

should be the educational goal of teaching all students to think, read and write

critically. To meet the needs of highly developed literacy in today’s world, adolescent

literacy development is significant in education. Research shows students around

grade four, have made the critical transition between “learning to read and reading to

learn” (Chall, 2000, p.99), meaning there is a great need to engage adolescent

students with complex ideas and information to complete their developmental needs

as they mature from children into young adults. As Ippolite, Steele, & Samson (2008)

13
state, to engage adolescent students to read and write, “literacy instruction must

capture their minds and speak to the questions they have about the world as they

contemplate their place within it” (p.2). Therefore, literacy instruction should include

authentic reading and writing practices for adolescent students. Authentic reading

and writing tasks acknowledge students’ need and desire to read and write in the

“real life”, or in Purcell-Gates (2002) words, authentic literacy activities involve

meaningful, purposeful as well as functional experiences that motivate and engage

students. As a result, students who are immersed into the authentic literacy learning

are equipped with the capability to put their knowledge and skills in use when they

confront new situations.

Authentic reading and writing spaces in literacy instruction, especially for

adolescent students, however, are squeezed out by test preparation under the high-

stakes testing educational environment worldwide (Matthews, 2004). High-stakes

testing, as a part of policy design that attaches test scores to promotion, high school

graduation, college admission, teachers and school administrators’ salaries and

tenure decisions (Au, 2007) has dramatically changed teachers’ way of teaching

reading and writing (Harman, 2000). Many teachers report teaching to the test has

stifled their teaching ability and creativity as they have to use a formulated approach

to literacy instruction (Jones & Egley, 2004). Testing pressure is affecting the quality

of their instruction and their professional beliefs about reading and writing (Hoffman,

Assaf, & Paris, 2001). Some teachers have to depart from what they know to be an

effective way of teaching authentic literacy in order to prepare their students for the

mandated tests (Santman, 2002). Under the pressure of high-stakes testing,

teachers tend to adopt a more systematic, low-level, drill-and-skill building instruction

instead of an integrated, meaning-based literacy instruction (Pennington, 2004).

14
Consequently, teachers are torn between what they believe to be the effective

approach to literacy instruction according to their own professional knowledge and

experiences and what testing protocols demand (Assaf, 2006). In other words, even

when teachers are aware of what authentic reading and writing instruction and

activities they should provide for adolescent students to develop high literacy ability,

the pressure from high-stakes testing often dominates their choice to use published

test preparation materials to teach reading and writing. According to Langer (2001),

a productive literacy learning environment should include a positive climate, a rich

literate context, and a focus on creating in students a passion for reading and writing.

But when the urgent need in language arts class becomes preparing students to

pass the test, many teachers are turning a blind eye or becoming less responsive to

students’ literacy needs, thus creating an “instructional climate that renders too many

teachers and students invisible” (Elish-Piper, Matthews, & Risko, 2013, p.7). A

“teaching to the test” instructional climate detaches students’ literacy learning from

their personal lives and makes it challenging for students to develop positive

attitudes and interests toward reading and writing. Intrinsic motivation for reading

and writing disappears. Therefore, high-stakes testing distorts the nature of literacy

teaching and learning, as well as hinders the educational goal of achieving highly

developed adolescent literacy.

In today’s world, American educators are not alone when they compromise

effective teaching to high-stakes testing. High-stakes testing has become a global

educational issue. England has a national curriculum which serves as basis for tests.

At the end of upper secondary school, students’ test scores determine which

universities they can be enrolled in and what specialties they can be assigned to.

Singapore uses high-stakes testing to determine student placement in the education

15
system and access to elite academic programs. During 10 years of heavily tracked

testing system, students in Singapore suffer enormous pressures. In Japan and

Finland, even though students don’t need to take test to finish high school, if they

want to get admitted to universities, they are also required to take the high-stakes

tests assigned by universities as the entrance exam (Rotberg, 2006). Students in

Turkey might be the ones who experience “some of world’s worst exam anxiety”

(Simsek & Yildirim, 2004, p.155) due to the low (about 20%) college acceptance

rates through the nationwide exam at the end of high school.

In the global education platform, China has the longest history with high-stake

tests and the most test-obsessed culture. Among adolescent students around world,

Chinese adolescents might be considered primarily as well trained for test-taking

skills. In the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), students from

Shanghai excelled in reading, science and mathematics and topped the program for

three times (Ravitch, 2014). However, their excellence in taking tests is the reflection

of a severe test-driven culture in China. The culture of high-stakes testing has been

historically rooted in China’s society for centuries, the testing fever is burning through

the whole 1-12 educational system and even the whole society. While teachers in

U.S. are complaining about their shrinking teaching autonomy, Chinese teachers

have never had any choice in what and how to teach. Following a test-driven

curriculum is mandated. Because of the national mandated literacy curriculum,

language arts teachers, like teachers of other subjects, in China are required to

prepare classes based on the nationally designed textbooks. At the end of each

semester, students must take the district wide high-stakes test, which covers most of

the content in the textbook. This means if teachers choose not to teach textbook

content but self-selected reading materials instead, it is very likely their students will

16
fail the test. If so, there is no chance teachers can shrug off the blame. Additionally,

since nobody dares to fail the “once for a life time” high-stakes college entrance

exam, some high school teachers in China start to prepare students for this critical

test at the beginning of high school.

Parental anxieties also play a big role in bringing about the further

deterioration of the situation. Many parents sign their kids for test-prep programs

outside of school, hoping the extra cramming for tests will give their kids an edge in

the competitions. Parents also hold teachers accountable for students’ test scores. If

a teacher prepares students well for tests, no matter what teaching practices he/she

uses in class, this teacher is an exemplary teacher in parents’ eyes. Considering of

these facts, it seems inevitable that “teaching to test” in literacy classrooms prevails.

Despite the extreme pressure of high-stakes testing and the mandated

literacy curriculum, there are some exemplary ELA teachers who are trying to “teach

against the grain” (Cochran-Smith, 1991) and “teach in the cracks” (Bomer, 2005).

They fight hard to create and maintain reflective and critical perspectives on their

own literacy teaching values as well as the policies that affect their classrooms. They

also try their best to stay true to themselves, to trust their professional knowledge

and literacy teaching beliefs. Thus, they are pushing back the pressure of high-

stakes testing, even though they need to be prepared at every moment to defend

their teaching decisions (Bomer, 2005). Some have found ways to work against the

constraints from high-stakes testing and create a dynamic classroom environment

where they express their passion and love of literacy and nurture students to

become life-long readers and writers (Elish-Piper, et. al, 2013).

These cases resonate with Allington (2002), who argues that good and

effective teachers matter much more than curriculum materials, pedagogical

17
approaches, or any “proven programs”. In other words, their expertise matters.

These exemplary teachers accept their professional accountability for students’ test

scores while insisting on the autonomy to act on their expertise. They have

internalized the idea that “teachers must act in an imperfect world. To postpone

action until the knowledge and technique makers establish the educational

millennium is sheer irresponsibility” (Huebner, 1987, p.26). They constantly search

new ways to teach reading and writing in and out of the classroom, try out different

ideas, look for alternative ways to infuse innovative methods in their literacy

instruction. These exemplary teachers influence the lives of their students in long-

lasting and significant ways, thus making reading and writing blossom in the rest of

students’ lives.

But to acquire and develop the qualities and dispositions these exemplary

teachers possess requires long term effort. Teacher education programs in both the

U.S. and China are trying to equip pre-service teachers with effective teaching skills

and knowledge. Yet many pre-service and new in-service teachers complain what

they learned about teaching theories in higher education do not actually match their

teaching practices in class (Sadler, 2006; Rashidi & Moghadam, 2015; Salteh,

2015), especially when high-stakes testing is dictating their pedagogic practices (Puk

& Harnes, 1999). In today’s high-stakes testing culture, professional knowledge and

teaching skills are not enough to achieve effective authentic literacy instruction. In

Palmer (1998)’s words, “good teaching cannot be reduced to technique; good

teaching comes from the identity and integrity of the teacher” (p.10). Therefore, if

teachers want to stay true to themselves in rather than becoming chained by high-

stakes testing, they need to discover “heart, wisdom, and passion” in themselves as

teachers (Williams, 2001). To become an exemplary teacher is a developmental

18
process and may take a career long journey, because “the self is not something

ready-made, but something in continuous formation through choice of action”

(Dewey, 1966, p.351).

For education researchers, I believe it is significant to find out the “choice of

action” those exemplary teachers make as they gain the courage to “teach against

the grain” through their teaching career. Moreover, we need to understand the inner

strengths behind their “choice of action”. To achieve that, we need to examine not

only exemplary teachers’ professional knowledge and their teaching skills, but also

other qualities they possess that make them standout in the test-driven teaching and

learning contexts.

Purpose of the Study

As high-stakes testing is suffocating teachers’ creativity and courage to teach

authentic reading and writing to students (Assaf, 2006; Jones & Egley, 2004;

Barksdale-Ladd & Thomas, 2000), it is urgent for educators and researchers to

encourage teachers to explore alternative ways to teach beyond tests and to raise

students’ literacy level as required for the 21st century global world. One way to

achieve this goal is to draw on the experiences of exemplary teachers. Try to get to

know their ways of teaching and being and to try to understand their beliefs and the

inner strength that sustain their efforts when dealing with difficult and risk-taking

teaching and learning situations.

The purpose of this case study is to examine an exemplary high school

Chinese language arts teacher’s effort in nurturing life-long readers and writers

under the test-driven culture in China. More specifically, this case study looks closely

at this exemplary teacher’s everyday literacy practices in and out of his classroom,

focuses on his ways of creating authentic reading and writing spaces for his students

19
beyond test preparation, listens to his words about how he achieves his goals in

teaching “in the cracks.” As the researcher, I was also curious about the inner

strengths behind his “choice of action.” Therefore, this study also examines the

source of courage my participant teacher possesses to teach beyond high-stakes

testing.

As an educator researcher, I had previously conducted some ELA classroom

studies in U.S. during my doctoral program. I had observed ELA teachers’ practices,

listened to their concerns and complaints about how high-stakes testing negatively

impacted upon their teaching and students’ learning. Their worries about shrinking

teaching autonomy and the rigid curriculum made me think of their counterparts in

China. As I received 1-12 education there, I personally experienced the severe

testing pressure and the lost joy in reading and writing. However, it never occurred to

me what kind of struggles teachers confronted under such test-driven teaching

context. I wondered if there were any teachers who not only prepared students well

for tests but also cultivated and maintained student interest in reading and writing.

This curiosity led me to want to find a teacher like this in China, a society I knew to

have long history of test-obsessive culture.

First, I chose China as the research context for a case study because I

regarded myself as an “insider” in its education system and culture. As an insider, I

was already familiar with the epidemic “test fever” in China. I understood the testing

culture that had been rooted in China society for centuries. I suspected that on a

global platform teachers and students in China might suffer the most severe

pressure from the high-stakes tests. The sociocultural context that placed great

value on high-stakes testing made it a good case for this study. Second, teachers,

especially high school teachers in China have very limited teaching autonomy under

20
a rigid curriculum framework. The mandated textbook teaching makes it very difficult

for teachers to create their own curriculum in the class. Therefore, if there were such

reading and writing teachers out there, their experiences should provide some

insights for teachers in U.S. or other places around the world where high stakes tests

dominate teaching practices.

As I began to look for an exemplary CLA teacher to study in China, I stayed in

my participant teacher’s classroom for two weeks during the summer in 2015. I was

first surprised and soon attracted by the vitality in his CLA class. I was very

impressed by the degree of his students’ participation and engagement in learning.

They were willing to make their voices heard. I was also impressed that his students

were so motivated to read and write, not for tests, but for their own joy. Moreover,

from my casual conversations with my participant teacher during my visit, I was

informed the school where he worked was well-known for a school-wide literacy

learning culture in Jiangsu Province. This literacy culture was built by the joint efforts

of my participant teacher and his colleagues. My pilot study there became the

foundation for the case study I will describe in the report.

Research Questions

This case study focuses on one main research question and two sub-

questions. The main research question is:

How does an exemplary high school CLA teacher engage students in

meaningful reading and writing under the test-obsessive culture in China?

The two sub-questions are:

1. How does this exemplary teacher engage students in meaningful reading and
writing in his classroom instruction?
2. How does this exemplary teacher work with his colleagues to create school
wide literate culture and experience for students?

21
 Significance of the Study

High-stakes test is a global issue in today’s education (Cheng, 2004; Rotberg,

2004; Simsek & Yildirim, 2004). As the case in U.S., under the Common Core State

Standard, high-stakes testing pressures teachers and students and keeps them on

edge. More and more educators have cried out about the threat of the new wave of

high-stakes Common Core tests (Karp, 2013), and how the CCSS text examples fit

into the trend of using benchmarks to drive reading and writing instruction (Peel,

2014). According to a policy research brief conducted by National Council of

Teachers of English in 2014, English language arts teachers and students feel the

negative effects of high-stakes testing with special force because literacy is always

the central part in most high-stakes tests.

Compared to the US, testing pressure is considerably worse in China. The

whole of Chinese society shares the belief that “test score is prior to everything.”

This extreme, widely held social valuing of testing has created a severe test-driven

culture that zaps the vitality from teaching and learning. When teaching reading aims

only at comprehension testing and teaching writing becomes template mimicry, it is

impossible for students to interact with authentic reading and writing, let alone

achieve high literacy development.

As a researcher in literacy education field, I am fully aware how lucky students

would be if they were to meet a language arts teacher who doesn’t confine their

reading and writing teaching to test but joins the world of his or her personal literacy

and students in the fabric of life via instruction, so that students could learn to weave

a literate world for themselves (Palmer, 1998). When we find such exemplary

teachers, we need to situate ourselves in their classrooms, to observe their literacy

practices and their interaction with others in and out of the class, listen to their

22
teaching beliefs, and to analyze their dispositions. We should try our best to explore

the inner strength they have developed during their teaching career that support their

“teaching against the grain.” While there are many studies on exemplary teachers in

U.S. (Langer, Applebee, 1987; Collinson, 1999; Allington, et.al, 2002), there are very

few empirical studies on 1-12 school exemplary teaching in China and even fewer

depicting how in-practice teachers struggle to engage students in reading and writing

under China’s testing environment.

I believe this study will contribute to the field of adolescent literacy instruction

and to teacher education programs in both U.S. and China. First by showing how

one exemplary teacher “teaches against grain” and engages students in authentic

reading and writing despite the test-driven culture, the current study responds to a

common concern of teachers in both countries as test preparation robs students’ of

time that could be devoted to authentic reading and writing, and so learning passion

and academic risk-taking are curtailed (Miller & Higgins, 2008). By demonstrating an

exemplary CLA teacher’s efforts in creating a positive and rich literate environment

and nurturing his students into becoming life-long readers and writers, the current

study also aims to argue it is possible for teachers to help students build passion for

reading and writing while training their literacy skills and strategies (Malikow, 2006)

to meet accountability demands. Second, the current study also explores an

exemplary teacher’s inner strengths as they are related to good teaching. As

Connelly and Clandinin (1998) suggest, “the more we understand ourselves and can

articulate reasons why we are what we are, do what we do, and are headed where

we have chosen, the more meaningful our curriculum will be” (p.11). Teachers need

to understand themselves, they need time and space to reflect on their evolving

teaching beliefs, their classroom teaching practices, and their ways of being.

23
Because, in essence, teachers teach who they are (Palmer, 1998). It is hoped this

study could encourage more teachers to look deeply into their own teaching

practices and the underlying literacy teaching beliefs and philosophies that shape

their practices in the classroom under the current high-stakes testing pressures.

Through reflection, they can gain strengthen to fight for their teaching autonomy and

engage in teaching practices they believe to be best for students and their life-long

literacy development.

An Overview of the Chapters

This case study is composed of seven chapters. In the first chapter, I present

the problem of literacy teaching in the current high-stakes testing education

environment, discuss the purpose and significance of the case study. In the second

chapter, I present the theoretical framework of the study, review the literature related

to authentic literacy instruction, literacy instruction under high-stakes testing context

and studies on exemplary teachers. Chapter three provides the methodology for this

case study. Information about my participant teacher, the research site, data

collection and data analysis procedures are also included in this chapter. In chapter

four, I present China’s testing culture and a general high school teaching context in

China, followed by my participant teacher’s working context. Chapter five unveils the

story of why my participant teacher was able to engage students in meaningful in-

class reading and writing even though he faced the same textbook teaching load and

the monthly testing pressures as his colleagues across China. Chapter six depicts

my participant teacher’s exemplary practices beyond his class as a leading teacher

in the school. In the final chapter, I discuss findings and the implications of the study.

During my six months visit to my participant teacher’s school plus my time for

the pilot study, I kept thinking what a significant and positive influence this exemplary

24
teacher brought to students’ lives, and how lucky those students were as they met

their mentor in adolescent years while most others like them drowned themselves

with testing worksheets. They enjoyed reading and writing and built their own literate

lives under the guidance of a great teacher despite high pressure for constant testing

preparation. This experience will become their life time asset.

25
 CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

The path of literature related to this case study will be discussed in this

chapter. First, social constructivism regarding to teaching and learning will be

addressed as the theoretical framework of the study. Under this framework, literature

related to authentic reading and writing instructions will be examined, followed by

literature about literacy instruction under high-stakes testing. The line of inquiry into

the qualities demonstrated by exemplary teachers, specifically, empirical studies on

exemplary reading and writing teachers will be provided and discussed.

Theoretical Framework: Social Constructivism

This case study is grounded in social constructivism. Social constructivism

asserts that knowledge is acquired by content involvement rather than imitation or

repetition (Kroll & LaBosky, 1996). One needs to consider the information presented

based on his/her personal experiences, values, beliefs and cultural background. As

students’ previous experiences and knowledge play an important role in constructing

new meanings, teachers should adopt a more student-oriented approach instead of

imposing information on them. By viewing learning in terms of social construction,

teachers teach beyond the standards and focus on students themselves (Adams,

2006).

Social constructivism also emphasizes the significance of cultural settings and

cultural resources as these two elements help us to understand what happens in

society (Derry, 1999).

Learning Under Social Constructivism

Dewey (1938) criticizes the “traditional school” for its static approach to

teaching and learning and argues that because knowledge and information are

handed down from the past in traditional education, students are trained to be docile,

26
receptive and obedient to both textbooks and their teachers. In such a learning

environment, knowledge is taught as a finished product to students. No one

questions about how such knowledge was constructed in the past or what changes it

will bring about in the future. This explains why students are often bored in traditional

classrooms.

Rejecting the repetitive, rote learning mode of the traditional school, social

constructivists value the learners themselves more than their performance. As Easen

& Bolden (2005) argue, since learning occurs in students’ minds, behavior is not a

prior or reliable indicator of students’ cognitive development. While behaviorism

tends to train students to be fluent in taking the standardized tests, social

constructivist views provides students spaces to construct their own meanings in

learning through actions within a given socio-cultural context (Porter, 2000). Dewey

(1938) argues that teachers also need to be acquainted with “the conditions of the

local community, physical, historical, economic, occupational etc. in order to utilize

them as educational resources” (p.40) in their teaching practices.

Roth (2000) further argues that students’ knowledge construction is based on

their interactions with the surroundings as well as other people around them.

Therefore, meaningful learning occurs when individuals are engaged in social

activities such as interaction and collaboration (Gredler, 1997; Prawat & Floden,

1994). One of the assumptions of social constructivism is that reality cannot be

discovered as it does not exist until it is constructed by human activities (Kukla,

2000). Many social constructivists, such as Brown (1989), Ackerman and Dykman

(1996) consider learning to be an active process in which students learn to discover

principles and facts by themselves. Ernest (1995) states that the essence of the

27
learning environment is experimental and dialogical, within which knowledge is

constructed by the inquiries to be explored.

Vygotsky (1962) also argues that learners’ social interaction, interpretation

and understanding contribute to their knowledge construction. The central argument

of Vygotskian social constructivism is “human activities take place in cultural

contexts, are mediated by language and other symbol systems, and can be best

understood when investigated in their historical development” (John-Steiner & Mahn,

1996, p.191). Contrary to Piagetian dichotomous view of cognition and instruction,

Vygotsky perceives the transformation of socially shared activities into internalized

processes as the crucial part in human higher mental and psychological

development. In other words, human development, mediated by tools and signs, is

rooted in social sources, and should be examined through genetic analysis (Wertsch,

1991). In other words, the Vygotskian social constructivism approach highlights the

influence of sociocultural forces on structuring students’ development and learning

situations.

Rather than simply focusing on students’ actual learning in the classrooms,

Vygotsky (1978) also focuses on potential capabilities, their internal development

processes, and their future independent developmental achievement. He proposes

the concept of Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD). That term stands for “the

distance between the actual development level as determined by independent

problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through

problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers”

(p.86). The ZPD addresses the transition from interpersonal plane to the

intrapersonal plane. Turuk (2008) states that ZPD is jointly determined by the

students’ level of development and the form of instruction involved, therefore, there

28
is a complex interrelationship where instruction and development coexist. As the

ZPD highlights the assisted performance as students grow toward new

competencies that are within the learners’ potential range, one of the significant

values of ZPD stated by Smagorinsky (2012) is that teaching matters in learning.

Students are neither deprived of their own voices in learning nor totally left on their

own. Under the scaffolding of the teacher and peers, students are moving toward

new learning goals.

Mediations’ Role Under Social Constructivism

Mediation is a critical concept in Vygotskian social constructivism framework.

Kozulin, Gindis, Ageyev, & Miller (2003) explain that students’ higher mental

processes are dependent on the mediating agents when they are interacting within

the settings. While symbolic tools also serve as mediators and play a significant role

in students’ cognitive development and learning processes, human mediators are

indispensable. DeLoach (1995) concludes from the research on symbols usage by

young children that the acquisition of symbolic relationships requires guided

experiences. Such acquisition never appears spontaneously. To put it more specific,

“symbols may remain useless unless their meaning as cognitive tools is properly

mediated to the child” (Kozulin, 2003, p.24). Unlike Piagetian behavioral assertion

that individual is an independent agent of acquisition and the container to be filled

with skills and knowledge, social constructivism approach gives credit to teachers, as

more knowledgeable others, since they enhance students’ learning by selecting and

shape the learning experiences.

Influenced by Vygotskian theory of ZPD, social constructivists highlight the

role of the teacher by contributing the ideas of “scaffolding” (Ninio & Bruner, 1978;

Raymond, 2000) and “guided participation” (Bransford & Brown,2000). Influenced by

29
Vygotskian sociocultural theory, Bruner (1996) acknowledges the important role

teacher plays in the class, but he also argues that other interactions in the classroom

are more than the ones between teachers and students:

teacher does not play that role as a monopoly, that learners “scaffold” for
each other as well. . . we also want learners to gain good judgement, to
become self-reliant, to work well with each other. And such
competencies do not flourish under a one-way “transmission” regimen
(p.20).

From his perspective, a classroom should be conceived as a sub community

of mutual learners, where teachers orchestrate the proceeding. He is not advocating

for reducing teachers’ authority in the class, but to encourage teachers to share the

responsibilities with students. He states, “If you treat people, young kids included, as

responsible, contributing parties to the group, as having a job to do, they will grow

into it --- some better than others, obviously, but all benefit” (p.77). In short, from the

social constructivists’ perspective, classroom conversations play a significant role in

students’ cognitive development and their knowledge constructions (Dorn, 1996). For

example, Clay (2005) states that in literacy instruction, it is conversational

exchanges, even the casual ones between teachers and students, that create many

opportunities for students to develop reading and writing capacities.

Bruner (1996) takes that the importance of teacher-student exchange one

step further when he says, “no educational reform can get off the ground without an

adult actively and honestly participating --- a teacher willing and prepared to give and

share aid, to comfort and to scaffold” (p.84). He urges that teachers be included

when shaping educational change because they are the ultimate change agents in

education.

30
Literacy Research Under Social Constructivism

Under a social constructivism framework, literacy research may touch the

definitions of literacy in history, functions of literacy in different communities, as well

as the social construction of success and failure in learning to read and write in

school context (Au, 1998). Wertsch (1985) argues that because social constructivism

regards intellect and affect as two inseparable components of consciousness, many

literacy studies with a social constructivist’s perspective tend to focus on the

motivational and emotional dimensions of literacy (Oldfarther & Dahl, 1994) as well

as cognitive and strategic ones (Kucan & Beck, 1997; Ambe, 2007). Moll (1990)

further states that because social constructivism adopts a holistic picture on learning,

research on school literacy learning utilizing this framework advocates engaging

students in authentic literacy activities rather than training them with separate literacy

skills.

In addition to that, since social constructivism emphasizes the role of

“significant others” (Carter & Jones, 1994) in students’ learning, teachers, peers and

family members are also included as the focus in studies of literacy acquisition

(Tudge, 1992; Neuman, Caperelli & Cara, 1998). Miller (2003)’s research is on a

decade of series ethnographic studies on how classroom discussion in social

constructivist literature pedagogy shapes students’ knowing and thinking.

Referencing the theoretical framework of Vygotsky’s ZPD, she concludes that in a

teacher-mediated open-forum discussion that invites students’ personal

interpretations, the classroom becomes a supportive social space which serves as

the “zone” for the mutual assistance for students’ thinking and talking literature. In

her study, Miller provides evidence that teacher mediation in problem-posing

contexts contributes to specific forms of critically reflective literacy practice.

31
 There are also studies on writing instruction guided by Vygotskian

sociocultural approach. Everson (1991) states that many modern times writing

theories, such as internal dialogue, composing over time, the social dynamic aspects

of learning are deeply rooted in the ground of Vygotsky’s language development

research. Therefore, the writing processes of “talking it over”, “thinking it through”,

“solving the problem” and “writing it down” are analyzed with the perspective of

sociocultural way of learning and development. In classroom settings, some

researchers use Vygotsky’s ZPD to develop students’ writing capabilities. This body

of research focus on social interactions occurring during talking with teachers and

peers. For example, Sperling (1990) argues students are more apt to benefit from

the interaction with teachers when teachers lessen their roles as authorities and

invite students to initiate teacher-student interactions in the class. Using higher level

of scaffolding questions through students’ ZPD is also discussed as a better way to

advance student writing and interest, especially for beginning writers as they barely

have knowledge of writing process (Greene & Smith, 1999). Talking to peers in class

enables students to aid each other. They are able to gain writing ideas, organize

structures of the paper and design syntactic arrangement (Preus, 1999; Dyson,

1990). However, as Vanderburg (2006) warns, in such classrooms discussions

should be structured by teachers, otherwise the class could descend into chaos and

students could easily be distracted from the writing process.

Social constructivism provides this case study with its theoretical framework

by defining the nature of learning and the role of teachers in the school. As this

framework also situates teaching and learning under sociocultural setting, it lends

me a lens to view my participant teachers’ literacy practices under China’s test-

driven educational context. Literacy research with social constructivist perspectives

32
further provide insights into effective literacy instruction in classrooms, as these

studies advocate for authentic literacy teaching and learning in school context.

Authentic Literacy Instruction

Literacy research framed by social constructivism suggest that students don’t

learn language in abstract, decontextualized terms, but in a context that has

meanings in real life (Duke, Purcell-Gates, Hall, & Tower, 2006). As Edelsky (1986)

implies, learners need to construct meanings through transaction with real-world

texts. Besides, they also need to apply predicting and confirming strategies in

reading and composing strategies in writing. In other words, she encourages

students to use meaningful and functional oral and written language in their literacy

learning. Therefore, students should be engaged in authentic literacy instruction and

activities in the school (Barnitz, 1994; Purcell-Gates, 2002).

While in many classrooms, authentic reading means reading children’s books

and authentic writing means different types of writers’ workshops, neither of these

are exclusively composed of authentic literacy instruction (Purcell-Gates, 2013).

Duke et. al (2006) address the fact that “authentic literacy” is a pedagogical concept

and authentic literacy teaching is the opposite to “school-only” reading and writing

instructions. Anderson, Purcell-Gates, Jang and Gagne (2010) further define

authentic literacy as reading and writing of real-life texts for real-life purposes in a

literacy learning classroom. For example, reading recipes to prepare for a food dish,

or writing greeting cards to friends or families (p.3). These researchers also argue

that the term authentic literacy must always be followed by the term instruction,

because “the definition of authentic literacy only applies to the type of reading and

writing that occurs within classrooms and within instruction that is ultimately focused

on helping [students] learn to read and write” (p.16).

33
 Authentic literacy instruction might be one of the solutions to many literacy

teaching and program challenges. Focusing on engaging learners in authentic

literacy instruction, Anderson et. al (2010) document the process of implementing an

intergenerational literacy program with immigrant and refugee families. Their results

show that both parents and children in the study had significant growth in literacy

levels.

There are similar studies on how authentic literacy instruction can help

students to learn reading and writing. For example, Purcell-Gates, Degener,

Jacobson and Soler (2002) report that adult learners in programs with more

authentic literacy activities read and wrote more in their out-of-school lives. These

adult learners also read and wrote more complex texts by themselves. The longer

they stayed in programs with authentic literacy activities, the more likely they were to

become life-long readers and writers. In a similar vein, Purcell-Gates and Duke

(2004) indicate that teachers who include more authentic literacy activities in their

instruction have more students who achieve growth in comprehension and writing.

It is understandable why authentic literacy instruction helps students with

reading and writing. For one thing, when learners are engaged in reading and writing

real-life texts for real-life reasons, they are usually highly motivated and engaged

(Purcell-Gates, 2013). Such literacy instruction captures learners’ minds and

respond to the questions they have about the world they live in (Ippolite, Steele &

Samson, 2008); Second, when students read and write with real-life purposes in

school, they are well-prepared to put such literacy skills in future situations. For

example, Duke, et. al (2006) invite 26 second and third grade teachers to make

authentic reading and writing an integral part of their science instruction. They

provide students with science information books such as books on snakes, the

34
weather, force, etc. They also include science museum brochures as part of the real-

life readings for students. At the end of the second year, the researchers conclude

that there is a corresponding increase in literacy achievement for each increase in

the authentic literacy in these classrooms.

Komesaroff and Morrison (2001) examine a shift in literacy teaching and

learning when authentic literacy projects are established in a primary school.

Students in the projects organize a school camp, pay a visit to state basketballer,

participate an Olympics Day sports event, attend a school play and compose school

newsletters. With the support of parents and teachers, students learn how to book

accommodations and transportation, calculate costs, time and distance, and prepare

letters and consent forms for parents. The researchers argue that these authentic

tasks make a shift in the nature and position of literacy in the curriculum, through

which students gain “autonomy, control and ownership of their use of literacy” (p.7).

Even though the studies above all focus on the contribution of authentic

literacy instruction to developing students’ reading and writing, none of them

consider the difficulties teachers might confront when implementing such practices in

their classrooms in light of today’s severe testing pressures. To understand literacy

teachers’ struggles when bringing authentic or meaningful reading/writing instruction

into the classroom, an examination on how high-stakes testing affects teaching

decisions and practices is necessary.

Literacy Instruction and High-Stakes Testing

There are a lot of studies focus on the discrepancies between reading/writing

teachers’ perception of good teaching and their actual teaching practices in class

(Assaf, 2006; Bulgar, 2012; Peel, 2014). In this line of study, literacy teachers report

they struggle between their intentions to engage students in authentic literacy and

35
the fear of students’ failure in high-stakes tests. For example, Assaf (2006) portrays

an experienced reading coach’s dilemma in reading instruction for her students

under a newly wave of high-stakes testing: she is “torn between what these students

need to do in order to succeed as real readers and what they need to do to pass the

test” (p.162). As a result, “her reading instruction changed from rich and authentic

discussions about books to a quiet, often subdued atmosphere of silent reading and

mastery of low-level test skills isolated from real reading” (p.164).

With a similar view, Peel (2014) depicts a writing teacher’s predicament in

transforming struggling writers into proficient test-takers. Because the writing teacher

knows well her teaching is just preparing students to meet the demands of the

writing assessment rather than using writing as a tool to help them explore their own

present experience, she still needs “some fast, efficient instructional approaches”,

because “there are no time to risk failure” (p.74).

Luna and Turner (2001) interview high school ELA teachers in Massachusetts

and talked about their instructional adjustments to accommodate one high-stakes

test. Interviewed teachers report they spend more time on literary terms because

they count as a major part in the test. Other significant topics such as discussions

about a particular author or novel, along with in-depth exploration, students’ creativity

and curiosity are sacrificed.

ELA teachers not only dramatically change their ways of teaching reading and

writing, but also begin to question their own professional experiences and

knowledge. A great number of teachers are wrestling with a conflict between their

own beliefs, values, personal philosophy about teaching and a need to adopt a more

traditional way of training students to pass the test (Bulgar, 2012). Teachers feel they

have lost the voice and ownership of their teaching, and that they no longer have

36
time to reflect, respond, renew, or even relax in their teaching career (McCracken &

McCracken, 2001).

Research on literacy teaching under high-stakes testing in China echo with

the studies in U.S. Yu (1998) argues that standardized testing has pushed Chinese

literacy instruction to a dead end. Under the huge pressure from high-stakes testing,

Chinese language arts (CLA) teachers have no choice in their daily practices but to

teach to the test. They are chained to the high-stakes tests (Zhou, 1999). As

teachers are so busily preparing students for standardized tests, they seldom have

time to think back about their literacy teaching beliefs or put their beliefs into

practices. Xiao (2010) concludes his study of secondary literacy instruction by stating

that students’ test scores have become the most important criteria for effective

literacy teaching in China. CLA teachers’ actual teaching beliefs and values are

irrelevant in such an educational context.

Teaching authentic literacy under test pressure. Considerable pressure to

teach only to the test seems inevitable in today’s high-stakes testing era, yet “each

teacher will have to arrive at his/her own decision on how to cope” with such

pressure (Madaus, 1988, p.44). Some studies indicate there are some

reading/writing teachers who succeed in implementing exemplary reading and

writing instruction in their classrooms under high-stakes testing (Atwell, 1998; Noden

& Vacca, 1994). In Elish-Piper, et. al (2013), researchers report that three ELA

teachers find different ways to support their students to become visible, evident and

consequential in productive literacy learning environments. Even as they develop

different approaches to create authentic literacy for their students, all three teachers

share one underlying value. All three treasure their students’ needs in class above all

else and so, they situate students as active participants in their own literacy learning.

37
Similarly, in a cross-case study, Sturtevant and Linek (2010) report the perspectives

of nine content area outstanding teachers’ literacy practices in their instruction. Their

findings show that outstanding teachers have strong beliefs about meeting students’

needs and the value of interpersonal relationships. They all are life-long learners.

Reading/writing teachers share insights with their students in creating

authentic literacy learning environments (Bomer, 2005; Gallagher, 2006). In other

words, practicing teachers provide insiders’ view in their literacy practices. For

example, Gallagher (2006), exemplary secondary language arts teacher, advocates

that literacy teachers should teach beyond fake writing---the kinds of writing students

will never do once they leave school. This idea is underscored by the belief that

“tests come and go, but attitudes about writing can be lifelong” (p. 93), so teachers

need to ignore the mandated discourse until they have a chance to help students

warm up to writing.

There are very few empirical studies about teachers in China that focus on

exemplary literacy teachers in that high-stakes testing environment. Even though

some studies (Liu, 2016; Ma & Lai, 2011; Dong, 2016) address the qualities

exemplary literacy teachers demonstrate, no specific teaching practices for dealing

with test pressure are described.

Qualities of Exemplary Teachers

Recognizing the significant role of teachers and their expertise, many studies

depict the qualities of exemplary teachers (Allington, Johnson, & Day, 2002;

Allington, 2002; Parris & Block, 2007; Shulman, 1986). Allington, et.al (2002)

conduct a multisite case study on 30 fourth-grade exemplary teachers. By observing

and interviewing these exemplary teachers, he highlights five aspects that standout

in exemplary teachers’ practices. First, he notices the nature of talk in the classroom.

38
Both teacher and students talk in a respectful, supportive and productive ways.

Conversation is a way for teachers to know about their students, a way to engage

students in discussions, and a way to admit their personal limits, mistakes and

interests. Second, these exemplary teachers never get satisfied using single-source

curriculum materials. All of them make efforts to fill students’ day with reading and

writing beyond textbooks. Third, these teachers seldom lecture in front of students

but prefer to work alongside or among students. They focus on engaging students in

a problem-solving, conversational and collaborative learning environment. Fourth,

they cultivate a strong literacy emphasis and extend students’ reading and writing

across the curriculum. Last, these exemplary teachers evaluate students more on

their improvement, progress and efforts than on their test scores.

In a similar vein, Ableser (2011) conduct a meta-analysis on exemplary

teachers in early childhood education, K-12, special education, higher education and

on-line learning. The researcher aim to find a central theme and patterns in

exemplary practices that were universal across all contexts. In the study, he

concludes,

to meet the higher level of exemplary practice, teachers need to have a

commitment to all their students, a commitment to learning and learning
outcomes, and towards their students successfully meeting those
outcomes. Teaching for all to learn is a hallmark of teaching excellence
across all levels (p.67).

The researcher further lists 10 principles of exemplary teaching practices,

including:

1. Educational values, beliefs and philosophies that support teaching for all to learn;

2. Focusing on learning that is relevant, purposeful, meaningful and meaning

making;

3. Focusing on learning and learning outcomes;

4. Facilitating learning;

39
5. Learner-centered active engagement by providing a range of techniques and
authentic learning opportunities to meet the needs, interests and styles of all
learners;

6. Assessing and supporting learners’ strengths, interests, needs and learning

styles to ensure their success;

7. Demonstrating respect, fairness and care of learners’ development and learning

to ensure success;

8. Creating a community of learners;

9. Intentional and purposeful curriculum planning;

10. Engaging in reflective practices (Ableser, 2011 in Ableser, 2012, p.67)

While the research mentioned above selecting exemplary teachers as the

participants, studies in this line (Roehrig, Bohn, Turner, & Pressley, 2008; Feiman-

Nemser, 2001) most present these exemplary teachers’ teaching practices but not

exemplary teachers themselves. To further provide the images of exemplary

teachers per se and investigate the qualities these teachers demonstrate in their

career, Collinson, Killeavy and Stephenson (1998) study exemplary teachers from

England, Ireland and U.S. This study aims to find out exemplary teachers’

understanding of role and development of an ethic of care in good teaching. Their

qualitative data show that exemplary teachers view respect as a fundamental factor

for students’ best learning and a prerequisite for effective teaching. These exemplary

teachers care about their students, they work hard to know their students. They

structure their classes in a way that encourages oral and written dialogue with

students. Additionally, all teachers in the study are reported to “consciously work to

create a classroom atmosphere conductive to questioning, self-assessment, and

helpful critique” (p.21). There are other studies focusing on an ethic of care

presented by exemplary teachers. These studies show different aspects of a caring

teacher. For example, a genuine concern for students (Van Schaack &Glick, 1982),

40
consider human interactions rewarding (Baker & Stevenson, 1986), and love seeing

student growth (Campbell, 1988) are demonstrated.

Collinson (1994) describes exemplary teachers as life-long learners, as they

have a desire for continuous renewal. Her study is aimed inquiring into exemplary

teachers’ personal and professional renewal throughout their careers. She finds a

pattern of qualities that appear in many exemplary teachers: they share a disposition

to question, reflect, seek alternative, weigh consequences, and move toward

increasingly good judgement; they have knowledge of their students, curriculum,

their working environment, and the community; and, they have a deep belief that as

teachers they can make a difference in the lives of students.

Cochran-Smith (1991) brings the idea of “teach against the grain” to

exemplary teacher studies. The researcher argues there are some experienced

teachers who are engaged in complex, situation specific educational context

struggling to alter curriculum, raise questions about common practices, and resist

inappropriate decisions in their own classrooms. These teachers present more

sophisticated qualities in “teaching against grain” as they need to demonstrate the

competency at widely practiced teaching and assessment, but at the same time are

also battling to develop and use alternative practices in the class. Even though they

don’t personally care about standard measures of learning, they need to prove their

students are progressing according to such measures. They sometimes wrestle with

their own doubts but are still courageous enough to take risks by practicing what

they believe about teaching and learning. Most importantly, “they have to understand

and work both within and around the culture of teaching and the politics of schooling

at their particular schools and within their larger school systems and communities”

(p.285).

41
 The qualities of exemplary teachers reflected in that study also resonate with

Collinson (1996), who advocates that educators to pay attention to teachers’

interpersonal knowledge and intrapersonal knowledge. Interpersonal knowledge is

reflected in the teacher’s relationships with students, colleagues, schools and

communities. Equipped with interpersonal knowledge, exemplary teachers are aware

that teaching is indeed within political systems, and they need to collaborate with

administrators, researchers, teacher educators in order to gain different perspectives

and facets of the current educational issues. Through interactions with other adult

professionals, exemplary teachers receive both support and criticism to help them

maximize efficacy in their teaching.

Intrapersonal knowledge is an important quality displayed by exemplary

teachers that plays vital role in achieving effective teaching, yet it is the most

neglected aspect in research by teacher educators (Collinson, 1996). Intrapersonal

knowledge is teacher’s understanding of oneself, and a capacity for introspection

and reflection. Ways of thinking and ways of being are also part of teachers’

intrapersonal knowledge. Studies on these two kinds of teachers’ knowledge are

reviewed in the following sections.

Teachers’ Interpersonal Knowledge

Sternberg and Horvath (1995) argue that expert teachers need knowledge of

the social and political context in which teaching occur. Specifically, expert teachers

or exemplary teachers should demonstrate a great capacity to apply teaching

knowledge in particular social and organizational contexts and know effective ways

to “insulate their classrooms from machinations at the administrative or societal

level” (p.11). This kind of tacit knowledge (Polanyi, 1967) allows exemplary teachers

to adapt to the practical constraints in the field of teaching. Collinson (1999)

42
characterizes this tacit knowledge as “political awareness.” In her view, it is a part of

the interpersonal knowledge that exemplary teachers possesses. She also refers

interpersonal knowledge as “people skills”, which requires “empathy to understand

others, honesty and trust, respect, tolerance of different perspectives and setting

aside of self, good communication skills” (p.6).

Exemplary teachers are more willing to participate in extra-curricular and

professional activities at the school, community or state level as they tend to regard

themselves as part of a large profession that includes administrators, teacher

educators and researchers. So “rather than taking a passive role, they get involved

on curriculum writing committees, negotiating teams, promotion/ retention

committees---any role that allows them to voice their opinion” (Collinson, 1994,

p.131) to achieve their goal of teaching their students in the best possible ways they

can find.

However, even though there are a great number of studies that focus on the

interactions between teachers and students (Van Tartwijk & Wubbels, 1998; den

Brok, Levy, Brekelman & Wubbels, 2005), and the collaborations among colleagues

(Alterator & Deed, 2013; Sandholtz, 2000; Kaufman & Brooks, 1996), literature about

exemplary teachers’ efforts in seeking every potential sources and possible

resources for improving their teaching and later students learning are not abundant.

Studies on exemplary teachers’ “people skills” within today’s high-stakes testing

environment are even more scarce.

Studies in Chinese educational context provides a similar picture on teachers’

interpersonal knowledge. While some studies focus on the significance of networks

in teaching (Wang, 2009), or apprenticeship between experienced teachers and

newly in-service teachers (Zhao, 2004), teachers’ interpersonal knowledge is limited

43
to collaborations among teacher colleagues. There is a need for further studies on

how teachers reach out to potential resources with political awareness under testing

pressures.

Teachers’ Intrapersonal Knowledge

Rex and Nelson (2004) examine the “professional identities” of two high

school English teachers. “Professional identities” are defined in the study as a blend

of personal values, beliefs, and dispositions. These two teachers’ professional

identities are reported to be constructed through their personal histories. Therefore,

“life history” perspective approach has been adopted as the framework by several

studies seeking to understand the evolution of teachers’ intrapersonal skills and draw

connections to current observed and reported practices (Drake, Spillane & Hufferd-

Ackles, 2001; Muchmore, 2001). These researchers believe that a systematic life-

history narrative methodology is a more accurate representation of how teachers

construct, maintain, evaluate and change their teaching beliefs, values, and

dispositions. For example, Moje (1994) conducts an ethnographic study on a high

school chemistry teacher, in which the researcher systematically explored the

autobiographical influences on a secondary teacher’s instructional beliefs and the

use of literacy as a lifetime experience. Muchmore (2001) studies the life history of a

high school language arts teacher. He uses narratives to describe the teacher’s

personal and educational literacy experiences. That study revealed that the teacher’s

beliefs about literacy stemmed from her personal experiences and from her career-

long observations of the children, rather than directly from formal theories of literacy.

Echoing Palmer (1998)’s arguments for teachers’ self- identity awareness,

Gomez (2009) inquiries into the connection between teachers’ personal literate lives

and their professional teaching practices. The researcher argues that teachers’

44
knowledge and beliefs about literacy --- their “literate identities” (Gomez, 2005), as

well as their values and dispositions toward literacy are likely to shape how they

create a context for becoming literate and connect to literacy teaching in the

classroom. This study shows that exemplary teachers are not only aware of the

importance of technical knowledge or how to teach but are also aware of the

significance of having the deeper dimension of sense-of-self as a literate person.

One limitation of the study, as the researcher states, is the lack of classroom

observation of teachers’ practices. Without the observations, there is no way a full

picture of how these teachers translate their literacy beliefs into practices in the class

can be presented.

In China’s teacher education studies, there is no terminology that matches

“intrapersonal knowledge” in English language context, but there are several studies

on teachers’ self-knowledge development (Yin, 2012; Bao, 2014) and the core

dispositions that contribute to teachers’ professional development (Li, 2005; Meng,

2012).

Exemplary Reading/Writing Teachers

Studies show teaching expertise matters in students’ literacy growth (Block,

Oakar, & Hurt, 2002; Pressley, Allington, Wharton-McDonald, Block, & Morrow,

2001). Many studies summarize the qualities of exemplary or effective literacy

teachers. For example, Beers (2000) concludes that exemplary literacy teachers not

only understand how to implement successful instruction, but also know what to do

and when to do it in the class. Carbonaro and Gamoran (2002) state that exemplary

literacy teachers prefer to use intellectually challenging and widely varied reading

and writing activities in class. Applebee, Langer, Nystrand and Gamoran (2003)

argue that these teachers hold high expectations for themselves and their students.

45
 Parris and Block (2007) run a survey with 38 exemplary literacy teachers and

identify several domains of their teaching expertise. First, in the domain of teaching

pedagogy, these teachers aim to develop students into independent learners. Thus,

they encourage students to apply critical thinking skills, ask questions in class,

participate in decision making, and take ownership of their work. Second, they

understand how to address diverse needs in class. To meet the changing needs of

their students, they revise their curriculum to make it relevant to students’ lives.

Third, as for personal characteristics, these teachers themselves are readers and

writers. They collaborate with peers to create new learning opportunities for

students. They are not afraid of taking risks and are creative in many aspects. In

terms of instructional activities, they tend to use scaffolding, mini lessons,

discussions in class. They also create many chances for students to write and share

their works in different forms.

Turner (2005) conducts a case study of an exemplary reading teacher in

cultivating the literary development of African American students. The teacher in the

study enacts a border-crossing curriculum for her students. She also makes

transparent the strategies and skills good readers use by demonstrating during

whole class mini lessons and individual conferences with her students.

Block and Mangieri (2009) state one of the dominant teaching roles and

responsibilities of talented secondary reading and writing teachers is that of the

“leader.” They argue since adolescents have developed maturity and a relatively

diverse range of reading capacity, “exemplary secondary teachers must constantly

be their students’ trusted leader, hero and champion for their literacy success”

(p.70). These two researchers also list qualities presented by these secondary

reading/writing teachers:

46
 1) Build confidence by gently guiding;
2) Cherish students’ every attempt to read;
3) “Hold student’s hand” to encourage new forays into more advanced literacy
skills;
4) Demonstrate the thoughts and steps necessary to reach high levels of
success;
5) Manage and navigate the gulf between learning to read and reading to learn;
6) Coach diverse abilities simultaneously during the same lesson;
7) Adapt large amounts of knowledge into learnable chunks (p.70).

In summary, these exemplary teachers lead by doing, they themselves are

the change, thoughts and actions leading students to become readers and writers for

a life time.

Chapter Summary

In this chapter, social constructivism laid a firm theoretical ground for this

present case study. When I set foot on my research site, I had already been

equipped with the framework for teaching and learning and the role of teachers with

a social constructivist perspective. I was also aware I needed to pay attention to the

influence of the social and cultural context. As the researcher of this study, I was

guided by the literature on literacy instruction grounded in social constructivism.

I reviewed the literature on authentic literacy instruction, literacy teaching

under high-stakes testing and the qualities of exemplary teachers. While the

literature in these three fields set the path for the present study, they also showed

me some research gaps that this study might fill. For instance, upon reviewing

teacher inter/intrapersonal knowledge, I found that more studies are needed to

depict how exemplary teachers apply these two aspects of knowledge to nurture life-

long learners. As I reviewed the literature in China’s educational context, I also

identified an urgent need to reach to exemplary 1-12 school teachers and get to

know their expertise as well as their teachers’ knowledge under China’s test-driven

47
context. In the next chapter, I will discuss the research design that emerged for this

case study.

48
 CHAPTER 3
OVERVIEW OF RESEARCH DESIGN

In this chapter I will provide the theoretical perspectives of the current

research design. I will then discuss the case study as the methodology for the study.

I will present my researcher subjectivity and my pilot study findings in this chapter,

followed by the selection of my participant teacher and a background description of

his working school. Data collection and analysis procedures will be presented as

well. Finally, I will address the ethical issues and trustworthiness of the study.

Theoretical Perspective: Social Constructivism

The current research adopts the epistemological assumption that knowledge

is known through the subjective experiences of people (Creswell, 2013). This

epistemological view urges researchers to try to get as close as possible to the

participant being studied and conduct the study in the field, usually a school or a

specific classroom. Since the subjective evidence is assembled based on the

individual views, the researchers are expected to lessen the distance between

themselves and the participants in the research (Guba & Lincoln, 1988). As the

epistemological assumption implies, researchers should rely on quotes as evidence

from the participants, it is also assumed that the researchers need to collaborate,

spend time in field with participants, and become “insiders” within the research field.

The focus of the epistemological assumption is “reconstruction”, which means the

research participants act as the facilitators to construct multi-voices in the study,

therefore, findings are due to the interaction between the researcher and the

participants, and the whole research with an epistemological view is usually

empirical, intersubjective and process-oriented (Flax, 1990).

To study a participant and analyze his/her practices within a field, social

constructivism needs to be addressed because “it locates meaning in an

49
understanding of how ideas and attitudes are developed over time within a social,

community context” (Dickerson & Zimmerman, 1996, p.80). It is also an interpretive

framework that individuals seek to understand their world and develop their

subjective meanings corresponding to their experience (Creswell, 2013). Social

constructivism assumes that theory and practice do not develop in a vacuum but are

shaped by the dominant cultural assumptions (Martin, 1994). Thus, for the present

study, in order to understand how my participant teacher makes an effort to nurture

students into becoming life-long readers and writers under the high-stakes testing

culture in China, the sociocultural context in that country should be firstly

deconstructed. Its cultural assumptions, the underlying historical influences should

be exposed as well (Myers, 1996). It is believed that by deconstructing the social and

cultural context of one educational environment, it could provide some explanations

for the “constraints in the system”. In the present study, the CLA teacher’s ways of

teaching and ways of being are not simply imprinted on him but are formed through

interactions with others and through historical and cultural norms that operate in his

life. The underlying assumptions of social constructivism shapes the epistemological

basis for the current study, it also forms the researcher’s perceptions in locating the

research focus, the corresponding research methods as well as the detailed

research procedures.

Methodology: Case Study

Qualitative case study is adopted as the methodology for the present study.

As the underpinning epistemological lens lies in social constructivism, this case

study is considered in line with the methodological views held by Stake (1995) and

Merriam (2009), both of which situate case study in constructivism. In terms of

“case”, Stake (1995) defines it as “a specific, a complex, functioning thing” (p.2), or in

50
a more specific way, a case is like an integrated system with boundary and working

parts. In a similar vein, Merriam (2009) regards “case” as “a thing, a single entity, a

unit around which there are boundaries” (p.27). A case can be a person, an

organization, a program, or any specific phenomenon, but there is always a

“boundary”, or as Miles and Huberman (1994) state, a bounded context. In the

present case study, the “case” is one high school Chinese language arts teacher,

and the boundary or the context of the case is the prevailing high-stakes testing

culture in China’s society.

Qualitative case study is designed to explore the particularity and complexity

of a case. As Olson (1982) states the particularistic nature of case study: “It can

suggest to the reader what to do or what not to do in a similar situation; it can

examine a specific instance but illuminate a general problem; it may or may not be

influenced by the author’s bias” (In Marriam, 1998, p.30). To understand the case

under specific context (Stake, 1995), case study is often described as an approach

that draws together holistic, empirical, interpretive and emphatic research methods in

a bricoleur design. In this vein, according to Denzin and Lincoln (2013), the

researchers produce bricolage --- “a pieced-together set of representations that are

fitted to the specifics of a complex situation” (p.8). Therefore, researchers’ practices

in the study depend on what is available in the research settings. Merriam (2009)

adds “descriptive” and “heuristic” as the characteristics of qualitative case study

since case study requires a rich, thick description of the phenomenon under study

and it also needs the researcher to take a reader’s understanding of the

phenomenon into account.

The underlying social constructivism lens to the qualitative case study

supports a transactional method of inquiry, in which the researcher develops a

51
personal interaction with the case. In other words, the case lies in a relationship

between the researcher and informants, thus, it should be reported in an engaging

way that invites the readers to join in the interaction and in case discovery (Stake,

1995). With this perspective, narrative stories, vignettes are also necessary in the

case study. Since the collaboration between the researcher and the participants is

close in the case study, this collaboration enables the participants to tell their own

stories (Crabtree & Miller, 1999). The narrative lens allows me as a researcher to go

deeper into my research questions, offers me an interpretive view when listening to

my participant teacher’s stories. Moreover, as telling stories helps people understand

their personal thinking, actions, and reactions (Bruner, 1986), it could be seen as a

portal through which a person enters the world and by which their experience of the

world is interpreted and made personally meaningful (Connelly & Clandinin, 1988).

As the researcher in this study, when I listen carefully to my participant teacher’s

stories, I get to know the way he makes sense of his lived experiences and how he

constructs his beliefs and values in teaching.

Since case study is regarded as the multi-perspectival analysis (Tellis, 1997),

not only the voice and perspectives of the participants under study should be

presented, but also the relevant groups of the participants and how the participants

interact with them should be recorded. This requirement ensures the triangulation of

the qualitative study. Stake (1995) states triangulation is used to ensure the

accuracy and alternative explanations in a qualitative study. Accessing multiple data

sources (Yin, 1984) is one way to achieve triangulation. In this case study, I collect

evidences from archival records (artifacts and documents collected at the research

site), interviews, direct observation (class visit field notes) and participant

observation (school-wide literacy activity field notes). Even though this study adopts

52
multiple methods to get an in-depth examination of the case, I do understand

“triangulation is not a tool or a strategy of validation but an alternative to validation”

(Flick, 2002, p.227) as “objective reality can never be captured” (Denzin & Lincoln,

2013, p.9).

Case study is embedded with many strengths as a qualitative methodology,

but it also has some limitations. For example, as Guba and Lincoln (1981) warn their

readers, the findings of a case study “tend to masquerade as a whole when in fact

they are but a part --- a slice of life” (p.377). Furthermore, they also suggest readers

and authors of the case studies to be aware of their biases that may affect the final

report. Therefore, I will address my subjectivity as a researcher in the next section.

Subjectivity Statement

Peshkin (1988) suggest researchers to pay attention to their “subjective I’s” in

any given study. He further argues researchers’ personal qualities “have the capacity

to filter, skew, shape, block, transform, construe, and misconstrue what transpires

from the outset of a research project to its culmination in a written statement” (p,17).

As the researcher of this case study, I am a Chinese, born and raised in a southeast

city in China. My hometown city is in a province that is equipped with rich

educational resources. More than hundred colleges are in the province and its

government is willing to invest money in education. Consequently, pressure from

high-stakes testing is more severe in my hometown province compared with other

provinces in China. I felt the testing pressure and competitiveness in my learning

environment from the time I was in elementary school. I remember that even in 5 th

grade, we were tested every week and prepared for the middle school entrance

exam a year later. Our test scores were posted in the hallway windows, and open to

53
inspection to everyone in the school. Bad-looking test scores meant shame and

anxiety even to a small child.

Even though I was educated under such competitive environment, I still

considered myself lucky as I met my first reading/writing mentor in elementary

school. Ms. Wang, my first CLA teacher, taught me the entire six years in elementary

school and brought reading and writing to my life. She introduced us a variety of

children’s books and young adolescents’ literature, she built a small library in the

classroom, she taught us to write in different genres. Most importantly, she

convinced me I was a writer. I still remember how she read my writing in front of the

class, helped me revise my writing, and sent pieces of my writing to local

newspapers for publications. Under her guidance, my writer identity was constructed

and grew. By the end of elementary school, I had read hundreds of books and

published a dozen essays and poems in local newspapers and journals. I had huge

passion for reading and writing at that time. I even dreamed to be a professional

writer in the future.

This passion was maintained intact during my three years in middle school.

The testing pressure became worse, but I was still able to find time for personal

reading and writing. However, I began to realize my CLA teachers (I had two CLA

teachers in different grades) didn’t care about what I read or wrote in my spare time.

What they cared about was if I memorized all the assigned paragraphs that would

appear in the next CLA subject test, or if I grasped all the literacy skills they lectured

about in class. One of them even questioned me about why I read that much

because she regarded my extra reading was irrelevant to tests. My high school years

changed me from a confident writer to a timid one. I was told by my high school CLA

teacher to follow the template in the writing test. It didn’t make sense to me as I

54
didn’t understand why everyone had to write in a similar voice using a similar format.

I refused to follow the template in the writing test. As a result, I received low score for

my writing. My CLA teacher at the time told me she didn’t care about whether or not I

told my personal stories in the writing. She stated that as long as I “hit the template

format” I could pass the writing test. I surrendered. I began to write soullessly,

without my own voice. At the same time, the pressures from National College

Entrance Exam (NCEE) took away my personal reading time as well. Like every high

school kid, I spent more than 10 hours every day preparing for the “biggest exam” in

my life. I lost any joy I’d found in reading and writing.

Before I came to U.S. to pursue a doctoral degree in education, I was not

familiar with either literacy education or pedagogical theories in U.S. For example,

my 1-12 school experience and my college education in China situated me in

lecture-based, teacher-dominated classrooms most of the time. I got used to

listening to teachers and taking notes in my seat. When I was placed in some ELA

classrooms in U.S. for observations, I was initially surprised to see students learned

from each other in class/group discussions, and that teachers could act only as

facilitators. The reader/writers’ workshop I observed and read about in the

professional literature also surprised me. I had never been given that much time in

class to do the independent reading and writing in school. As I progressed in my

doctoral program, I gradually understood the values of such class structure and

instruction. I was well prepared in the program with a literacy educator and

researcher’s lens shaped by U.S. teaching context. However, my own educational

background also reminded me such teaching practices had to be adapted under

China’s sociocultural and educational environment.

55
 My personal reading/writing experience during.my 1-12 school years

positioned me as an “insider” in CLA teaching and learning in China. However, since

I personally interacted with many CLA teachers when I was a student, this

background might have also narrowed my views of what good CLA teachers might

do. Additionally, I brought an “outsider” lens from western education context back

into a place I was familiar with. As my mindset on effective literacy education was

shaped in U.S schools, it influenced my definition of good literacy teaching practices

as well. I kept reflecting on the dual identity within me as a researcher during the

study and I consider it as both my strength and my limitation.

Pilot Study

I conducted a pilot study in my participant teacher’s school in the summer of

2015. The main purpose of this pilot study was to familiarize myself to my participant

teacher’s working environment as well as get an initial understanding of his

exemplary practices in CLA instruction. I stayed in his class for two weeks before

students’ summer vacation. During those two weeks, I observed his in-class

practices, had two informal interviews with him, one informal interview with several

students in his class, and one informal interview with one of his previous students. I

also collected student work, test papers, and writing samples with my participant

teacher’s permission. I got access to the website of the school, studied its culture

and examined some archival records of the school-wide literacy projects held by the

CLA faculties.

My pilot study had several suggestions. Firstly, my participant teacher

prepared students well for high-stakes tests --- his class average CLA final exam

score had an advanced ranking in the grade. Secondly, he developed a good

relationship with students. The interactions he had with students in class engaged

56
them well in the learning. Thirdly, other than being a teacher to students, my

participant teacher also acted as the reading/writing model for them. My interviews

with students implied their passion for reading and writing increased after they met

Mr. C. These initial findings further triggered my curiosity about this exemplary CLA

teacher. I wondered why his students were so engaged in his class and why and

how they developed interest in reading and writing under the severe testing

pressure. These questions guided me to take a closer look at my participant

teacher’s in-class practices, including the way he connected with students and the

way he demonstrated his reader/writer identities. My pilot study also suggested there

was a rich literacy culture in the school. At least two school-wide literacy projects

were held within each semester. This finding led me to question why and how such

literacy culture was built in this school. I wanted to know what role my participant

teacher played in establishing such culture.

Methodologically, I didn’t do any formal interviews in my pilot study because I

was exploring the “field.” Informal interviews provided me more spaces to invite my

interviewees to share their stories with me. My formal semi-structured interview

questions were built upon the knowledge I gained from those “casual talks” during

the pilot study. I also built rapport with my participant teacher and some of his CLA

colleagues in the school. This rapport laid the foundation for the trust between me

and my participant teacher for the present study.

Selection of the Participant Teacher

The path that led me to my participant teacher in this case study started with

the research interest I developed during my study in U.S. I took a writing instruction

seminar the second year in my program. I was not only provided with a full picture of

K-12 literacy education in U.S, my own passion for writing was rekindled in that

57
course. During the seminar, I was assigned to several ELA classrooms in an

experimental K-12 school, where I got the opportunity to observe ELA teachers’ in-

class literacy practices. I was informed during my weekly visits that almost every

ELA teacher was concerned about the coming state reading/writing test. They felt it

was hard to balance test-preparation with nurturing student interest in literacy

learning. Their words immediately rang the bell for me as I grew up under a severe

test-driven teaching and learning environment. I couldn’t help but thinking about my

own reading/writing teachers back in China. Were they also torn by this “test vs.

interest” dilemma in teaching? How did they confront this dilemma? I also wondered

if there would be an exemplary CLA teacher who was able to balance testing with

meaningful reading/writing in his/her teaching. These questions motivated me to look

for such a teacher back in China the summer in 2015.

As Stake (1995) argues, given the purpose of the study, the first criterion of

case selection should be “to maximize what we can learn” (p.4) from a case.

Considering of the purpose of this case study, two aspects became clear to me as I

approached case selection. Firstly, as I mentioned in the introduction chapter,

Chinese students and teachers might suffer from the worst high-stakes testing

pressure on a global platform. Therefore, selecting a reading/writing teacher in a

culture that was dominated by standardized test created the maximized space for my

inquiry on exemplary teachers’ practices under testing pressure. Secondly, I

intended to find an excellent reading/writing teacher whose exemplary teaching had

been fully recognized in China’s society.

The participant teacher Mr. C was recommended by my doctoral program

advisor to me as they were collaborating on a comparative study between U.S. and

China’s literacy instruction at the time. Before I met my participant teacher for the

58
pilot study, I had already heard about his exemplary practices in CLA teaching field.

With more than 30 years teaching experience, Mr. C is seen as one of the most

distinguished high school CLA teachers in my home province. He is not only a

renowned teacher, but also a practitioner researcher himself. He published dozens

of journal articles and several books, and constantly presents in educational

conferences as the keynote speaker. Mr. C is highly involved in teacher education

training programs all around the country. He travels a great deal to give lectures and

demonstration classes to pre-service and in-service teachers. He also actively

collaborates with educators and researchers in the literacy education field. His

exemplary practices are acknowledged by the provincial education department. In

2002, Mr. C was honored as an “expert teacher” in Jiangsu Province, the highest

honor a 1-12 school teacher can receive. These criteria make Mr. C an excellent

subject for my case study of an exemplary reading/writing teacher under testing

pressure.

Research Site

The school my participant teacher works for is a public high school located in

the capital city of a southeast province in China. Founded in 1955, Shisan high

school was the first high school built by the provincial government. In 1960, it was

designated as a provincial key school with high-quality teaching by Education

Department in China. In 2000, the school was entitled as the National Model High

School in the country. By the year of 2016, the school had 175 teachers and staff, 39

classes devoted to college education and 7 classes oriented for further study

overseas.

As for the students’ population, around 2000 students were enrolled in Shisan

high school during the 2016-2017 school year. Since students in China are tested

59
into their local high schools, their entrance exam score is the exclusive factor

determining in which school they can be enrolled. Therefore, students’ socio-

demographic status in China’s schools varies from middle-class to working class and

generally represents the socio-demographic population in the local city. Shisan high

school’s population aligns with this. Students are ages 16-18, more than 90% of the

students are admitted from the local middle school, the rest are from the middle

schools in the nearby cities (Shisan high school website, 2016). Like most of high

schools in China, Shisan high school is considered as a school with a homogeneous

population racially and ethnically. Thus, the school has no official data demonstrating

students’ racial/ethnicity demographics.

Data Collection

To guarantee the triangulation of the study, multiple sources of data were

collected. Observational field notes were taken during the class visits and school-

wide literacy activities. Semi-structured and unstructured interviews were conducted

with the participant teacher, his colleagues as well as his students. Sample NCEE

language arts test papers were retrieved online and from my participant teacher.

Artifacts from the participant teacher’s class were also collected. Original fieldnotes,

site photos and sample interview questions are presented in the appendixes at the

end of the study.

Data collection procedures. The data collection process for this case study

lasted about 6 months from December 2016 to June 2017 (one month for winter

vacation, no school). During these six months, I visited my participant teacher’s class

from Monday to Friday as Chinese language arts class is a daily compulsory course

in China. I usually stayed in his class in the morning when he taught, during which I

observed his in-class teaching practices and took fieldnotes there.

60
 I followed Mr. C to his office when he finished the class. I spent another 40-60

minutes with him in the office, either I member-checked with him about the fieldnotes

I took the day before, or I held unstructured interviews with him about his teaching

practices of the day. If no school-wide literacy projects were scheduled, I usually

finished my daily data collection after conversations with my participant teacher in his

office. I organized my fieldnotes and interview transcriptions in the afternoon. In

addition to regular in-class visits, I followed my participant teacher throughout two

school-wide literacy projects, one academic conference, and one book club project

and took observational notes, had interviews and collected artifacts in the process.

Table 3-1.below presents an overview of my data collection time and

activities in my six months visit.

Table 3-1. Overview of Data Collection Time

Time Class Visit School Conferences Book Club
Literacy
Projects
12/2016 M-F Literacy Ed FN
02/2017 M-F FN
03/2017 M-F FN
04/2017 M-F Reading Week FN
05/2017 M-F Drama FN
Festival
06/2017 M-F FN
(Note: M: Monday; F: Friday; N: Night; January: Winter vacation; Literacy Ed: an academic conference
in literacy education field)

Field Observations

I took observational field notes in Mr. C’s classroom in Chinese as it was

easier for me to capture descriptive details in my native language. When I left his

class, I translated my Chinese fieldnotes into English and turned my handwritten

notes into typed bilingual ones. I member-checked my fieldnotes with my participant

teacher the next day in his office time (See Appendix A for original handwriting

fieldnotes, Appendix B for typed bilingual notes). With the permission of my

61
participant teacher, I also took various photos in his classroom during different

phases of my visit. These classroom pictures contributed to my field observations

and counted as the field data in my study.

I was invited to participate in the school-wide literacy projects held by my

participant teacher and his colleagues. I attended almost every teacher meeting in

the preparation stage and took field notes in the meetings. I followed my participant

teacher through the literacy activities, tape recorded some of his conversations with

colleagues, administrators and students, then translated and transcribed them into

field notes as well. In total, I had 200 pages of double-spaced typed observational

fieldnotes.

Interviews

During the six months of data collection, I had 8 semi-structured interviews

with my participant teacher. These interviews were scheduled before or after my

class observations, each lasted 30-40 minutes. I audio-taped our interviews,

translated and transcribed them, then brought them back to my participant teacher

for member check the day after the interview. I adopted the semi-structured

interviews rather than formulated ones with my participant teacher because I aimed

to invite him to share his unique experience and stories in teaching with me (Stake,

1995). I had 120 pages of interview transcriptions in Chinese. As I translated them

into English, I had 150 pages interview transcriptions (See Appendix C for original

interview transcription sample in Chinese, and Appendix D for translated English

interview transcription sample). Semi-structured interview sample questions are

listed in Appendix E.

Additionally, unstructured interviews were conducted with him, his students,

and colleagues. The unstructured interviews were audio-taped, partly translated and

62
transcribed as well. These unstructured interviews were referred as “casual

talks/conversations” in this study, which aimed to help me gain further knowledge

about my participant teacher. I didn’t specifically time these casual talks, but each of

them lasted around 15-20 minutes.

Archival Data

The archival data I collected from the research site included students’

Chinese language arts subject monthly test papers, their weekly journals and writing

samples, students’ textbooks, and readings for literacy projects. Posters made by

students were also gathered in either hard copy or photo-scanned. My participant

teacher also shared his reader/writer’s notebooks, his personal online blog entries

and reflective journals with me. These data sources helped me take a deeper look at

both my participant teacher’s reader/writer identity and his teacher identity, as well

as the inner strengths that supported his teaching practices.

Table 3-2. below presents my data collection categories and the questions

they tended to answer.

Table 3-2. Data Collection Categories and Answered Questions

Data Collection Activities of Data Collection Answered Questions

Observation In Class Observation Main RQ --- Sub Q1

School-Wide Observation Main RQ --- Sub Q2
Interviews Semi-Structured With PT Main RQ --- Sub Q1.2
Unstructured With Students Main RQ --- Sub Q1.2
Unstructured With Colleagues Main RQ --- Sub Q2
Archival Data CLA Test Papers Main RQ --- Sub Q1
Students’ Writing Samples Main RQ --- Sub Q1.2
Textbooks Main RQ --- Sub Q1
Readings For LP Main RQ --- Sub Q1
Poster Samples Main RQ --- Sub Q1.2
PT’s R/W’s Notebook Main RQ --- Sub Q1.2
PT’s Reflective Journal Main RQ --- Sub Q1.2
PT’s Online Blog Entries Main RQ --- Sub Q1.2
(Note: PT: Participant teacher; LP: Literacy projects; R/W: Reader/writer’s)

63
 Data Analysis

Data analysis and data collection could be simultaneous, meaning data

analysis happens the minute the researcher sets foot in the field. As Kamler (2001)

states, "Looking, like writing, is a kind of composing---a selecting and ignoring---a

looking and not-looking” (p.11). Researchers need to reflect on who they are, what

their cultural backgrounds are, their lived experiences and the inevitable biases they

potentially possess, as well as how their own identities influence their interpretation

of the information. Researchers’ self-reflection, also known as the reflexivity, should

simmer through the whole research design and report. Thus, as the researcher, I

kept reflecting on my own position as well as biases even before I entered the field. I

also kept my reflexivity alive during the whole data analysis process.

Thematic analysis was applied in this case study. According to Braun and

Clarke (2006), thematic analysis is often used to identify, analyze and report patterns

within data in qualitative research. More specifically, thematic analysis organized and

described the data set in rich detail and interpreted various aspects of the research

topic (Boyatzis, 1998). Since the present study adopted social constructivist

paradigm, thematic analysis of the data in this study also sought to theorize the

socio-cultural context which enabled the narrative accounts that the participant under

study provided.

My first step of was to read all the data sets I had collected. The data sets

included observational fieldnotes, interviews and archival records retrieved from the

site. By immersing myself in the data sets, I gained a sense of the depth and breadth

of the data content. And through the “repeated reading” (Braun & Clarke, 2006;

Bazeley, 2013), my initial searching for patterns had already began. Also, at this

stage, by transcribing the interviews, I built a fundamental knowledge and sensed

64
the essential nature of the data. This experience was explained by Lapadat and

Lindsay(1999), who argue that transcription per se was an interpretive act.

Furthermore, as Miles and Huberman (1994) state, “writing often provides

sharp, sunlit moments of clarity or insight” (p.74), thus I kept a research memo

(Appendix F) with me during my data analysis. Every time I read through my data

sets, I wrote my interpretations in the memo. This writing activity not only helped me

narrow down the themes that later emerged from data, but also kept me reflective.

For the next stage, initial codes were generated from the data sets. Boyztzis

(1998) frames the coding process as the most basic element of information that can

be assessed during data analysis. Initial coding helped me keep track of the data I

collected, as well as facilitated the generation of more questions based on the initial

codes. At this stage, multiple codes surfaced, and some codes overlapped. For

example, my participant teacher expressed the significance of students’

“independent reading and thinking” in literacy learning in the interview shown below.

While stressing independent reading/thinking, he also presented a “negative attitude

toward standardized answers” in reading. In addition, he was willing to “construct

meanings from the texts along with students” and “regard himself as a reader”. He

mentioned “self-dialogue” and “dialogue in the classroom” during the interview

(Figure 3-1). As initial coding process involved constant comparison of different data

sets for common codes, I then compared the above initial codes I generated from my

participant teacher’s interviews to his actual practices documented in the

observational fieldnotes.

65
Figure 3-1. Initial Codes Sample

With a more analytic view, my next move was to put these open codes into

categories or clusters. As I had been comparing different data sets in a recursive

manner during my initial coding stage, patterns and regularities had emerged

through my repetitive data reading. For example, initial codes of “regard himself as a

reader/writer”, “teach himself to students”, “demonstrate reading/writing/thinking

process to students”, “share books with students” appeared repetitively in all kinds of

data sets, thus I was able to put them under the category of “model and share

literate life”. I also indexed the data source to back up my categories (Table 3-3). At

this stage, my participant teacher was involved in the coding process. As I shared

interpretations of the data with my participant and ensured the member checking

process, the credibility of the study was increased.

66
Table 3-3. Data Coding Category Sample
Category/Cluster Initial Codes Data Source

Model & Share Literate Life Teach Himself to Students IT 12/20/16

Regard Himself as R/W OB 1/3/17
Share Books With Students OB 1/14/17
IT 4/12/17
Demonstrate R/W/T to Students OB 1/4/17
PB Website
Create Safe Environment Accept Mistakes & Apologize OB 11/28/16
Approachable to Students IT 2/28/17
Trusted by Students IT 12/9/16
Respect in the Class OB 3/3/17
Celebrate Students’ Work IT 3/10/17
IT 12/9/16
(Note: R/W: Reader/Writer; R/W/T: Reading/Writing/Thinking; IT: Interview; OB: Observational notes;

PB: Personal blog)

For the next stage, I finalized the categories into main themes and sub-

themes. The final themes at this stage answered my research questions directly. For

example, under the main theme of “creating a safe learning environment for

students”, sub-themes of “bonding with students”, “building class community” and

“celebrating students’ works” were listed. All together these themes contributed to

responding to the question of how my participant teacher engaged student in

meaningful reading and writing. Before I reported these themes, I also made a

conceptual map including the themes related to my research questions (Figure 3-2).

My finding chapters were written on the base of my developed themes and

subthemes in the thematic analysis.

67
 Engage Students in Meaningful Reading & Writing
Teaching beliefs:
Best literacy learning Theme1: Creating safe learning environment
occurs in a safe and
trusting
environment;
There shoud be a
great rapport Sub-theme 1:
between teachers bonding with students Data sources:
and students;
There should be 1. Interviews;
support among
Sub-theme 2:
students. building class community 2. Observational
notes;
Sub-theme 3: 3. Personal online
Intrapersonal
celebrating students' work blog website
Interpersonal
Knowledge

Figure 3-2. Final Theme Conceptual Map Sample

Ethical issues

Considering the ethical issues in the qualitative study, the basic notion in the

study is that the participant teacher has personal feelings, values, needs during the

research, and all the names are pseudonyms to protect the privacy of the

participants. Interviews with my participant teacher’s students and colleagues were

conducted in private, all interviewees’ names were removed from the resulting

transcriptions.

Before I entered the research site, I had gained permission from my

participant teacher and the school administrations. I also asked my participant

teacher to inform his students and their parents my presence in the classroom

(Appendix G). I ensured that there were no objections from students or their parents.

Students’ facial identities in the photos I took during were removed to protect their

privacy and safety.

68
 Trustworthiness

Creswell (1998) provides several procedures in qualitative research that may

increase the trustworthiness of the study, which includes:

1 Prolonged engagement and persistent observation --- extended time in the

field

2 Triangulation --- use of multiple data-collection methods and sources

3 Peer review and debriefing --- external reflection and input

4 Negative case analysis --- conscious search for negative cases and
unconfirmed evidence

5 Clarification of researcher bias--- reflection upon you own subjectivity and how
you will use and monitor your research

6 Member checking --- sharing interview transcripts, analytical thoughts, and/or

drafts of the final report with the participants to make sure you are
representing them and their ideas accurately

7 Rich, thick description --- writing that allows the reader to enter the research
context

8 External audit --- an outside person examines the research process and
product through “auditing” your data sets (p.201-203).

Even though there are so many criteria for trustworthiness in qualitative study,

it is not necessary to use all of them in the research process (Glesne, 2011). As the

researcher, I did engage myself in the research site for six months. Because of the

sufficient time I invested in my participant classroom and school, I was able to

observe his teaching practices in the test-driven context and attend two school-wide

literacy projects. I attended to my participant teacher’s class daily, therefore, I was

able to see long-term lesson plans and consecutive practices in the classroom.

I collected data from multiple sources to guarantee the triangulation of the

study. Data sets were drawn from my participant teacher’s in-class teaching

practices, his practices in school-wide literacy projects, his conference presentations

and socializations, as well as faculty meetings etc. I used multiple data collection

69
methods, including observations, formal and informal interviews, and collection of

archival data.

I clarified my own subjectivity before I entered the research site. I understood

my own strength and limitations of being an “insider” into a culture I was familiar with.

During the data collection and analysis process, I also kept a reflective research

memo to remind myself of the biases I might have as an “insider.” I kept reminding

myself I carried this identity with me during this study, and that my interpretations of

the data were also shaped by this identity.

I included member checking in different phases of the study. During my data

collection, I brought my typed bilingual fieldnotes back to my participant teacher for

further discussion. I also brought transcribed interviews to him to double check his

intensions. I included him in my data analysis and shared my interpretations with

him.

The strategies I presented above ensured the trustworthiness and credibility

of this case study.

Chapter Summary

In this chapter, I outlined social constructivism as the theoretical perspective

for this case study. I discussed how this conceptual framework contributed to my

current research. Case study, as the methodology, was described. I presented

myself as an “insider” to a culture that I grew up within, thus I did a thorough

reflection on my own subjectivity as the researcher. I reexamined the findings of my

pilot study in the participant teacher’s classroom, findings which laid the foundation

for the current study in many ways. This chapter also provided information on the

selection of my participant teacher and research site and the ethical issues related to

them.

70
 I gave detailed data collection and analysis procedures and the multiple

methods used to collect data from multiple sources as well as the stages the data

analysis went through in order to arrive at this report. Finally, examined the

trustworthiness of this study using the criteria outlined by Creswell (1998)

71
 CHAPTER 4
TEACHING CONTEXT, CLA CLASS, AND THE CRITERIA FOR EXEMPLARY
TEACHERS

There are many criteria to define exemplary teaching here (In China),
but students’ test scores always come first. Your students’ good-looking
test scores bring you into the realm of good teachers, then you are visible
(to meet other criteria). Otherwise, you might end up being a ‘creative’
or ‘dedicated’ teacher, but nobody acknowledges you as exemplary.
(Interview, 12.12. 2016)

Mr. C’s words in the interview above revealed a fact about teaching in China’s

high schools: Both student performance and teacher practice are primarily defined

by test scores. In other words, whether being able to get students ready for tests is a

significant quality of exemplary teachers. To define Mr. C’s exemplary teaching and

understand his efforts in nurturing life-long readers and writers in the school, this

chapter first presents a brief introduction of China’s long history with the test-

obsessed culture. Teaching and learning in Chinese high schools is followed by a

depiction of Mr. C’s working environment, what he was expected to teach in CLA

class and the high pressure caused by monthly tests. This chapter also provides the

criteria for exemplary teachers in this context.

China’s Long History with the Test-Obsessive Culture

Although high stakes testing prevails world-wide, the test-driven culture in

China dominates the academic lives of teachers and students to an extreme degree.

A belief in taking exams for the sake of upper mobility is deeply rooted in China’s

culture. The ritual of standardized testing can be traced back since 7th century AD,

when Keju, the historical civil service examination, was designed to select the most

literate people for positions in the imperial bureaucracy. During Tang dynasty (618-

907), Keju was further developed and served as the only way for ordinary Chinese to

join the elite until it was abolished in 1905. Therefore, for about 1300 years, Keju

72
was considered as the pursuit of a lifetime for millions of aspiring citizens.

Examinees were tested in 3-year cycles. Those who scored well were selected to

serve in high-powered positions by the emperor as grand councilors, ministers or

provincial governors. Other examinees who were appointed to various official

positions and would also be rewarded financially. Passing the Keju was the symbol

of prestige, power and fame. It is considered as the honor to one’s entire family and

ancestry (Suen & Yu, 2007). The content of Keju had a very rigid focus on Confucian

classics. Examinees were tested on knowledge of nine classic texts of Confucian

philosophy and history, the “Four Books and Five Classics.” They were also required

to write official documents and address national policy issues. All the essays they

wrote required a restrictive standardized style called Baguwen (eight-legged essays)

in which each of eight components served a different purpose in an essay.

Examinees were required to strictly follow the rules of Baguwen or they failed the

test. Keju, the very first large-scale high-stakes test, drove the education system of

the Chinese Empire. Because it was seen as meritocratic, Keju was adopted in other

East Asian nations, such as Japan, Korea, and Vietnam. As Zhao (2014) pointed

out, Keju shaped East Asia’s most fundamental and enduring educational values.

Keju caused long-lasting chronic problems (Suen & Yu, 2007). For example,

examinees were not given to express their real constructive thoughts and views on

current political issues. Instead they memorized, by rote, model essays in the hope

of demonstrating good writing. Model essays from previous exams were purchased

by examinees and these model essays became popular instructional materials.

Examinees focused on test-taking skills and surface features of the test. There were

popular test-coaching books which taught students “tricks” to write essays in

Baguwen style. But the most severe problem of Keju might be the “talent cleansing.”

73
Since Confucian classics were the only philosophies that mattered in Keju other

excellent and creative minds were not valued in Keju system and were excluded

from the bureaucracy (Zhao, 2009). For centuries, Keju was utilized by what became

a very gerontocratic system to reward obedience, conformity, respect for order, and

homogeneous thinking (Zhao, 2014) and it planted the seeds for valuing

standardized test in China’s culture. Even though Keju died more than a century ago,

its soul still hovers in China society today and serves as the foundation for the

extreme test-driven focus of current China’s education.

“Test fever” is still burning throughout the entire 1-12 education system in

modern China and at the peak of this fever is the “Gaokao”, or National College

Entrance Exam (NCEE) which is taken by the students in their last year (12 th grade)

of high school. NCEE was introduced in China in the 1950s and continued to be

regarded as the most equitable way to determine eligibility for college admission until

1966 when the Cultural Revolution crushed the whole education system in China.

After 10 years havoc created by the Cultural Revolution in 1976 the NCEE was

reinstated and college/university education was revitalized. The goal of the NCEE is

to select “youths for higher education who are morally trustworthy, academically well-

prepared, and physically healthy, based on quota and test scores” (National

Education Examinations Authority, 2003). In practice, the exams only select students

who are academically well-prepared in a few specific subjects. NCEE requirements

have been revised several times since 1980s, the latest reform is the “3+X” which

was adopted in most provinces in 2016. Three common areas are required for all the

examinees: Chinese language arts, mathematics and foreign language (mostly

English). “The X” refers to an additional comprehensive test on either art or science,

dependent on the track chosen by the examinee.

74
 Since NCEE is offered only once a year (usually at June 7th, 8th and 9th)

nationwide, it is described as “once in a lifetime” critical test for Chinese students. If

failed, students need to wait for another year to retake the test. A college diploma is

seen as the basic ticket to secure a decent job, but with enormous number of

examinees each year only a relatively small portion of students can be admitted to

college, especially in the first-tier universities (Wang, 2006). Under the pressure of

this extremely high-stakes test, students, parents and society in general hold

teachers and schools accountable for students’ performance. Therefore, high school

teachers are risking their career if a low number of students pass the NCEE and they

would be labeled as “inexperienced” teachers. This damages their professional

images and delays their promotion (Yu & Suen, 2005). This career-at-risk stimulus

explains why the majority of Chinese high school teachers tend to train students into

the “drill machine” even at the beginning of high school (10th grade), they believe that

the earlier test-preparation starts, the better.

The side effects of the NCEE on both teaching and learning are severe. For

students, learning becomes more like a burden than a personal desire. Their skills in

taking the test are enhanced by the endless drills while their curiosities toward the

unknown are drained. In literacy education, this curiosity draining is reflected as a

lack of interest in reading and writing. For teachers, test-centered curriculum also

suffocates their creativity in teaching and deviates them from their own knowledge of

effective teaching. In the long run, test-based teaching degrades teachers’ teaching

skills (Madaus & Russell, 2011), prevents them expanding and strengthening their

own knowledge reservoir, and blinds them to the individual needs of the students.

The test-driven educational culture to some extent reshapes the relationship

between teachers and students as well. The teacher-students relationship is built

75
merely on the delivery and reception of information and knowledge. This single

channel “give-and-take” way of teaching mutes dialogue between teacher and

students and sabotages a healthy teacher-students relationship.

Despite the disadvantages of the NCEE, it survives decade after decade in

China no matter how many educational reforms are issued by policy makers.

Students spend at least 10 hours a day reviewing and preparing for the test. In some

county high schools, students often get up at 5:00 a.m. and spend the whole day

studying for test until midnight (Ross & Wang, 2014). Teachers, voluntarily or

reluctantly, adapt to the test-driven mechanism because students’ test scores are

directly tied to rewards and punishment in their schools and districts. They are

expected to make class instruction serve the NCEE, either by designing the whole

lesson in line with NCEE or by inserting NCEE questions into their daily instruction

so students can become adept at NCEE content and requirements as soon as

possible (Zhao, Mu & Lu, 2016). Under the pressure of NCEE, many teachers

become stressed out and suffer from nervous breakdowns, some teachers even

commit suicide days before the NCEE (Luo, 2012).

The craziness of this emphasis on passing NCEE to get a ticket to college

also causes test-prep companies into bloom. Larmer (2014) refers these test-prep

companies as “cram schools.” Such private profit-making companies train students

around clock for the NCEE in China. As Zhang (2013) points out, the “cram schools”,

or the private supplementary tutoring test-prep companies are more and more

prevalent in China, especially in urban areas. High school students in China rarely

have weekends. They are attending these test-prep companies after the formal

education in their schools. Parents are generally supporting their children to go to the

cram schools and willingly spend money on this extra education. As one parent cried

76
out, the “Gaokao (NCEE) race really begins at birth” (Larmer, 2014). parents dare

not to risk their children falling behind for opting out cram schools. As a result, these

test-prep companies are currently making a fortune in China.

The whole Chinese society seems to hold its breath during June 7th, 8th, and

9th each year for the sake of the students who take NCEE that year. Areas around

the exam sites are marked as the quiet zones. Construction sites are limited, and

traffic noise is lowered or muted by the local governments. Taxi drivers and police

voluntarily transport examinees to the exam sites on the street. Parents and teachers

stand in front of the exam sites’ school gates waiting for the examinees to finish the

test. The NCEE is not only a challenge for students, but a battle for examinee’s

whole family, and teachers as well.

China’s high-stakes test fever will not easily cool down in the near future,

because the whole of Chinese society intrinsically accepts the value of the test which

is rooted deeply in Chinese culture. Under this extremely rigid testing and a national

curriculum, high school teachers’ teaching autonomy approaches zero. In other

words, teachers in China are confronted with a testing system that might be the most

rigid and stressful one worldwide.

A Brief Introduction to High School Teaching and Learning in China

The Chinese nine-year compulsory education system includes state-funded

public elementary (1st grade-6th grade) and junior middle (7th grade- 9th grade)

schools. After completing the nine-year compulsory education, students in China

need to go through a very competitive admission process to get into high school.

Unlike their American counterparts, students in China are required to test into their

preferred high schools. Most students confront high school entrance exam pressure

as soon as they finish elementary education, even though the exam is scheduled at

77
the end of junior middle school (9th grade). This one-time test score is the exclusive

factor in determining which local high school students attend. Local high schools are

ranked in the city by the Municipal Education Bureau based on the school’s annual

college admission percentage and school facilities. High school rank commands its

admission score, the better reputation it enjoys, the higher admission score it

requires.

From 10th grade to 12th grade the major goal is to get students ready for the

college entrance exam. In most public high schools in China, there are about 10

classes for each grade, and around 50 students in each class. The daily curriculum

starts with a whole class “Choral Reading” session at 7:30 in the morning, the

content of assigned texts is either Chinese or English. Then, five different subject

classes are scheduled between 7:55-12:10: 40 minutes for each class and 10-15

minutes recessions in between. After the lunch break, the rest of subjects are

scheduled from 13:45-17:00 in the afternoon. Students usually have a quick dinner

either in cafeteria or the nearby food stands, then return to classes to continue the

“Night independent study” session from 18:30-21:30 (except Friday). Bounded by

such busy school schedule, students averagely spend at least 12 hours at school

every day, literally half of their lives are school-based.

Even though students have a fully packed schedule with different subjects,

they don’t travel to different classrooms, instead they stay in the same classroom

during multiple lessons as teacher rotate. Subject teachers usually move to higher

grade along with students. This system gives teachers the advantage of knowing

students better. They are able to set long-term learning goals for students through

the entire high school experience. But, it also sets high teaching standard for

78
teachers as they need to progress along with students’ learning capacities and

advance their teaching pedagogy along with students’ cognitive development.

Generally, uniformity weighs more than individual teaching autonomy in most

of Chinese high school teaching environments. This is partly caused by the

mandated textbook-based teaching, and partly because of the grade subject

department system. In Chinese high schools, the same subject teachers from the

same grade share a big office, the office is assigned as a teaching section for the

subject. Teachers in the same office need to regularly schedule meetings, make

lesson plans, make monthly test papers, and grade test papers together. The grade

office system acts as a double-edged sword. On one hand it is a great way to build

rapport among subject teachers; they learn from each other and have a space and

time to reflect on their teaching practices, all of which are extremely beneficial to

teachers especially for the new ones. On the other hand, all teachers have to follow

the same teaching schedule, extra teaching space hardly exist in such teaching

environment.

For most high schools in China, the monthly test is a tradition. Therefore,

every four weeks, students take a test in all subjects. A city-wide mid-term exam and

final exam are accompanied by at least another 3 school-made tests administered

monthly each semester. These tests aim to examine and evaluate students’ learning

development across a certain period of time. As the National College Entrance Exam

(NCEE) approaches, 12th graders take a test every week. High school teachers and

students spend great amount of time preparing and reviewing the tests. With so

many tests in a school year, it is not hard to imagine why teaching and learning are

test-dominated.

79
 C’s Working Environment

ShiSan High School

Founded in 1955, ShiSan High is located in a southeast city in JiangSu

Provence, China. Laid at the foot of the ancient city walls, ShiSan high school is

surrounded by the city lake and embraced by hundreds of towering old trees. The

campus enjoys a combined beauty from ancient Chinese heritage and contemporary

design. It is famed as one of the most beautiful school campuses in the city. ShiSan

High School ranks as a four-star high school (the highest classification by The

Provincial Educational Bureau Evaluation Standards).

Regarded as a top 10 high school in the city, ShiSan high school sets a high

admission threshold based on students’ high school entrance exam scores.

According to the high school admission report issued by the JiangSu Educational

Bureau in 2016, the average high school admission score was 587 (700 in total

score), yet the basic admission score for ShiSan high school reached 622 (JiangSu

Educational Bureau, 2016), almost 40 points above the average. It also maintains

good record for sending students into top-notched colleges. For example, in 2016

563 students in 12th grade took the NCEE, 548 of them reached or exceeded the

average college admission passing score cut-off line (Nanjing ShiSan High School

Website, 2016). In other words, the college admission rate of ShiSan high school

was around 97.34% last year, which in great extent enhanced its reputation as a

highly ranked school in the local city.

But, as a top school with a high education quality, ShiSan high school also

has an extended educational vision beyond preparing students for tests. Echoed with

its educational motto that let students “Learn widely, inquire earnestly”, ShiSan high

school creates many opportunities for students to participate in a variety of extra-

80
curriculum activities in and out of school. The school has 15 students-led

associations, ranging from a literature reading club, pod-casting programs, dancing

and choreography clubs, to a psychology study organization, an ecological study

organization and musical bands. From my 6 months observation in the school, I am

very impressed by students’ vigorous engagement in all kinds of school activities---

such as “Drama Festival”, “Classical Poetry Chanting”, and “Chorus Competition”

despite their hectic daily study schedule. I am also impressed by students’ positive

attitude and appreciation towards their school, mostly for resources and information

the school provided them in their growth. Quoting one student’s words in the

interview, even though Shisan high school cannot shake off the test shackle, it is

trying its best to nurture students with a “generous and spacious heart” (Student

interview, 1.13. 2017).

Chinese Language Arts Class

Chinese Language Arts (CLA) class teaching is entirely textbook-based. Six

textbooks are distributed from 10th grade to 12th grade, theoretically, CLA teachers

are supposed to cover one textbook in one semester, yet the reality is much more

severe. According to my class observation and interviews with CLA teachers, most

of them choose to finish all new lessons in textbooks before their students enter 12 th

grade, because they believe 12th graders need a whole year to review and prepare

for NCEE. This choice means CLA teachers need to cover at least 3 textbooks each

school year. There are four thematic units in one textbook, each consists of four 10

to 15 pages texts united by a similar theme. The selected readings are mostly multi-

genre literature written by well-known contemporary Chinese or international

authors. Considering of the textbook page limit, some literature is provided in

excerpts for textbook reading.

81
 The CLA class is scheduled for students every school day, but only in one 40-

minutes class. In a regular 40 minutes class, CLA teachers are constantly in a fear of

running out of class time. They are afraid they may not be able to finish the unit

before the next monthly test, or lag behind the teaching schedule made by the CLA

grade office. Teachers are haunted by this “time is up” nightmare because their

lesson plans are tightly related to the school monthly test, they must go over the

lessons and prepare students for the potential test questions within each lesson.

A writing lesson is theoretically arranged at the end of the unit, which is well

connected with the readings. However, the limited class time and the monthly test

pressure force CLA teachers to skip the writing session. It is an unspoken rule that

writing instruction in the textbook will not appear in the weekly teaching schedule,

because it is considered irrelevant to the writing test. High school CLA teachers

cannot afford to have students write in class. The limited class time is barely enough

for them to follow the teaching schedule. There is barely enough class time for

lesson review and no time for in-class independent reading and writing.

Teaching writing has always been elbowed to the corner in CLA teachers’

schedule. In high school, students are trained to pick up writing templates, mostly for

argumentative writing as it is the most common genre accepted in the writing test.

Students’ writing interests and their motivation to write are probably the last thing

teachers consider in the testing battle field. My personal high school experience in

China confirms that writing instruction rarely happens in regular class teaching

except after the tests or exams. In those rare time periods, writing instruction only

touches the surface of grading or correcting grammatical mistakes, or in the best

scenario, appreciates some students’ excellent writing samples. Students are taught

to simulate the five-paragraph template in argumentative writing, and any creative

82
efforts in writing are considered unnecessary or invalid. Ironically, even though

writing instruction is constantly absent from the teaching schedule, the writing

section in the test accounts for nearly half total score in the test (70/150). But, since

most students can reach the passing score line (40/70), CLA teachers don’t invest

much time on writing in class. The paradox is that students don’t write except write in

the test. They get punished by low grades in their writing but have no idea what good

writing is or how they can improve writing in their daily CLA class. These things are

simply not taught.

Monthly Test

Students are required to complete the CLA test in 150 minutes. The test is

comprised of six sections: 1) multiple choice on literacy essential knowledge ---

examines students’ vocabulary, applied linguistics, and reading comprehension of

the textbook’s modern fiction/essays; 2) Classical Chinese reading comprehension --

- provides students an excerpt of a classical Chinese essay and sets multiple choice

questions to see if students fully grasp classical Chinese phonetically and literally; 3)

Classical Chinese poetry appreciation analysis --- requires students to write a short

analysis based on their own interpretation of a selected poem; 4) Sentence dictation

on classical Chinese essay or poetry --- asks students to fill the blanks of the

sentences; 5) Contemporary literature reading comprehension --- usually requires

students to read a prose or a short fiction excerpt written by a contemporary Chinese

author, and asks students to analyze its theme, writing styles, its application of

literary tools; 6) Writing --- usually gives students a writing prompt, and asks them to

write no less than 800 words in either a narrative or an argumentative genre. The

testing format and its grading rubrics are parallel with the NCEE, so the monthly

tests are always regarded as the mock tests before the “final monster”.

83
 Monthly testing is considered as a periodic assessment of both students and

teachers. Students’ test scores are ranked by the grade office, and later grades are

posted in the hallway of the classroom building. High achievers celebrate their pretty

scores while the low-scored ones dodging the crowds, pretending the ranking poster

does not exist. Teachers are pressed by the score rank as well, even though no one

says anything out loud, they compare their class average scores with other classes,

and experience emotional ups or downs in accordance with those scores. Even

veteran teachers like C, cannot avoid this “emotional earthquake” after the test

scores go public in the school.

The week before monthly test, CLA teachers gradually begin to lead students

into the lesson review process, checking to see that all students complete the

textbook complementary exercises, memorize the assigned classical poetry or

essays, go over the essential literary knowledge in each lesson and highlight

significant conventions that may appear in the test paper. After monthly test,

teachers usually spend one or two classes evaluating the test, commenting on

students’ missed points, analyzing reading comprehension sections, and touching

upon the writing section. The frequent tests rob a large amount of class time. As a

result, students do not read and write in meaningful ways. They don’t feel that

reading and writing taught in school are connected to their lives. Consequently,

students lose interest in literacy learning and rarely consider themselves to be

readers and writers during higher education experiences.

C’s Recognized Exemplary Teaching

In such a teaching context, there is no doubt that students’ test scores are the

priority and impact other criteria in defining good teaching practices in China. In C’s

words, keeping a good record of his students’ test scores is fundamental to make

84
him successful to his colleagues, his school, students’ parents, and the teaching

community. In his memory, since the year he started to teach in Shisan high school,

the average CLA test scores of the classes he has taught has always been among

the top three in the grade. His students are constantly listed as the high-achievers in

CLA subject within the grade.

Even though students’ test score is significant to making one’s excellence in

teaching recognizable, they are not the only standard used to evaluate exemplary

teaching in China’s society. According to the provincial exemplary teacher evaluation

criteria (Nanjing Government, 2018), there are at least five requirements that make

one teacher’s exemplary teaching eligible and recognized in the school:

1 Work ethics: dedicated to education and teaching career;

2 Care about students: advocate for quality education, pay attention to nurture
students’ creativity and critical thinking capacity;
3 Highly ranked students’ evaluation: at least 80% satisfactory from students’
class evaluation;
4 Strong researching ability: at least 3 academic papers or 1 book publication
within the past five years;
5 Mentorship: Contribute in mentoring newly in-service teachers in the school
(Partly translated from Nanjing Government --- Education Department
website, 2018)

These five criteria are the qualities that make Mr. C. standout among other

CLA teachers. His committed passion to engage students in real-life reading and

writing other than test-preps; his continuous efforts to bring current events and

community resources into his classroom; and his dedication in building a school-wide

literate life, are among the activities that demonstrate those qualities and make him

stand out as an exemplary teacher in CLA teaching field, rather than just a good

teacher who prepares students well for tests. The data from my six months of

observation in his class revealed in detail the qualities described above, which I will

present in chapter 5 and chapter 6.

85
 CHAPTER 5
ENGAGING STUDENTS IN MEANDINGFUL READING AND WRITING

I know many teachers feel their teaching is over in this horrible context
and they are miserable. I feel the same, yet I love to turn my head and
see the lights, see the beauty in the pain. There will always be a nice
moment in the teaching. I notice it, and I keep going (Interview, 3.13.
2017).

C’s Attitudes Toward Literacy Teaching

In a teaching and learning environment where students are frequently tested,

it is very likely that they feel their teachers care for nothing but the test scores. Mr. C

worried that the fierce testing pressure had already hurt the relationship between

teachers and students. In one of the interviews, he said:

If we keep sending students the message that only test scores matter in
the school, we are driving them away from us. They don’t feel that their
stories, their personal identities are valued by their teachers. If students
don’t feel connected with us in the classroom, they don’t share who they
are with the class, how can we really know their strengths and
weaknesses as readers and writers? (Interview, 7.10.2015).

In C’s eyes, the lecture-based teaching methods adopted by many Chinese

teachers further worsen the teacher-students relationship. In a lecture-based

classroom, the teacher is the single authority who is responsible for spoon-feeding

students the “correct” interpretation of the texts and appropriate writing templates.

Students rarely have a chance to develop their own understanding or to bring

questions into the classroom. Interaction between teacher and students is simply

translated by many Chinese teachers as a mode of “Question-Answer” in class.

Teachers seldom make any intentional effort to get to know students or bond with

them.

Since the test-driven literacy teaching emphasizes “standard answers” in

reading comprehension and formulaic format in writing, it also mutes students’

voices as readers and writers. C was constantly bothered by the students’ “fake

voices” evidenced in their writings. As he said in the interview:

86
 A student once told me she was trained by her 9th grade CLA teacher to
prepare “golden examples” in argumentative writing. I was confused,
had no idea what were “golden examples” in writing. It turned out many
students were told by their CLA teachers to memorize a few examples
that could ‘fit’ any writing topic. One girl crammed the biography of Steve
Jobs before writing test. She was then able to use his stories as
examples to cover writing topics such as “leadership”, “creativity”,
“challenge authority”, “modern hero” etc. no matter how farfetched it
sounded. That made no sense to me at all, but it explained why many
students’ writings sounded so similar in the test (Interview, 4.5.2017).

Such literacy instruction revealed another fact that many CLA teachers don’t

read and write enough themselves. Mr. C worried that teachers’ reading and writing

inadequacy might cause a negative influence on students’ literacy development:

Students need role model in their learning. We (CLA teachers)should be

their first models in reading and writing. If I don’t read myself, I cannot
imagine how to recommend books for my students. And if I don’t write
regularly, neither can I share my writing life with them, nor experience
the struggles as a writer. If I lose my writer’s identity, I have no idea how
to teach writing to my students (Interview, 11.30. 2016).

Mr. C also worried that if teachers didn’t try to bring real-life reading and

writing to students, the textbook-based and test-driven literacy teaching might isolate

students from society and the world they lived in. In the interview, he said:

If students read nothing but textbooks, write nothing but assigned test
topics, they can never grow into life-long readers and writers. Besides,
literacy is supposed to be a vehicle that engages students to read, write,
discuss and act on issues in our society. China’s society is on the edge
of rapid change, which brings about all kinds of social conflicts and
problems. We experience those conflicts and problems every day. It
would be extremely wrong if we keep silent about them in schools. That’s
why I feel it’s necessary to guide students to pay attention to the real-life
problems, teach them to think critically and independently. I think we
should try hard to let students understand literacy learning is not just for
tests, it connects them with the world they lived in (Interview, 4.20. 2017).

Mr. C’s concerns about the current test-oriented literacy teaching in China

reflected his core literacy teaching beliefs. He believes the best literacy learning

occurs in a safe and trusting environment, where there is great rapport between

teachers and students, as well as among the students who comprise the class

87
community. He believes a CLA teacher should be a reading and writing model for

students, a model who constantly shares their own reading and writing life with the

class. He believes students should be invited to bring their own stories, their own

voices to reading and writing and to construct meanings along with their teacher and

peers. He believes students’ lives matter in reading and writing practices and that

real-world issues should be brought into their literacy learning.

Like most high school teachers, Mr. C also confronted test pressure, limited

teaching time and restricted teaching autonomy in his class, yet driven by his literacy

teaching beliefs, he tried hard to manage time and space so that his students could

read, write and think in a meaningful way. C interpreted “meaningful” literacy

practices as ways that tapped into students’ desires to bring their real life into

learning, and connect them to the community, society, and the world they lived in

(Cao, 2012). Specifically, instead of simply extracting and recalling information from

the texts or simulating writing templates, C aimed to “guide students to construct new

meanings in the reading, writing and discussions, and infuse personal relevance,

ownership and social values into in-class literacy practices” (Interview,4.11.2017).

However, under China’s educational context in which test score have become the

benchmark to both teaching and learning, it’s not hard to imagine the difficulties C

encountered in teaching according to his beliefs while addressing China’s emphasis

on test scores. Therefore, this finding chapter answers the research question: How

did this exemplary teacher’s in-class practices engage students in meaningful

reading and writing under China’s test-dominated teaching environment.

Four themes are presented in this chapter. Each theme reveals one aspect of

C’s in-class practice that engaged students to read and write meaningfully according

to his literacy teaching beliefs:

88
 1 Create a safe learning environment;
2 Model and share his literate life as a reader and writer;
3 Engage students in meaningful reading and discussion;
4 Make reading/writing relevant to the real-world issues.

All together these four themes depict Mr. C’s efforts to teach in the cracks of

the top-down textbook-based CLA curriculum. While these four themes are threaded

together by C’s in-class practices that engaged students in meaningful reading and

writing under high-stakes testing pressure, his strong intrapersonal knowledge as a

veteran teacher was also embedded in narratives under each theme.

Create a Safe Learning Environment

According to Mr. C’s beliefs, to engage students in meaningful reading and

writing called for inviting them to read critically, to write from heart, and, most

importantly, to make their own voices heard in class. However, when students don’t

feel safe and trusted enough in a learning environment, they might hold back their

voices. This is especially true for Chinese students, for most of whom are trained to

be compliant to teachers and authorities. From a young age they are shaped in

school with a character called “authoritarian-orientation” (Chien, 2016). Thus, it is not

easy to change Chinese students’ mindset toward “looking for standard answers” in

reading and writing and convince them their individual ideas and experiences matter

in school. Engaging students in meaningful reading and writing requires a safe and

trusting learning environment, in which student concerns about being judged are

eliminated and their courage to make their voices heard is promoted.

Compared to many traditional Chinese high school classes where the concept

of “respecting authority” was ingrained, Mr. C’s class was filled with the idea that

everyone’s voice was respected. His students were highly engaged in contributing

ideas in discussions, willing to share their reading and writing with peers, and were

not afraid to bring different opinions or take risks in learning something new. During

89
my first day’s visit, I was amazed by the courage C’s students showed in pointing out

his “mistake” in class and the way he reacted to the students.

My observational field notes below showed this:

To better explain the idiom, C wrote the Chinese characters on the board and

began to tell the story behind the idiom. This idiom contained one tricky Chinese

character that was easily confused with another Chinese character. C wrote the

wrong one, but he didn’t notice at first.

A boy raised hand and said: “Mr. C, I don’t think you wrote the right character

on board”.

C turned to his writing and checked: “Well. . . ” he paused a second and said:

“I am afraid you are right”.

Another girl said: “I just looked it up in dictionary, it actually looks very similar

to the one you wrote on board”.

C said: “You are right, I wrote the wrong one”. He wiped out the wrong

character and wrote the right one.

Then he turned to his students and said: “Thank you for pointing it out, I

appreciate your effort in looking up dictionary. And, I am a bad mime, and please

don’t learn that (wrong character) from me!”

Students laughed, and C laughed with them (Classroom observational notes,

11.28.2017).

This class vignette gives a “miniature” or “screenshot” of the safe learning

environment Mr. C created for students. Students were courageous enough to speak

out about his mistake while C was open-minded to students’ voices. In an

authoritarian culture, Mr. C’s humble behavior toward his students was out of the line

with the cultural practice in China. The fact that his students dared to cross this

90
cultural “norm” had demonstrated the trust and bond Mr. C built with his students. In

the following narratives, I will present Mr. C’s efforts in establishing the safe learning

environment to engage students in meaningful reading and writing.

Bonding with Students

As many studies on teacher-students relationship have shown, positive

connection between teacher and students contributes to students’ engagement in

learning, better class behavior and greater academic achievement (Birch & Ladd,

1997; Daniels & Perry, 2003). By developing personal connections with their

teachers, students tend to be more self-directed and cooperative in a learning

environment and are more likely to grow into life-long learners (Curby, Rimm-

Kaufman, & Ponitz, 2009). Mr. C usually set the democratic tone in class at the

beginning of the semester by telling students they were welcome to bring different

perspectives in discussions. Rather than standing behind the podium lecturing Mr. C

positioned himself in the middle of his students, a spot where he could be more

responsive while building intimacy with the whole class. He stood beside students,

reading their faces and body language to see if they were engaged, inspired, or

puzzled, then responded in different ways according to students’ needs. He carried

on conversations with students in class and group discussions, picking up the sparks

in their thinking, pointing out the weaknesses of their preliminary interpretations of

texts or writing drafts and then building upon the strengths in them. Mr. C’s

interactive teaching approach gave him an edge to knowing his students better. His

students could also tell he cared about their independent thoughts in class.

Besides in-class practices, C also took the time and effort necessary to build

individual connections with students after class. During my visits to his office for our

interviews I constantly saw students drop by his office to have short conversations

91
with him about books they recently read or personal writing they had been working

on. Mr. C made is clear that he was very glad to see students coming by. He listened

to them, wrote down the books students mentioned in his notebook, recommended a

few books or provided suggestions on their writings. In the interview, C shared with

me his joy in talking with students during office time:

I told my students my office is always open to them. They are welcome

to drop by and talk to me. I am glad they think I am approachable. I am
not an authority figure to them but a person who cares about them, about
their reading and writing. Honestly, I appreciate their trust (Interview,
2.28.2017).

With growing trust toward Mr. C, his students began to expose themselves, to

express their feelings about their lives as teenagers, and to take risks in the writing.

They began to see Mr. C as the first reader of their writing, someone with whom they

could share the happiness or sorrow in their lives. C recalled one time he was

impressed by one student’s writing:

I remember one time I was reading their weekly journal as usual, a pink
post-it note caught my attention. It said: ‘I have a big crush on someone,
I feel if I don’t write it out, my feelings are bursting out. But it’s private, I
only want you to read it. Please don’t share to other people, and please
keep this secret for me.’ I immediately was struck by the trust that kid
had for me. I read her writing, it was a beautiful piece of writing, so real,
so touching, so crystal. It was from the same kid who said writing was
just drudgery for her at the beginning of the semester! (Interview, 12.9.
2016).

Building Class Community

Apart from bonding with students personally, Mr. C also emphasized the idea

of class community by teaching meaningful reading and writing to students. He

believed a good community where students were all comfortable in collaborative

work was extremely important in literacy learning. Most of his 10th grade students,

however, were not familiar with peer collaboration from their previous educational

experiences. As one student told me in the interview:

92
 Group work and discussion rarely happened in my learning experience
before I came to Mr. C’s class. I was not used to this learning format at
first, so I kept silent for the first few times in the group discussions
because I was afraid my ideas may sound too childish to my peers and
they may laugh at me (Interview with student, 3.4. 2017).

This student’s account represented many Chinese students’ concerns in the

group work. Many years of “obeying to authority and standards” muted their voices

and made them self-doubted. To change this situation, Mr. C. set group work ethics

during collaborative activities. For example, respect was the most significant ethic

that he anchored in the class. On the front page of students’ readers’ notebook C

asked them to write down group work rules:

1) Everyone’s ideas in the group matter.

2) Listening is as important as speaking.
3) Respect different opinions.
4) Make sure everyone has a turn to speak up.
5) Take notes in the discussions.

These five rules were mentioned many times during my visits to his class, and

C would also circulate among groups to facilitate student discussions and to make

sure they followed the rules. By the second half of the school year, his students were

apparently more comfortable in group discussions and more willing to share their

writings with peers. My following class observational notes recorded an episode of

students’ group discussion in the class:

In this episode, the theme of the class was about “how to identify fake news in

daily reading”. Mr. C had previously assigned several short newspaper articles and

feature stories written by bloggers. All readings were about one controversial scholar

in China’s society and students were expected to collaboratively filter misinformation

about this person. Chang, Qian, Zhu, Liu (pseudonym) were the discussants. Qian

was the group leader.

Chang: Let’s see the second article. Basically, the author criticized Dr. Yang a
lot, but I’ve highlighted some paragraphs (showed his annotated notes

93
 to others) and looked into his so called “facts”. What I found is that the
author actually either exaggerated or twisted some of the facts. It
seems to me that he was very biased when writing this article.

He showed the details of his research on the “facts” in the group. Others were

listening and taking notes on their readers’ notebooks.

Zhu: I had the same wonderings as you did when I read the second and
third article, because these two readings have so many conflicting
opinions. So at least one author lied, or he wasn’t objective enough on
the Dr. Yang issue.

Liu: I don’t think writings could be objective at all. Everyone is biased. Did
you guys notice the author of the third article is Dr. Yang’s friend? They
worked together in the same institute at one time. And it feels to me
that his writing swept aside Yang’s current controversy and only
focused on his contributions to our society. That’s not fair to readers
either.

Qian: I think we need to get back to talking about the “writing purpose” of
each article. I agree with Chang, but I also feel both articles were
biased. So, I guess if we could further analyze why these two authors
held such opinions and who their audiences were, it would be easier
for us to filter the misinformation in the readings (Class observational
field notes, 3.3.2017)

Using different grouping strategies also helped Mr. C build good vibes in the

class community. To enable engaged discussion time in his regular textbook

teaching, Mr. C usually adopted “turn and talk” to group students. Since students sat

in pairs (referred as “desk-partner” in China), both of them could turn back and talk to

the other pair behind them. For extended reading and writing projects, students were

always provided choices: they can choose to group with their friends or to group with

people they had never worked before. Multiple grouping strategies guaranteed

students chances to work with different partners and built great rapport in the class.

Celebrating Students’ Work

Celebrating students’ readings and writings was another way Mr. C made his

class safe and trusting for students. He believed celebration helped his students

94
recapture the joy and gain the confidence necessary to read and write meaningfully.

As he said in the interview:

Many of our students today lost interest in reading and writing for a long
time, which is sad because our schools make them this way. They get
used to be criticized by teachers about their reading and writing
correctness, and their confidence as readers and writers is crushed
during the process. That’s why they refuse to read and write. They fear
of failure. To rebuild the joy and confidence in reading and writing, they
need to be constantly praised. Only in this kind of safe and supportive
environment, they can thrive into real readers and writers (Interview,
7.9.2015).

The daily five-minutes book talk routine was an example that Mr. C celebrated

students’ readings in class. He prioritized the beginning five minutes of his class for

students to recommend a book they had finished reading and wanted to share with

the class. In five minutes, the “on-duty” student brought the book and convinced the

class to read it. C even encouraged students to write brief book recommendation

letters and display these letters on the school’s bulletin board. This reading

celebration provided students opportunity to enhance readers’ identities as well as

the joy of sharing reading. Moreover, it sent students a message that reading was

deeply valued in this classroom.

As for writing celebration, Mr. C usually scheduled Friday as the weekly

writing day. He would spend time praising students’ choices on writing topics, their

courage in taking risks on genres they had never tried before, and the expression of

critical opinions in the writings. Students were invited to read aloud their writings if

they felt comfortable to share in front of the class or they could choose to share in

small groups and receive peer comments. One of the most impressive writings from

his students that C still remembered was a persuasive writing that challenged him.

He recalled this experience in the interview:

One time when I read students’ weekly writing journals in my office, a

persuasive writing caught my eyes. A week earlier, I taught a writing mini-

95
 lesson on how to select perspectives in the writing. I remember I told
them to adopt a ‘bigger vision’ in their writings. But apparently, one
student didn’t agree with me at all. In his persuasive writing, he listed 5
reasons why “bigger vision” didn’t work for everyone and developed his
reasons with solid examples. Even though this student’s writing had
sophisticated structure, great word choice and critical thinking, his
writing style was too aggressive and might even have sounded a little bit
offensive to me as a teacher. Because you know, he almost denied
everything I taught in that 15 minutes. So, I hesitated for a while about
whether or not I wanted to celebrate it in class. But I did. I appreciated
his courage to disagree with me and praised his writing skills. It was a
very excellent piece of persuasive writing after all (Interview, 12.9.2016).

Mr. C felt a good teacher should have consistency in their practices, which

explained why even though he had a mixed feeling towards that student’s writing, he

still chose to celebrate it in the class. C did talk to that student after class about

improving the tone of the writing, but what mattered more to the student was that his

teacher was able to “see the brilliance” (Routman, 2005). Because this continuous

writing celebration, his students were highly motivated to write from heart. In the

collected students’ weekly journal samples, I saw them began to tell family stories---

one student wrote about his grandfather, who had rarely appeared in his family life

because of a serious gambling issue, making efforts to fit into the family again. I saw

students ponder social phenomena such as the notorious “jumping in line” culture in

public spaces, or whether “literature has been commercialized” in the publishing

industry. I saw students write about what they really like in their school lives. They

described their friends, their classmates, and their teachers in vivid language. They

wrote movie and book reviews. I saw students begin to question themselves. They

wrote happiness and the exciting moments. They wrote about their confusions and

wonderings. They also wrote about their sorrows, agonies, and sufferings. In other

words, his students began to relocate their own voices in the writing, which had been

missing for a long time since they were trained with test-based writing in 9th grade

for high-school entrance exam (Interview with students, 6.2.2017).

96
 A safe and trusting learning environment was very critical to the engagement

of students in meaningful reading and writing, as well as to invite the expression of

their readers’/writers’ voices in the class. In his students’ eyes, Mr. C was never a

“distant authority figure” but someone who cared about them, as one student said:

He never asks us to respect him, but asks us to respect ourselves, to

respect our own ideas and our thoughts when reading and writing. He
makes us feel we are important in his class. What we read and write are
important to him. That’s why he doesn’t need to ask us to respect him,
we just do (Interview with students, 6.1. 2017).

The mutual respect and trust C created in his class assured students’

engagement in reading and writing, and the great rapport in the class community

further relieved their fear of making mistakes and being judged during group work.

The constant and consistent celebration of students’ readings and writings made

them stay engaged with their literacy practices and began to see themselves as

readers and writers.

C Modeled and Shared His Literate Life as a Reader and Writer

Highlighting the role of teachers’ modeling in their daily teaching practices,

Palmer (1998) states in the Courage to Teach that “good teachers join self and

subject and students in the fabric of life” (p.11). Mr. C’s belief in demonstrating his

identity as a reader and writer to students resonated with Palmer’s statement. In the

interview, C explained why he regarded teaching himself to students as an important

part in his practices:

I’ve taught CLA for more than thirty years, during these years I’ve tried
different approaches in my teaching practices. As my teaching
experiences accumulated, one thing became obvious to me: teaching
was never simply about techniques, strategies or skills, nor was it about
which textbooks or reading/writing programs I applied in class. It came
from my inner self. In other words, who I am matters to my students, my
identity and integrity are reflected in my teaching practices. I am not
simply teaching reading and writing to my students, I am also teaching
myself to them (Interview, 12.9. 2016).

97
 C’s belief in teaching himself to students landed into two major practices in

class: modeling as a reader/writer in front of students and sharing his literate life with

them. While his modeling focused on teaching actual reading/writing strategies,

habits and skills, sharing his literate life with students touched a deeper level in the

process of cultivating life-long readers and writers.

Modeling Himself As A Reader and Writer

Modeling usually happened when Mr. C brought students new tasks in

learning or when he spotted students’ wobbling moments in reading and writing. For

example, he modeled keeping a writer’s notebook to students. He later posted

reflective entries from his writer’s notebook on his personal online blog and then

shared one entry electronically in class. I translated and adapted his blog entry into

the conversation below:

C: I carry my writer’s notebook with me everywhere, and I number the notebooks

that I consumed. This one is my #31 notebook.

Students exclaimed in amazement. C opened his writer’s notebook and

projected it on the smart board.

C: As you see, my writer’s notebook is not fancy at all. It’s messy, even got soup
stain on it. But it contains valuable writing materials to me. Basically, I
jot down everything. My teaching reflection, my writing inspiration, the
exhilarating or sad moments in my life. But see? (show one page to
students), I don’t drag on it, I jot down a few words or sentences to
remind myself my thoughts at the moment. (He flipped open one page
and showed it to his students). For example, one day I watched a talk
show on TV. People were talking about “Truth in Post Modern Society.”
The host and the guest said people in modern society lived in a biased
social media world. People posted the “truth” they believed and used
the media to exaggerate one side or the other of a story. Because it’s
human nature to “friend” with people who share values with us, we are
inclined to buy the “truth” they fed us. This talk show sounded
intriguing, so I examined my social media account, and found most of
my cyber friends were just like me, also from the educational area, high
school teachers. (Reading aloud his notes to students, he continued).
So here I wrote: We need to get access to multiple information sources
to ensure we don’t get stuck in a narrow small world created by people
like ourselves. (Stopped reading aloud to comment). Then, I reflected

98
 on myself and wrote in a more specific way. (Resumed reading aloud.).
As for myself, of course I am glad to have emotional support from my
teacher friends, but should I also talk to school leaders, policy-makers,
journalists, authors, people from other professions to have a full picture
in mind? I need to see my blind spots and listen to the stories from
other sides.

One student raised hand and asked question.

Student 1: I get your point that everything intrigues us can be mapped in my writer’s
notebook, but I am wondering how do you turn these notes into a piece
of writing?

C: That’s a great question! The purpose of keeping a writer’s notebook is to frame

your lived experience at that moment. My notes, even though just a few
words help me to trace back that memory. Do I use the exact words I
scribbled in my notebook for my writing? Not necessarily. But when I
draft on, say, a topic like ”What is truth?” or “How can we identify fake
news?” I can use the notes as an example. Imagine your writer’s
notebook as a drawer that collects materials for your future writing.
Because you have already recorded your ideas or how you felt when
you took the notes, when you apply the notes in your writing, it would
sound like you, not just some fake example, or dry and empty language
you insert in your writings.

Another student raised question.

Student 2: I am not sure if I can remember all those notes when I write, how do you
make sure you write with the appropriate examples from your
notebook?

C: I read my writer’s notebook, again and again. Reading and re-reading not only
help me refresh the memory of the notes, I also glean new writing
ideas from these notes. During my reading, I compare my notes,
categorize them within similar themes. A lot of my writings came from
reading my writer’s notebook. Try to regard it as the writing inspirations
for your weekly writing journal, when you get stuck in your writing, turn
to your writer’s notebook (Retrieved and adapted from C’s personal
online blog, link: http://blog.sina.com.cn/njcyj ).

In this teaching vignette, by modeling how to keep a writer’s notebook in front

of students, Mr. C demonstrated his writer identity to students. He showed them how

an experienced writer explored his writing territory (Atwell, 2015). He provided

examples of his lived experiences and described his pre-writing stage to his

students. C’s modeling was more than teaching students how to keep a writer’s

notebook. C. shared his writer’s life with the class.

99
 In teaching reading, C usually modeled his thinking process as a reader

through conversations with students in class. He said in the interview:

When I prepare the class, I first read the text as a common reader, not
as a teacher. I keep notes of my confusions and wonderings. When I
read, I remind myself that if as an experienced reader I have questions,
then my students probably have the same one. But, my students may
not be able to explicitly articulate their confusion. That may later cause
misinterpretations of the reading. So, what I do is examine and reflect
upon my own thinking process as a reader, try to understand the steps
that guide me to the final interpretation, then demonstrate the process
through bite-sized questions to students (Interview, 1.4.2017).

A case in point was the way C. guided his students to understand the theme

of Whistling of Birds, a short essay written by D.H. Laurence. He recognized that the

theme of the essay was very challenging for 10th graders because the intricate

philosophical theme was wrapped in an obtrusive language, and the author used

large quantities of images, similes and metaphors. Below is an excerpt of his

instruction in that class:

(Before this conversation, Mr. C had already guided students closely read the

text and had several rounds of small discussions on literacy devices and their

functions in the writing)

C: Great! Now anyone want to have a try at the theme of the reading?

Student 1: I think the theme should be “life verses death”. It was obvious in the essay
that winter symbolized death and spring symbolized life.

C: That is correct. But if I were you, I probably would wonder, “life verses death” kind
of puts life on the opposite side of death, but is it? Think about the
change between winter to spring, and then spring to next winter. Is
there a clear line between life and death? That is the question I came
up with during my reading.

Student 2: So, you are saying just like seasons, life to death or death to life is a
cycle?

C: When I read the description of the whistling, I kept thinking that life is a cycle, or
more accurately, it is a process. We know everything in the world is
going to perish, human beings are no exceptions. So, next I wonder
what we live for? What makes life so special?

100
Student 3: Your question rings the bell for me. There’s a Chinese idiom: ‘Placing
someone in the field of death and he will fight to live’. It’s just because
we know our days are numbered, we must make the best of it.

C: Right, what you said is the significant concept of ‘Being-towards-death’ brought by

the German philosopher Martin Heidegger.

(C. wrote this concept on the whiteboard, and turn to students again)

C: In our culture, death is a taboo, we don’t talk about it. But philosophically
speaking, death is part of a life process, it is not the opposite of living,
but a reminder for us to live, and to celebrate living.

Student 4: I see. It also reminds me of the famous verses by the Indian poet
Rabindranath Tagore: ‘let life be beautiful like summer flowers and
death like autumn leaves., I think is shares the similar theme with this
essay.

C: That’s a great understanding. Now I want you to re-read the last five paragraphs,
and trace back how did the author further explain his understanding of
‘Being-toward-death’ in the essay (Classroom Observation Notes, 1.4.
2017).

Interpreting the theme of “Being-towards-death” in Whistling of Birds was a

little beyond 10th graders, Therefore, rather than bringing it straight to students, C

modeled his thinking process as a reader, decoding the theme of the essay step by

step by proposing his wonderings to students. During the conversation, students’

prior knowledge related to the theme were activated by C’s facilitated questions. The

students were able to connect “being-towards-death” to the Chinese idiom and the

well-known verses and arrive at understanding the intricate theme in this essay.

Sharing His Literate Life

Sharing his own literate life as a reader with students was also a significant

part of C’s teaching. As Assaf (2003) indicates, teachers’ self-knowledge about their

literate identity is deeply connected to classroom practices. Self-acknowledged as an

avid reader and enthusiastic writer, Mr. C naturally woven his personal literate

identity into his teaching by sharing his reading and writing life with students.

Compared with modeling the processes of reading and writing, sharing is a much

101
more personal way of exposing one’s inner self to the class. On one hand, sharing

further bridges the gap between teacher and students, creating a trustworthy and

equal atmosphere in the learning environment. On the other hand, sharing also

involves large significant self-revealing and reflection, which may put teachers in a

vulnerable spot. The exposed vulnerability might make a lot of teachers

uncomfortable, but C chose to confront it and share it with class if he felt his

experience spoke to his students. For example, after talking to three self-identified

“reluctant writers” in class, he noticed their reluctance was not because of low

interest in writing but due to their low self-confidence. To construct students’ writing

confidence, C shared his “becoming a writer” moment with students at one Friday’s

writing class:

I didn’t recognize myself as a writer until my early forties. In 2002, a

college professor invited me to co-author a book. I was very full of self-
doubts. I turned him down and told him my writing was not good enough
to publish a book. He was very curious and asked me why I thought so.
I said I didn’t read enough to write well enough. He was even more
curious and asked about my personal book collection. I said I have more
than 3000 books in my study room. He said, are you kidding? How many
books you plan to read before writing a book? You write to become a
writer, not read to become a writer. I was struck by his words, so I dug
into the reason for my low confidence in writing. . . .The answer was I
didn’t write enough. Because I didn’t practice writing regularly, I didn’t
know if I could write or not. I tagged myself as a person whose writing
was not good enough for publication. To run away from my fear of failure,
I became more reluctant to write…a vicious cycle to ruin a potential writer!
So, when I realized my deep fear of writing, I decided to face it. I signed
the book contract and pushed myself to write every day. I worked with
the college professor and published my first book the next year and one
more the year after, then one more two years later. Then before I knew
it, I become a productive writer. So, my point is: don’t get frustrated when
you write lousy draft, nobody writes perfectly at first, me neither. That’s
why we practice writing regularly. Keep trying and revising, you will get
there, just like I did years ago (Class observational field notes, 1.13.
2017).

By telling his “becoming a writer” story, C self-revealed a fragile and

embarrassing moment to students, which spoke directly to students who were

102
daunted by writing. They suddenly realized their teacher used to experience the

similar writing crisis even when he had already become an achieved CLA teacher in

his forties. Many of them were inspired to practice writing together with him, as one

student said in the interview:

I read Mr. C’s online blog and I wished I could write half well as he did. I
thought he was a natural writer. I never thought people like him also
struggle when writing. But it’s good to know. It boosts my confidence to
write along with him. Maybe someday I will write as well as he does
(Interview with student, 1.13.2017).

C enjoyed a blossoming writing life, besides academic writing, he also wrote

book reviews, film reviews, travel notes, life stories and even poetry on his personal

blog. He shared his writing with students and talked about his writing process with

them. He radiated his joy in writing to students, but also exposed his pains and

struggles. He invited students to join him exploring their writing territories, and to try

to write in different genres. By sharing his own writing life with students, C provided a

model of how to build a writing life. Students learned to magnify their daily lives,

savor the triviality, and to pin their lives on papers as they gradually weave writing

into their lives.

As an avid reader who read at least 30 books every year and wrote annual

book reviews. Mr. C kept a record of his reading list that he shared with his students.

His reading range was very broad, including literature, history, philosophy, politics,

natural science. He was able to integrate his personal readings when his teaching in

class. For example, the 10th grade textbook selected an anti-war themed short

fiction. The story adopted a first person inner monologue from the perspective of a

German teenaged soldier who was seriously wounded and carried to a military

hospital for operation only to find the hospital used to be his middle school. In only

10 pages, the story infused readers with cruelty and satire of the war. Several weeks

103
before teaching the fiction, C happened to read a book of German veterans’

narrative accounts which exposed how the Nazis brainwashed German teenagers.

He immediately decided to include the book in his teaching by conducting a book talk

with students and quoted veterans’ narrative accounts helping them understand the

background for the assigned fiction. Similar scenarios involving transmitting his

personal reading happened several times during my visit. C confirmed the tight

connection between his reading and teaching:

Reading is part of my life, like writing and teaching, it also defines who I
am. For the past ten years, I feel that I am becoming more alert to my
personal reading. It’s like my teaching nerve is subconsciously
monitoring my personal reading. Most of the time I read for fun, but even
during my fun reading, I always notice resources for my teaching. I don’t
necessarily use everything in my teaching, but I keep them in my
teaching reservoir and I keep looking back at what I have in the reservoir.
Then year after year, my teaching gets enriched (Interview, 3.12. 2017).

Through modeling and sharing his reading and writing experiences, C

presented his “undivided self” to students (Palmer, 1998). His personality, work

ethics, beliefs and values were embedded in his demonstrations in class. His

teaching practices not only held a mirror to his teaching beliefs, but also his soul to

students.

Engaging Students in Meaningful Reading and Discussion

As previously stated, the top-down textbook-based curriculum, monthly test

cycle and the limited 40 minutes daily teaching schedule all together restricted CLA

teacher autonomy. Even as a veteran literacy teacher who strongly believed

“students cannot grow into readers and writers if only textbooks were provided in

class” (Interview, 1.11.2017), Mr. C needed to teach textbooks as his as it mattered

to students in the monthly tests. However, he never taught textbook just for tests,

rather than simply lecturing about the content, he constructed time effectively for

students to have engaged reading and discussion experiences. Engaged time is the

104
time that students fully attend to the materials and the tasks and make appropriate

responses to the teacher and their peers (Walker and Severson, 1992). When

students are engaged in learning they are more likely to achieve academically. In C’s

case, although he had the same textbook teaching load as many other CLA

teachers, his way of constructing time for engaged textbook reading and discussion

invited students to construct meanings collaboratively in class. He held high

expectations for them and believed every one of them could become an active

learner if proper nurturing was provided:

I my students, I believe they are all capable of interpreting the texts by

their own. There is no need to drag on the ‘standard’ interpretations and
impose the ‘answers’ on them. It’s a waste of time. My teachable
moments come after getting to know their ideas and questions. I can
facilitate deeper thinking through building conversations with them in
class (Interview, 12. 13. 2016).

Driven by this trust, C prepared them for engaged reading and discussion

before class, conducted mini lessons and class discussions during, and asked

students to keep reflective notes after class. Each phase was organically connected.

Before Class: Preparation for Engaged Reading and Discussion

To make the most of class time for engaged reading and discussion, Mr. C

initiated a “pre-class reading routine” for his students at beginning of the semester.

He asked students to keep a reader’s notebook where they kept reading response

entries before class. He told me this pre-class reading routine was fundamental to

change the nature of interactions in his class:

When students read the texts by themselves before class, they have
already ‘swallowed’ the story or information from the textbook and
developed initial understanding of the readings. Therefore, I am not the
single source of content provider in class anymore. This makes more
time available to guide them into whole-class discussion rather than
lecturing in class. Moreover, because they have already processed the
texts before class, they tend to actively participate in group discussions
and generate better interactions with peers in class(Interview,
12.13.2016).

105
 Yet motivating students to read before class was considered a common

barrier to many teachers. Mr. C’s solution to overcome that barrier was to provide

students explicit prompts for their pre-class reading. His prompts clearly connected

their independent reading experience with the later in-class expectations of the

reading discussions. For example, for reading short fiction in the textbook, C

explicitly directed with the following questions:

1) Can you narrate the plot of this story?

2) What is the theme of this story?
3) What do you notice about the writing style? Do you like writer’s voice in the
story?
4) Can you select one or two paragraphs to either appreciate or critic?
5) Can you list three questions for class discussions?

These explicit reading prompts invited students to yield their own

interpretation of the texts, and also helped them to internalize good independent

reading habits. To make sure students had done the pre-class reading assignment,

C usually walked around classroom during recession before his class to check on

students’ reading responses. This quick check enabled C to understand students’

strengths and weaknesses in the reading comprehension, so he could synchronize

them with his instruction. Keeping reading responses was like a stretching warm-up

for students, their reading muscles had been activated before the intense exercises

in class. His students were prepared to engage in discussions immediately when C

launched conversations with them. In Mr. C’s words, “they are already there with me

when I begin the class” (Interview, 12.13. 2016).

During Class: Mini-Lessons and Guided Discussions

Mr. C was fully aware that the traditional lecture-based class did not invite

students to voice their own opinions and the long lecture sessions drain students’

attention. Unlike the conventional lecture-based class structure, both mini-lessons

106
and guided discussions encouraged students to become engaged in actively making

meanings from the texts along with C during the class. These techniques insured

that students were no longer passive information receivers but actual readers who

participated in reading and discussions meaningfully. Since students read and

responded to the texts before class, he encouraged them to share their

understanding of the texts first, as it was a significant celebration of their readers’

identities. He explained:

If I plan to complete a textbook reading lesson in three days (40-minute

class each day), I’ll spend my first 20 minutes of class with a reading
discussion based on their reading response entries. I do this in class for
two reasons. Firstly, it tells my students I respect them as readers, and
reading is not for testing, but for joy and sharing ideas. Secondly, I get
the chance to ‘diagnose’ their comprehension of the text, so I can
develop mini-lessons according to their needs (Interview, 12.13.2016).

Since his subsequent 10-15 minutes’ mini-lessons were developed based on

students’ needs, they were very relevant to students’ current reading stages and

aimed at providing them with better reading experiences in the future. To engage

students in the mini-lessons, C always set one clear and focused goal and let

students understand what was expected during the next 10-15 minutes. He would

introduce the specific topic or skill first, followed by modeling and providing examples

from the texts, then interacted with students through conversations about the

topic/skill, and, then transitioned to group discussions with clear instructions.

My observational field notes documented one of C’s mini-lessons about

helping students “capture details that show characters’ feelings.”

Background: Fate of Man, Chinese Language Arts (Yuen) (Ding, Yang, 2014,

p.29)

The short fiction was written by Soviet Union author Mikhail Sholokhov in

1956 based on a real story during World War Two. The main character, Andrey

107
Socolow, was a truck driver who lived happily with his family until he was drafted to

the army when German attacked Soviet Russia. During the war Sokolov was

wounded, captured, and placed in a concentration camp, but he managed to survive

and ran from Nazis. Soon he found out his wife and daughters were killed in the

bombing and his son died on the last day of the war. The lonely man met a little boy,

Vanya, whose parents were both killed in the war. Soklov adopted the boy and gave

the boy and himself new hope in life.

Mr. C introduced the learning goal for his mini lesson: Capture details that

show characters’ feelings.

Then, in the first 5 minutes, he demonstrated one example.

C: Now, let’s take a close look at how the author described character’s feelings. Did
you notice that Soklov cried when he decided to adopt the boy?
(Students located the paragraph.) When I first read this paragraph, I
kept thinking about why he cried. My first response was he was too
excited to hold his tears back. Then I began to reflect on what he
experienced before he met Vanya, so I asked myself if there were any
other feelings that made him cry? I also thought about how he felt
sympathy for little Vanya since the little kid lost both parents. It
reminded him of his own children who died. So, I decided he actually
had mixed feelings. Excitement, sadness, and empathy all together
made him cry.

C continued.

C: Now let’s see how the author described Soklov’s crying in this scene. Because
our main character had mixed feelings, there were actually different
ways the author depicted his crying in the following paragraph.

(Students followed C to the next paragraph. C read aloud.)

C: When he decided to adopt Vanya, it says ‘I cannot hold my tears anymore’; then
Vanya responded with exciting kisses and screams, it says ‘my eyes
got misty again. I am shaking all over and couldn’t even hold the wheel
tight’. You see, these are the details the author used to present
Soklov’s feelings. Instead of saying again and again that ‘he was
crying’, the author exposed his excitement and sadness with actions
embedded in detail.

108
 For the next 8 minutes, C focused on another detail that presented main

character’s feelings, but instead of modeling, he interacted with students this time.

C: Anyone notice the verb the author used when Soklov told Vanya that he was his
missing father?

Student 1: It says ‘I bent over, and whispered to Vanya: do you know who I am?
’Whispered!’

C: Good! Why do you think Soklov ‘whispered’?

Student 2: He was afraid he might scare Vanya?

C: That is one interpretation. Let’s think deeper, why do you think Vanya might get
scared?

Student 3: I actually feel the same way. Soklov was trying to get Vanya ready for the
big news! The poor kid lost his family and was homeless for a long
time.

Student 4: I agree, and I also think he asked in a tentative way, like he wanted to
know if Vanya still remembered his father. ‘Whisper’ exposes Soklov’s
soft side, and also showed his love to the little orphan.

C: Excellent! I can tell you all developed great understanding of the characters.

For the last few minutes of this mini-lesson, C smoothly transitioned into the
upcoming group discussions.

C: Great, now you noticed the details in the writing. I want you to talk in small groups
about the applications of details in this paragraph and think about how
the details contributed to showing the characters’ feelings for the
readers.

Students exchanged notes in small groups and discussed the details they

noticed in the writing. C walked around between groups, conducted small talks with

students demonstrating more examples of descriptive details in the story.(Classroom

Observational Field Note, 12.16.2016)

The above mini-lesson showed Mr. C’s teaching pace, his strength in

interacting with students in class, and strong flow and smooth transitions between

each instructional segment.

109
After Class: Reflective Notes and the Follow-Up

Students were asked to keep reflective notes in their readers’ notebook after

class. By comparing their initial reading response entries with in-class notes,

students highlighted a new vocabulary in the texts and reflected on their developing

understanding of the texts. Mr. C reviewed and graded students’ readers’ notebook

once a week, and he kept a good record of their reflections. If students’ after-class

reflective notes were beneath his expectations, he would schedule an office

appointment with the student. Students’ readers’ notebooks also became valuable

references for them to review lessons before monthly tests. Many of them confirmed

reviewing their readers’ notebooks was more effective than reviewing worksheets

during test preparation (Interview with students, 3.4. 2017).

Limited class time, textbook-based curriculum, and monthly test pressures all

seemed to work against students having an engaged reading and discussion time in

class. Yet Mr. C managed to create engaged learning time for his students. From the

narratives about his lesson cycle (before, during, after class) above, it was obvious

that he valued nurturing students into becoming independent readers with good

reading habits more than he valued preparing them for tests. Nevertheless, he also

established a follow-up checking system on students’ literacy performance after

class. In his words, a good teacher needed to “keep an eye on the test but should

not be controlled by it” (Interview,3.14.2017). In many of our casual talks, he shared

the belief that meaningful literacy practices and good test scores actually went hand

in hand with each other, thus creating engaged reading and discussion time in class

would eventually contribute to students’ test scores in a long run. He emphasized

that it just took time and patience for both teachers and students.

110
 Making Reading and Writing Relevant to the Real-World Issues

As students in Mr. C’s class were highly engaged in textbook reading and

discussions, they were trained to establish good reading and thinking habits.

Therefore, C didn’t need to spend a lot of time “chewing” on one textbook reading.

He was able to “squeeze” extra teaching time from the schedule and bring extended

reading and writing opportunities to students in class. For example, as mentioned

earlier, C set the first five minutes class time for students to do the Book Talk,

encouraging them bring in their favorite books to class. He also scheduled Friday as

the writing day, a time that students could celebrate their weekly journal writings with

peers. He held mini-lessons and writing conferences.

In addition to these routine activities, Mr. C tried to infuse real-world relevant

reading and writing projects into his literacy teaching at least 2-3 times within a

school year. These projects were designed to extend students’ vision and encourage

them to read, think and write critically and civically about the community, society and

world in which they live. Mr. C engaged students in the following real-world relevant

reading and writing projects.

A Letter to the Mayor

Persuasive writing is usually taught for testing purposes in China’s high

schools. Students are trained to write the five-paragraph essay based on writing

prompts. Without real-life audiences, however, it is hard for any student to write in a

sincere voice. Therefore, students’ writings are full of fake voices and imagined

examples. Mr. C felt that students struggled with persuasive essays because they

experienced a “lack of motivation.” He recognized that students felt the writing topics

were irrelevant to their lives and they didn’t have any urgent need to persuade

111
anyone in particular. Thus, he made a major effort to bring real-life audiences into

the picture and make the writing relevant to students’ lives.

At the time I visited C’s school construction sites were everywhere, but the

local government was loose on construction managing regulations. Construction

tubes, sand bags, and cement took up space om sidewalks and pedestrians had to

walk on the motorways. C’s school was right beside a construction site. Like other ill-

managed sites in the city, it caused terrible traffic problems for the teachers and

students who were commuting and put people in danger. Mr. C overheard students’

complaints and immediately spotted the writing space in this topic.

My colleagues, my students and I complained every day, but surprisingly,

no one acted on it. It’s so sad we don’t know how to fight for our rights
as citizens. I don’t want my students become complainers. I want them
to become responsible citizens who advocate for action in our society.
So, I decided to let them write a letter to our mayor, appealing for our
rights as residents (Interview, 2.23.2017).

C announced the writing plan at Friday’s writing class. Students were excited

because they felt the writing was deeply connected to their lives. C made clear the

letter was audience-specific. Below was a class snapshot:

Student 1: Are we really sending letters to the mayor or is it just a writing practice?

C: We are sending the letter to the mayor. It is a real letter that will bring our appeal
to the government, not just writing practice. I want you to understand,
writing serves real functions in life, not only in school test.

Student 2: We’ve never done this before, what if we sound too childish and casual?
Is there any format we need to follow?

C: Yes, there is a specific letter format regards to writing to government officials, but
I don’t want you to worry about it right now. I want you to focus on what
you want to say to the mayor about the construction site beside our
school. What bothered you the most about the construction site? What
do you want to know about this construction site? What are some
improvements you want to see about the construction measures?
Think about these questions and write them down (Classroom
Observational Field Notes, 2.16.2017)

112
 With an urgent need to change the situation as well as a specific and real

audience in mind, Mr. C’s students wrote their heart out. They complained about the

construction site, argued why and how such chaotic construction site management

negatively influenced people’s lives, questioned the construction schedule and the

ultimate plan, and proposed a better regulation monitoring system.

To help students compose their letters, C provided students a mini-lesson

after their first draft. He focused on students’ weaknesses in the writing. Students

were also provided a one-page handout on government official letter writing format.

They were put into groups, and collaboratively completed the letter. Students voted

the most convincing group’s letter, signed it and sent it to the mayor’s office. In the

middle of April, Mr. C and students were surprised to find the nearby construction

site had been cleaned, the sidewalks were vacated, construction materials were

relocated. Students were excited to see their letter really brought the change. In my

interview with students, they told me that was the first time they realized writing could

connect them to the world and they were exhilarated by action rather than a grade in

response to their persuasive writing.

Integrated Literacy Project of a Social Debate

Acknowledging students’ needs and desires for real-life reading and writing

while waking up their civic awareness requires teachers to be alert to the current

issues in society and stay critical and reflective in their thinking. For example, in early

March 2017, a wave of debates across the nation were fermenting on social media.

This debate was about a Nobel Laureate Scientist, Dr. Zhenning Yang, who at age of

94 decided to renounce his US citizenship and return to China. Some people saw

him as a pure opportunist who would gain much but contribute little to China due to

his old age. Others furiously defended him as patriot. Mr. C spotted the socially

113
relevant teaching space in this heated debate. He recalled the moment when he

read the news:

I immediately got excited when I read multiple articles from newspapers

and social media, I want my students to analyze the competing
perspectives in these readings, they need to find out how trustworthy the
information is behind those views through their own analysis rather than
being pushed around by media. That is an essential skill for a mature
reader and a responsible writer (Interview, 4.10.2017).

After the monthly test in March, Mr. C replaced Thursday regular class time

and Friday’s writing class with an integrated reading and writing project aimed at

motivating them to become responsible citizens. The three-week (6 classes) project

reflected C’s belief that adolescents wanted to actively participate in the society they

lived in. C aimed to facilitate reading and writing for an authentic and meaningful

purpose. He collected real life multi-genre readings of between 2000-5000 words

each for class discussion from newspapers and social media. These readings

presented different voices in China’s society and provided students with multiple

perspectives on the debate.

C divided the class into groups with 7-8 students in each, and posted 3

questions to engage them in group discussions:

1) Why his (Yang) return is controversial? Summarize perspectives from all

readings.
2) Select 4 readings, state authors' positions, writing purpose and target
audience.
3) What do you think of his return?

The richness of information and opinions from the readings hauled students

into heated discussions successfully. These real-life readings, included interviews,

editorials, and blog articles. They not only provided students with different

information, viewpoints, discourse and vocabulary, but also provoked them with

questions about why the author held such opinions and what he/she tried to

communicate to the audience. With the guided questions, students sorted out and

114
categorized different positions from the readings, and they gradually understood why

Dr. Yang was subjected to such disputes. For example, during their group’s

presentation, one student stated:

Part of the reasons Yang himself is controversial, is because as a

celebrity, he is highly exposed to the public, and we try to fit him into our
imagined hero model. If he doesn't fit, then we judge him, which is not
right (Classroom field notes, 1st round group discussion report 2, 3.15).

To push students further, C posted another two questions:

1) What do you think of the controversies caused by Yang's return to China,

why his return is such a social clamor.
2) Faced with today's information explosion and the intricate covering by
media, how can we tell what is truth and think analytically? You can answer
this question based on your own reading experiences in the past.

In this round of discussion, students began to connect their previous reading

experiences and examine their own biases towards Yang:

I heard about his story and his controversial marriage several times
before, mostly from my families and relatives at dinner table. But I never
really read intensively about his and I never get to know who he is, what
his accomplishments are, and I never thought deeply about why he has
been slandered in our society. I just followed the ill-comments people
throw at him without questioning (classroom field notes, second round
group discussion 1, 3.17).

Reading and group discussion caused students to gain knowledge of this

highly debatable person and all kinds of controversies he caused. Students adopted

a critical lens towards the social media’s bullying a person in China’s society. The

reading and group discussions took 3 classes and followed by three writing

workshops. Students were asked to reflect on their group’s discussion process and

then completed an argumentative essay on this on-going media turbulence. Through

this integrated literacy project, C engaged his students in reading, discussing and

writing critically and civically on one spotlight social issue. Students gradually

understood from the project that Yang was not the only person who had been

brutally reproached on the internet in China and that people living in the new digital

115
era are likely to be influenced by social media. They came to recognize that, as

responsible citizens, they should be equipped with the ability to evaluate information

accuracy from the media buzz.

Speeches on News Headlines

Bringing socially-relevant reading and writing into CLA class was a consistent

effort Mr. made in his teaching career. His most well-known socially-relevant literacy

project was setting aside class time for 12th grade students to do the “speech on

news headlines”. In 2011, when Mr. taught 12th grade, he felt students were totally

isolated from the society. In his words, “they knew nothing about what happened in

the world they lived in” (Interview, 7.11.2016). Buried in worksheets, students shut

the door to society and made themselves the prisoners of tests. C felt his students

were suffocating under the huge pressure from the upcoming college entrance exam

and that it was urgent to let students breath “real-world air.” C recalled his first step

to “let the air in”:

I went to the post office and subscribed newspapers and journals for my
students. They are 12th graders. Yes, they need to confront the big test
in their lives, but they have much more important things to accomplish in
their whole life other than the test. It is not right to marginalize those
adults-to-be from what is going on in our society for a whole year. I
brought the newspapers and journals into my class and said to them:
“No matter how busy you think you are, don’t forget to read the world
and embrace it.” (Interview, 7.11.2016).

For the entire school year, C set aside 10 minutes for students to take turns

delivering a speech at the beginning of each class. The topic depended on each

student’s newspaper and journal reading. In 5-8 minutes students were expected to

introduce the news to class and respond to it. Students wrote script draft a week ago

before their speech and met with C to revise the script during recessions. After each

speech a whole-class discussion was followed. Students were encouraged to state

their own opinions as well as to provide suggestions for the script revision. The

116
“reading-writing-speaking-discussing-revising” cycle not only enhanced student civic

awareness during, but also gave them enough time and space to polish their writing.

C reflected this project in the interview:

12th graders rarely have chances to do the real-world writing anymore.

The big test presses them to practice test writing day after day. The
speech is an alternative way for them to do some real writing under the
test pressure. From reading newspapers and discussing the news with
peers, students began to think critically on social issues. They began to
position themselves as citizens and feel the world they live in matters to
them (Interview, 7.11.2016).

Samples of students’ scripts proved C’s words. They wrote extensively and

intensively about the hot and urgent topics in society. Some students discussed

China’s politics and foreign policies. Some were focused on climate and environment

issues and exposed the potential causes of the climate disasters. Some penetrated

moral and ethical values in traditional Chinese culture and questioned if these values

still fit today’s society. Some examined and reflected on China’s test-oriented

education system and shared personal experiences to evaluate its validity in relation

to one’s growth. Through reading, writing and speaking, these teenagers began to

realize their identities as more than students. They were also global citizens who

became responsible for noticing, thinking, advocating, and acting upon the world. By

the end of the school year, C collected revised work from his students and sent it to

a local press to be published as a book of youth’s views on social issues.

School should be a place that prepares students for the world, not a place that

segregates them from it. Mr. C’s purpose for bringing socially-relevant reading and

writing into class was to re-connect students to the world they lived in. He noticed

students’ needs to be heard by society, so he set real audiences and purposes for

students in their writing. He was aware of the latest social problems and was able to

present the problems in the form of reading and writing practices to students.

117
Although he recognized the test pressure, he prioritized nurturing students to read

and write meaningfully rather than simply cramming them for tests. As he concluded:

The reason I fight for space for students’ socially-relevant literacy

practices in my class is I know they will not be defined by test scores in
the future. They will be defined by who they are. Socially-relevant
reading and writing prepares them to care about our society, to generate
empathy towards others, to understand themselves better, and most
importantly, to be the ones who makes a difference in our society
(Interview, 5.11.2017).

Chapter Summary

As stated at the beginning of the chapter, the four themes discussed in this

chapter were connected and all together revealed one exemplary teacher’s quality

teaching under a test-pressed environment. Even though students’ test scores have

become decisive in the evaluation of one’s teaching practice, Mr. C valued students

engagement in meaningful reading and writing more than test-preparation. This

belief drove his teaching practices and make him stand out from most of high school

CLA teachers in China. Recognizing that the dominant lecture-based textbook

teaching across the country drained students’ attention, Mr. C invited them to

develop their own understanding of the texts before class, engaged them with

interactive mini-lessons and group discussions during class, and designed a follow-

up checking system that monitored students’ learning after class. Not only did he

guide students’ reading and discussion time, he nurtured them to become

independent readers with great reading habits while making sure to cover the

content in the coming test.

The driving force behind such teaching practice was his deep trust towards

his students. He held high expectations for them, believed they had the potential to

become active learners, and he kept sending that message to students. This trust

was also the first step to build a safe and trusting environment where students felt

118
secure enough to make their own voices in meaningful reading and writing. Under

China’s authoritarian-oriented culture, students get used to listening to teachers and

seeking standard answers. Yet, in Mr. C’s class, he respected students’ independent

opinions, encouraged them to think critically, and celebrated their perspectives on

reading and voiced writing in class. The rapport he built in the class community

further eliminated students’ fear of making mistakes It provided them experiences to

collaborate thoughtfully with peers. He helped students to form their own

reader/writer identities during the process. Mr. C also drew himself closer to students

by modeling and sharing his reader and writer identities in class. is class. This was

meant to help them “see reading and writing are not easy even to an experienced

senior teacher” (Interview, 7.8.2016) and enhanced the level of security and trust.

Furthermore, Mr. C put great value on the real-world relevant reading and writing

because it connected students to their own lives and the world. His highly-effective

time management earned him extra time to integrate real-world relevant reading and

writing projects into class teaching. Since his students read more extensively and

intensively and wrote with more authentic voices than template-based formula, they

also achieved higher test scores.

These exemplary teaching practices, however, were not “born” but evolved

over Mr. C’s thirty-year teaching career. The more time I invested observing and

interacting with him, the better I realized what a great life-long learner and reflective

person he was. Besides his avid reading and productive writing in different genres,

he also spent great amount of time researching on pedagogical theories,

adolescents’ psychology, and Chinese language learning. As a result, he was always

willing to take risks in teaching. Even though he encountered some challenges for

his experimental work, he was not afraid to push to the edge for the sake of his

119
students. For example, he told me about the following episode which exposed Mr.

C’s strong interpersonal knowledge as an exemplary teacher, a critical quality for him

to act as a teacher leader and a builder of a school wide literate life:

When I did the ‘Speech’ six years ago with my 12th graders, everybody
said I was crazy. I received complaints from some parents, and they even
threatened to file complaints with the principal. I understood they worried
the ‘Speech’ might rob too much time from test preparation, so I invited
them to my class, and let them see what excellent writers and speakers,
critical thinkers, and responsible citizens their children were growing to
be. The ‘Speech’ helped my students to collect many real-life examples
and cases, strengthened their argumentative skills, provided them
competing perspectives. When parents saw that, they were relieved.
One parent even invited local newspaper journalist to my classroom and
wrote a report about it. . . . (Interview, 5.11.2017).

Every time he tried something new in his class, Mr. C kept notes on each step

of his teaching as well as students’ reactions. He composed his notes into reports

and reflective journal articles afterwards. Mr. C’s accounts showed his flexibility

when confronted challenges. Instead of ignoring the criticism or fighting back directly,

Mr. C empathized with those parents and opened his classroom to them. He

convinced parents by presenting them students’ engaged learning in class and their

later improved writing test scores. In the following chapter, I will describe his

interpersonal knowledge and efforts to establish a school culture that valued reading

and writing in greater detail.

120
 CHAPTER 6
CREATING A SCHOOL-WIDE LITERATE LIFE

My definition of a successful teacher goes beyond in-class teaching

practices. I think he(she) needs to extend vision to the school level and
create a literate life for students schoolwide. I think that requires more
than teaching skills, but also people skills (Interview, 12.11.2016).

An Overview of the Literate Life in ShiSan High School

Under the current testing pressure and the textbook-bounded curriculum

structure, in-class literacy teaching practices afford students only very limited reading

and writing opportunities. Even as an exemplary teacher who constantly “squeezed”

class time to engage students in meaningful literacy practices, Mr. C felt there was

inadequate reading and writing in the class. Based upon his experience, C believed

that engaged literacy learning is deeply influenced by students’ social interactions

and communications in a school context (Hedegaard, Chaiklin & Jensen, 1998). He

believed if students were provided regular chances to read, write and talk about their

literacy practices in a school context, they would be more likely to become motivated

to develop their identities as lifelong readers and writers. Therefore, for the past

decades, Mr. C has been dedicated to building a literate life school-wide. He

explained:

To put it simple, a school-wide literate life means a literacy-rich school

culture, which provides students with access to books or other resources
and encourages them to read and write for real-life purposes. It also
provides them platforms to share their reading and writing with peers. It
engages them in a variety of school-wide literacy projects. I want
students to live a school life that celebrates reading and writing,
encourages them to find their own voices as readers and writers, and
connects them with the world through multiple literacy practices
(Interview, 7.9.2016).

School-Wide Reading and Writing Celebration

To cultivate a meaningful literate life school-wide, Mr. C stated that a

celebration of students’ reading/ writing should be embedded in the school on a daily

basis:

121
 I think reading and writing celebration reinforces the message that
students’ independent reading and writing matter in this school. Not only
CLA faculty care about their progress as readers and writers, but the
whole school is aware of their efforts. The celebration also generates
conversations school-wide. People are talking about how great students
can read and write. These conversations are excellent motivations for
young readers and writers (Interview, 1.9.2017).

One example celebration was a school window display of My Monthly Favorite

Book. Students picked one of their favorite books from their monthly independent

readings and proposed book reviews to their CLA teachers. Mr. C and the other CLA

faculty selected 10 book proposals every month, went back to students, had one-on-

one conferences with the students, and guided them to revise their reviews. The final

drafts were made into posters and displayed.

To further celebrate Mr. C Book founded the Cross Reading Project. At

beginning of every semester, he purchased books from students’ My Monthly

Favorite Book proposals and from his own reading lists. The newly purchased books

were allocated to every classroom’s mini-library. To provide more readings for

students, classes from the same grade could exchange books every two months.

Thus, the Book Cross Reading Project became an “add-on” to the school library from

which students could access newly published books as well as the books

recommended by their peers. This reading project created casual spaces for

students to talk about books as they were able to share reading across the classes.

Beyond that, every two weeks the CLA teachers recommended excellent

student writing for publication in the school literature journal and those pieces of

writing were displayed on the hallway bulletin board as well. This whole school

celebration of reading and writing extended students’ reading lists, cultivated reading

and writing interests and habits, and provided students opportunities to share and

discuss their reading and writings in a learning community.

122
School-Wide Literacy Projects

To further weave a literate life in the school and guarantee new literacy

learning experiences for students in a year, Mr. C and his colleagues designed

literacy projects for each grade level. These projects at least one month apart.

10th graders and their parents were invited to a Poetry Night in the middle of

the fall semester. Students brought the poems they’d created to the night gathering

and read them aloud in front of the audience or expressed them in artistic ways. In

the spring semester, 10th graders celebrated a Drama Festival. Each class in 10th

grade was asked to write their own drama script and ed it out in the school theatre.

In less than 30 days, students wrote collaboratively, revised scripts in groups, and

rehearsed the play daily after school.

11th graders were invited to sign up for Mr. C’s Evening Group of Classic

Reading, a book club where s books were together every Friday night. The students

read averagely 15 books and wrote book reviews accordingly across the school

year. During the spring semester, 11th graders participated in the Classical Chinese

Verse Chanting Competition, an event that aimed celebrating Chinese culture,

heritage and literature.

12th graders were encouraged to collect their writing from throughout their

high school years to be considered for book publication by the CLA teaching

community. The accepted book proposals were reviewed and edited by the CLA

office and sent to the school publisher. After publication, Mr. C and his colleagues

organized a schoolwide Book Signing for the young authors. Students from other

grades were welcomed to have a face-to-face talk with their senior peers and

received suggestions on writing and the potential publication opportunities in the

future.

123
 In addition to those regular projects, other schoolwide literacy projects were

organized. For example, in the April of 2017, a new literacy project called Reading

Week was introduced to students. In response to the annual World Reading Day

(April. 23rd), the Reading Week provided students with daily activities throughout an

entire week. Author Talks were given by published book authors who had been

invited to the school. The Reader, an activity where students read aloud their favorite

book chapters, took place. Book Signing Sessions by students who had published

their own books sold books on campus were scheduled during lunch break and long

recessions. Descriptions of the projects, stories among students, and photographs of

various scenes were all recorded, printed out, and sent to faculty and students by the

end of the school year.

Establishing a school-wide literate life, however, was never an easy job. It

needed collaborative effort on the part of school administrators, the teacher

community and supporters beyond school. But mostly, it required a teacher

leadership that “inspired excellence in practices, and empowered stakeholders to

participate in educational improvement” (Silva, Gimbert & Nolan, 2000, p.28). As a

veteran teacher in the school, Mr. C took the leading role and became a consistent

leading force that glued everyone together in the progress.

Mr. C’s schoolwide leadership qualities are presented in this chapter as he

interacted in four different ways with different groups of people: mentoring

students; leading the CLA faculty; working with the school administrator; and looking

for resources beyond the school campus. Each of these reveals an aspect of Mr. C’s

approach to interacting with people around him and reveals his inner strengths in

leadership, communication and collaboration as an exemplary teacher.

124
 Mentoring Students into the School-Wide Literate Life

Mentoring students into the school-wide literate life was much more

challenging than Mr. C and his colleagues imagined. With daily high pressure of

testing and limited spare time, students preferred to invest their time in test

preparation instead of “extra” reading and writing. C’s efforts in creating school-wide

literacy projects were called into question by some students. Mr. C. recalled the time

when he first established the book club for 11th graders:

When I first set Evening Groups of Classic Reading five years ago, only
4 students in the whole 11th grade signed up for this book club. At our
first meeting, only 3 of them showed up. When we began to talk about
the assigned book, only 1 student finished the reading. A week later, I
overheard students’ conversations during recession. They said ‘Mr.C
was too crazy to set up a book club, we barely have time for test-prep let
alone joining the book club and spending two hours every Friday night
after school. Even though I understood my students, I was still struck by
their words. They thought reading books was a waste of time. . . .
(Interview, 5.12.2017).

Students’ reluctance to reading and their negative attitude toward school-wide

literacy projects caused Mr. C to feel an urgent need to change students’ mindset

and encourage them taste the joy of literacy learning. To achieve the goal, he

applied several strategies.

Sharing Reader Identity

To invite more students to his book club, Mr. C brought the reading list and

sample books to each class in 11th grade during recessions, gave book talks and

had conversations with students. In his talks, C encouraged students to extend their

vision to their future development but not only on tests. He shared his stories with

books and told them how reading and writing changed his life. When recalled this

experience, C felt his own reader identity convinced students the value in reading:

I remember I shared my personal stories with them, told them how hard
it was for me as a teenager to get books to read because of the Cultural
Revolution. I told them how reading books helped me go over the bitter

125
 years in my adolescence. Some students who later joined the book club
told me that for the first time they didn’t see me as a teacher, but as a
reader who loved books so much and wanted to share the joy with them.
Two weeks after my book talks, I got 15 students in the book club. Still
not many, but I was confident there would be more students if they
enjoyed the books, and they would spread words in the grade (Interview,
5.13.2017).

Setting Peer Models

Setting peer reading and writing models was another strategy Mr. C used to

lead more students to experience the school-wide literacy projects. In the first year of

the book club, C and his book club student members finished reading 15 books in

different genres and wrote book reviews accordingly. Once students completed a

book, C would invite them to either give a book talk or share reading experiences

during the whole school Monday morning gathering. He also encouraged book club

members to submitting their book reviews to school literature journals and shared

their writings with their peers. Mr. C considered peer modeling as a significant part in

motivating students to read and write:

Setting peer models is a good way to help students engage in reading

and writing. On one hand, it is a celebration of the modeled students’
excellence in literacy practices, they get the idea that their efforts are
recognized by me and other CLA teachers. On the other hand, it is also
a push to the rest students, they get to know what good reading and
writing look like and in what way they can improve their literacy practices
(Interview, 5.13. 2017).

Handing Over Responsibility to Students

To Mr. C, mentoring students into a school-wide literate life also meant

handing over responsibilities to them. Students were provided choices and

opportunities to make their own decisions. They gradually turned from passive

participants into active decision-makers. One example was the annual Drama

Festival. After making several revisions of their collaboratively written plays, the

students themselves selected directors and actors for their play. They also

coordinated time for rehearsals, contacted theaters to rent costumes, and designed

126
the stage settings. For many students, this might have been the first time they had a

say about their literacy practices in the school setting. One student director

expressed her excitement about students having been regarded as decision-makers:

Mr. C and other CLA teachers said they were our facilitators in this
project. We could ask for help anytime if needed, but we got to decide
what to play and how to play it. I was overwhelmed at first, as the director
I had tons of decisions to make. My team and I had meetings every day
at lunch break, every one of us were so involved in the rehearsals. We
produced our own play from scratch, if we had not been regarded as
decision-makers in the process, I don’t think we would have invested that
much time and energy in it (Interview with students, 6.15.2017).

Setting Diversified Assessment

Unlike standardized tests, the assessments for literacy projects were

diversified. Students received a message that grades are not the only way to define

their efforts. According to Mr. C:

In our education system, our students are trained to connect grades to

assessment. I am trying to tell them there are multiple ways to assess
their practices. Some assessments are product-based, but many are
process-based. Some evaluations are from us teachers, but students
are also invited to do self-evaluations and peer evaluations (Interview,
6.12.2017).

For instance, during preparation for the stage performances, students were

asked to keep 100-200 words daily journal entries. They were also encouraged to

interview each other during rehearsals. All these writings were collected and edited

as the class journal for the Drama Festival. To assess students’ stage performance,

C invited teachers from drama schools, students from other grades and their parents

to serve on the evaluation committee. Based on script writing, performance,

costumes and stage settings, the committee provided detailed evaluations after the

performances. Both class journals and stage performances contributed to students’

final assessment for the Drama Festival. The assessment became more than a

127
teacher comment on the final performance. It became a reminder of every step taken

in the process. As one student said:

I really appreciate that Mr. C told us to keep daily journal entries. In three
weeks’ rehearsals, I recorded our efforts day by day. I wrote down
interesting stories, sad moments, our conflicts and resolutions. Now
when I open our class journal, those days pop in front of me. I think it will
be one of the most valuable memories from my high school years
(Interview with students, 6.15.2017).

To provide students a school-wide literacy learning experience, Mr. C and his

colleagues worked collaboratively to design multiple literacy projects that infused

reading and writing into students’ lives. As an experienced literacy teacher, Mr. C not

only demonstrated his own identity as a reader and invited them to find the joy of

reading books, he also understood the importance of listening to students’ needs

and give them choices and decision-making opportunities. He connected reading,

writing, and art in those school-wide literacy projects. He mentored students to pay

attention to their own progresses. Students tasted the joy of literacy learning that had

been ripped away by high stakes testing for a long time and they realized their high

school lives were deeply enriched by participating the school-wide literacy projects.

The Lead Teacher in The CLA Teaching Community

As a veteran teacher in Shisan high school, Mr. C also acted as the lead

teacher in the CLA teaching community. Creating a school-wide literate life needed

close collaboration and quality bonds among different grade-level teachers. With

decades of experience working through 10-12th grades, Mr. C had built great rapport

with other CLA teachers and established a collaborative culture in the community.

The “Mini-Talks” Among CLA Faculty

Communication between teachers from different grade-levels was the first

goal Mr. C set for the teaching community. Apart from their monthly meeting on

regular class teaching, C also scheduled “mini talks” during school-wide literacy

128
projects. Teachers from different grade-levels sat together, shared ideas on the on-

going or the coming projects, reported their observations on students’ participation

and performance, and listened to other teachers’ concerns and challenges. These

mini talks usually took about 15-20 minutes during Wednesday and Friday’s lunch

break. Many teachers considered these 15-20 minutes as a chance to check if they

were on the right track guiding their students in the projects. They also considered it

as a space to celebrate their triumphant teaching moments, to contribute innovative

ideas on the projects, and to build connections with their colleagues.

Recognizing Experts in CLA Faculty

Through these constant conversations among CLA teachers, Mr. C had

mapped out various skills and networks that different teachers could offer in the

community. He then made the best use of them in the projects. For example, in one

lunch break mini-talk, a new teacher said she had studied music and art for many

years. C immediately asked if she could facilitate student costume-making and stage

soundtracks for the Drama Festival. The new teacher was very glad to do so and it

turned out she became the most popular teacher consultant among students. C felt it

was necessary to let both teachers and students see their own value in the literacy

projects, as he said in the interview:

I am good at seeing others’ strengths. Some teachers may not realize

how their skills could contribute in our school-wide literacy projects. Miss
Z (the new teacher) didn’t even realize her decade of experience in art
and music could upgrade students’ stage performance. As the lead
teacher in the community, I am responsible to make it visible to her and
let her make the most of it in the project. She was immediately accepted
by students and it became a significant experience for enhancing her
teacher identity (Interview, 6.8.2017).

Mr. C had developed a resource map of his colleague teachers’ skills and

networks. This map helped C orient and coordinate work for teachers based on their

personal strengths. During the Drama Festival, Miss W who received her BA as a

129
broadcasting major was in charge of student host/hostess audition. Mr. H who once

worked in a publishing company facilitated students’ poster and brochure design. Mr.

L who was considered as an excellent photographer carried his camera and

captured pictures of students during their rehearsals. Their collaborative efforts

guaranteed the success of the school-wide literacy projects. C stressed many times

that without the collaborative culture in the teaching community many wonderful

project ideas would have died in the womb:

It is not hard to fetch fancy ideas, what’s difficult is the executive efforts
made by the whole CLA teacher community. We sit together, have
discussions on every detail of the project, take responsibilities, and
reflect the process through constant conversations. Our CLA teaching
community progressed alongside our students during these projects.
Our teachers also grew professionally in the process. The collaborative
culture we built allowed us to offer more opportunities for our students to
experience a literate school life (Interview, 6.12.2017).

Mentoring New Faculty

The collaborative culture in the CLA teaching community embraced new

teachers and guided them through the first few years professional development. As a

tradition in Shisan high school, new teachers were paired with experienced ones for

their first-year teaching. Therefore, an apprenticeship was formed between the “new”

and the “old.” C was the mentor for two new teachers. Besides observing Mr. C’ daily

in-class practices, these two teachers assisted him with the literacy projects. They

went through a complete yearly cycle of school-wide literacy projects under C’s

guidance. They realized their strengths and weaknesses as the new teachers and

enhanced their teacher identities in the process. One new teacher stated:

I have to say life here is super busy, but I enjoy it and I’ve learned so
much so far. As the lead teacher, Mr. C bonds us together. I never feel I
am alone in my teaching, I always know I can turn to my CLA teaching
community when I meet challenges in the classroom and in the literacy
projects. As my mentor teacher, Mr. C not only demonstrates his
teaching, he creates a sense of belonging for me as the new teacher in
the school. He spots my strengths and gets me involved in the school-

130
 wide literacy projects. He encourages me to think creatively in the mini
talks and values my voice even though I am not experienced at all
(Interview, 5.3.2017).

Mr. C’s leadership secured a collaborative culture among CLA teachers.

Because of the constant communication, different grade level teachers were able to

exchange ideas on the school-wide literacy projects. The mini-talks supported them

in updating students’ performances, provided them with feedback and allowed them

to discuss follow-up procedures. The collaborative community was based on and

highlighted their personal strengths. Mr. C understood how to “put someone in the

right spot” (Interview, 6.12.2017) according to his/her talents. Thus, teachers were

assigned or volunteered to take on different aspects of the work and supported each

other in the projects. C’s leading role was reflected in his mentorship as well. He

invited new teachers to participate fully in constructing and facilitating the projects,

regarding them as the “new blood” in the teaching community. Under such

leadership, the CLA teaching community designed and organized a variety of school-

wide literacy projects for students and gradually achieved a school culture that

celebrated reading and writing.

Gaining Support from School Administration

As Mr. C reflected in our interviews, his school administration provided the

whole CLA teaching community great support in creating a literate life school-wide.

To gain their support, Mr. C was always committed to building a trustworthy

relationship with the school administrators. In his understanding, teachers needed to

actively participate in the decision-making process in the school and made their

voices heard by the school administrators. From our interviews and my field

observations during several school-wide literacy projects, Mr. C demonstrated the

131
ways he interacted with the principal, and how did he obtain the trust and support

from him.

Initiating Communication with the Principal

As a teacher practitioner, Mr. C’s first step to gain support from school

administrators was to initiative the communication. Every time when he was inspired

with new ideas for school-wide literacy projects, C brought them at regular faculty

meetings. He felt it was important to inform the school administrators that CLA

faculty were always willing and committed to trying innovative projects and building a

literate school life in the community:

I understand we don’t have much say on our regular teaching since it

was closely connected to tests, but it doesn’t necessarily mean we
should keep silent. By advocating for new ideas related to teaching and
school-wide literacy projects, we are sending the message that like
administrators, we keep both the school and the students’ best interests
in our practice and we are willing to take the initiative in building a better
school life for students (Interview, 5.12.2017).

After sharing the initial plans for a new project and receiving feedback from

administrators, Mr. C usually followed up by submitting a project proposal to the

principal within a few days. He then revised it based on principal’s suggestions. One

significant rule he kept in mind for building a trusting relationship with administrators

was to always keep them posted during the project via formal face-to-face meetings,

emails, and text messages as well as posts on social media platforms, All

communication was done with the purpose of getting and keeping the principal on

the same page with students and teachers in the project. As Mr. C explained:

If I were the principal, surely, I want to know the current status of the
project, if students enjoy it, and where it is heading. Administrators have
many other duties of concern, so I don’t think it’s fair to expect them to
follow up on every detail in the project. That’s why I always take the
initiative to report what is going on to my principal and keep him informed
of students’ achievement in the process. Besides, this communication
also creates space for the later discussions when we experience
challenges in the project. If the project doesn’t go smoothly as planned,

132
 my follow-up reports will become the references for solutions at next
faculty’s meeting (Interview, 5.12.2017).

Because of Mr. C’s consistency in taking initiative to communicate with the

administrators, he earned himself and the whole CLA teaching community trust from

the principal. The real-time feedback C sent during the literacy project not only kept

the principal informed of the progress students made and the challenges they

experienced, it also helped the principal visualize the value in creating a literate life

for students. When the administrators saw students’ smiley faces and their

engagement in the project, it spoke louder than words to them and let them know

that the investment was worthwhile. They developed faith in the teachers and were

willing to hand over more autonomy to them in the next project.

Making Project Plan Concrete

Besides effective and constant communication, a thorough and operable

project proposal with certain flexibility was also necessary to obtain administrators’

support for the school-wide literacy projects. As time and budget were two major

concerns the school administrators kept in mind, Mr. C detailed the agenda for the

project and made the budget transparent to the principal. For example, the Drama

Festival proposal included two detailed one-month time tables. One for CLA faculty

and the other for students. Everyone who participated in the project was clear about

their daily tasks and during the count down one month before their stage

performances. The two organized time tables created a concrete time line in the

project for the principal and shared the project vision with him. Thus the project

became tangible rather than simply a fancy idea in principal’s eyes. As for the

budget, C made a clear line-up items such as “costumes rental”, “stage settings”,

“publicity (posters)” and provided the principal a total of the cost. With a lucid

133
proposal plan in hand, the project sounded promising and operable to the school

administrators.

Searching for External Funding

“What can I do for the school and students?”, this was the question C kept

asking himself. One answer which continuously motivated him was the need to

explore multiple educational resources for Shisan high school. Around 2011, the

JiangSu provincial educational bureau planned to invest some pilot schools to set up

modeled Curriculum Bases (CB) in various subject areas. C regarded it as a great

opportunity for Shisan high school to create its own CLA curriculum base, he went

straight to principal’s office, and shared his rough ideas for writing a funding proposal

with the principal:

I was very excited to learn about this funding opportunity and couldn’t
wait to talk to the principal. I said ‘we have already done so much to build
a school-wide literate life for students, and we are still coming up new
ideas for literacy projects every year. There is a great chance we can
become one of the pilot schools’. And I remember he (the principal) said:
‘Mr. C, I think we are ready to be the pilot school. You can come to me if
you need anything in your proposal writing. Go for it!’. So, I went for it
right after I walked out his office (Interview, .10.2017).

Mr. C spent two months selecting and organizing the data from previous

school-wide literacy projects (photographs, video-records, students’ writings,

newspaper coverings, etc.) and evidence of his personal as well as other CLA

teachers’ in-class practices. With solid data and a thorough plan to build the future

CLA curriculum base, C’s proposal received six million RMB (about 1 million U.S.

dollars) from the provincial government. This funding source became the major

financial support for the school-wide literacy projects.

Mr. C said many times he was very lucky to have an open-minded and

supportive principal behind his back, but it was also obvious Mr. C himself took great

effort to earn the trust of the principal. His initiatives in communication, courage to

134
share new ideas, expertise in project proposal writing, and dedication in building a

better school positioned himself as a great resource to administrative efforts and built

partnership with administrators as they worked to create a better school.

Collaboration with Scholars and Educators Beyond the School

Mr. C believed that students should experience a school-wide authentic

reading and writing life through diversified literacy projects. To ensure project

diversity, he reached out to scholars and educators beyond school and invited them

to participate in the literacy projects. During my visit to his school, I had observed his

engagement in collaborating with scholars and educators and heard him reflect on

those connections:

I consider reaching out to people a very important skill in my career.

Every time, I go to an academic conference, I talk to people there. All
kinds of people. They may be 1-12 school teachers like myself, or
college professors, book authors, publishing companies, or the press.
Sometimes they approach me, but more often I take the initiative and
approach them. I introduce my teaching practices and our literacy
projects and exchange contact information. I position myself in a larger
education community, and I am always looking for opportunities to
collaborate with these people (Interview, 1.11. 2017).

Inviting Authors as Guest Speakers to School

Mr. C’s actively positioning of himself in a broad education community earned

his students many face-to-face communication opportunities with book authors,

college professors, and educators. During the World Reading Week, Mr. C invited

two renowned book authors as the keynote speakers to the school. Mr. C prepared

the day eight weeks ahead. He wrote a list of authors and checked their availability

for mid-April. He, then, spent time discussing the theme and content of the lectures

with the available authors. Mr. C also asked the authors to provide a 150 - 200 words

lecture abstract along with their preferred personal photo and a short biography. This

information was printed on posters inviting students to the Author Talks. At the same

135
time, books written by the two authors were introduced in the school library and were

made available for students to check out. C considered this eight weeks’ pre-lecture

work an opportunity to build a bridge between the authors and students:

I don’t want to throw my students directly into the lecture hall, and say
here it is, listen to the author and learn how to read books. Effective
lectures don’t work that way, at least not for high school students. I want
to build some understanding between the authors and my students
before the lectures They need to know about each other. So, during the
weeks before the lectures I equipped the authors with the knowledge of
the books my students had already read, the books they enjoyed, the
readings they felt were more challenging. In this way, the authors might
have a more detailed picture of their target audience. I also needed to
build heat for students before the lectures. The lecture posters and the
chance to read their books are great ways for students to obtain some
prior knowledge about the authors. If students have this first layer
acquaintance with the authors, it’s more likely they can develop active
interactions with the authors in the lectures (Interview, 7.14.2015).

Collaborating with Educators Beyond School

Another way Mr. C brought a diverse lens into the school-wide literacy

projects was by collaborating with college professors. He valued other perspectives

significantly because “they could see his blind spots in the projects” thus providing

him a better vision and practices for the next project. C recalled once he was

challenged by a college professor in the conference:

I remember a few years ago, I presented the project of Drama Festival

at a literacy conference. My presentation was titled ‘Drama Festival: The
Story Between Me and My students’. I thought it was a good presentation
since I reported in details of what we did, but one professor brought a
question that struck me. She asked: ‘Where are the students in your
story? I only see them like very vague ‘they’ rather than as individuals.
Wouldn’t you like to share their individual effort in this project?’ Her
critique became the impetus for my closer observation of students in the
project. It also inspired me to keep every little story my students and I
created together during the literacy projects (Interview, 4.13. 2017).

This question also led Mr. C to ask students to keep daily journal entries

about the Drama Festival. Students recorded 100 to 200-word snapshots of their

experiences. This journal writing activity led to students’ voluntary class journal

136
editing. They selected stories and compiled them into a hand-made book. Mr. C was

open to constructive suggestions and even critiques of his literacy practices from

other teachers and researchers. His humble attitude often won him more chances to

exchange ideas with others. In his own words, he was always

curious about the people who have a different opinion. . . I don’t mind
disagreement, as a matter of fact, I rather embrace it. I think I was born
that way, full of curiosity, always more curious about the world in other
people’s eyes. When they don’t agree with me, that means an
opportunity for us get to know each other better. I love to have
conversations with people… it a helps me get a clearer picture of my
own thoughts. That’s why I can always get new ideas on the school-wide
literacy projects, and that’s why I have worked with so many literacy
teachers and college-level researchers in literacy field (Interview,
4.13.2017).

Mr. C’s willingness to collaborate with educators beyond school helped the

school-wide literacy life evolve year after year. His initiated reaching out to different

people in the literacy field and brought his students more opportunities to interact

with book authors and have lectures from college professors. Mr. C himself was a

passionate learner. He grabbed every opportunity to learn and also wanted to bring

the joy in learning to students. His openness to suggestions and criticisms provided

him multiple perspectives, expanded his vision as a practitioner researcher, and

upgraded his school-wide literacy practices for students.

Chapter Summary

This chapter presented Mr. C’s leading role in creating a literate life in his

school. Despite China’s current testing pressure and its strict curriculum framework

in which CLA teachers had very limited space to teach meaningful reading and

writing in the class Mr. C. found ways to nurture life-long readers and writers. Mr. C

had to “break the classroom walls and extend literacy practices school-wide”

(Interview,7.9.2016). Creating a school-wide literate life required a passion and an

interpersonal ability that drew people and resources together.

137
 As an exemplary teacher in Shisan High School, Mr. C’s expertise and

passion in teaching were never limited in his own classroom. Along with his

colleagues and school administrators, he created a school-wide literate life for

students who had forgotten the joy in reading and writing. The teacher leadership

and interpersonal knowledge Mr. C demonstrated in the process earned him a

central position his school’s operation. His literacy beliefs and practices also

empowered his colleagues, school administrators to actively participate in

educational improvement. Their efforts were gradually recognized by more and more

school teachers, principals, parents, news press and TV programs in the nation.

138
 CHAPTER 7
CONCLUSION

Teaching is a craft, it needs patience and self-development. I listen to

myself, I put passion and love into my teaching. I am becoming stronger
and integrated. I teach my faith and character to my students (Interview,
6.26.2015)

The words above from Mr. C are well aligned with my observations of Mr. C’s

narrative accounts and literacy practices. I brought the research question: "How

could an exemplary teacher engage students in meaningful reading and writing

under a severe testing culture?" to my research site. It was answered by Mr. C’s in-

class teaching practices and his efforts in building a school wide literate life in

cooperation with colleagues, administrators and educators beyond school.

While documenting Mr. C’s in-class and school wide literacy practices, I

discovered Mr. C’s “inner strengths”: his intrapersonal and interpersonal knowledge

contributed to his status as an exemplary teacher. Unlike professional knowledge

(subject and pedagogy), these two types of knowledge appear to be the driving force

behind teachers’ “choice of actions” in their teaching career (Collinson, 1996). The

knowledge that teachers gain from personal experience and years of teaching, is

also very critical to support their “working within the system” (Garcia & O’Donnell-

Allen, 2015).

Even though exemplary teachers the world over share similar personal

strengths, one’s excellence in teaching may be defined differently according to

specific culture and social system. Therefore, while part of my participant teacher’s

practices and his underlying dispositions may count as exemplary in both China and

U.S. educational contexts, some of his actions may sound more familiar and

accepted in western classrooms yet bear more value within non-western cultures. In

the following section, I will discuss the significance of teachers’ intra/interpersonal

139
knowledge and their practical knowledge, then I will analyze Mr. C’s exemplary

teaching from a cross cultural perspective, discussing whether this exemplary

teacher in China could also be regarded an exemplary teacher within the context of

the U.S. educational system.

Intrapersonal Knowledge

According to Collinson (1996), Intrapersonal knowledge can be defined with

two layers. The first one deals with a person’s characteristics or dispositions, which

are usually grounded in one’s daily actions; the second layer involves one’s ability to

reflect and introspect, or simply put, the ability to know himself/herself. Intrapersonal

knowledge represents individual ways of thinking and ways of being. Palmer (1998)

credits teachers’ intrapersonal knowledge as “the courage to teach” He argues that

teaching should emerge from one’s introspection: “As I teach, I project the condition

of my soul onto my students, my subject, and our way of being together” (p.2).

Like many exemplary teachers, Mr. shared some work ethics and common

dispositions within his teacher community. As a responsible teacher, he cared more

about students’ development as adolescents and as future citizens than their test

scores. He was dedicated to his teaching career and was able to connect his own

literate life with his teaching. Teaching had made its way into Mr. C’s being, thus he

was able to feel students’ complaints about noisy construction site and bring up a hot

debate on social media, as well as other news headlines as teaching materials in his

class. This disposition demonstrated with Palmer (1998)’s assertion about good

teachers: “Good teachers possess a capacity for connectedness. They are able to

weave a complex web of connections among themselves, their subjects and their

students. So that students can learn to weave a world for themselves” (p.11).

140
 He ensured that both his instruction and school-wide literacy activities were

relevant to students’ interests and life experiences. Mr. C was open to new ideas and

to taking risks in his literacy teaching, which was very unusual among teachers in

China. He drew experience from his previous teaching but was never satisfied to

repeat himself from one lesson to another. Rather, he embraced the suggestions

and even criticisms from other educators, as well as feedback from his students. His

open-mindedness earned him more opportunities to find the strategies that benefited

students the most in class and school wide. Mr. C’s open-mindedness was largely

associated with his humbleness and the spirit of “striving to get better” as an

individual. Even though he had over thirty years of teaching experience, and had

been recognized as an exemplary teacher nationwide, Mr. C never thought he was

good enough and was continued to look for spaces for personal growth in teaching

as well as in his own literate life. This eagerness for growth pumped his courage to

take the risks and overcome the adversities within his teaching context. The spirit of

“striving to get better” was ingrained in and shaped him into a life-long learner.

Reading, writing and learning had become part of his life and his identity. As he said

in the interview:

I don’t know who I am if I stop reading and writing. Even though I am a

teacher, I never confine my reading to fiction or poetry. I read extensively.
I love history, philosophy, economics, and I even read informational texts
written by mathematicians. I read to learn and write to learn. Writing
makes my mind sharper and stronger (Interview, 12.12.2016).

The narrative account above revealed the second layer of Mr. C’s

intrapersonal knowledge: his capacity to reflect and introspect upon his own

practices. Dewey (1910) concludes that one’s reflective thought was conscious and

voluntary, which was supported by a disposition of open-mindedness,

wholeheartedness, and responsibility. According to Jay (2003), reflection means

141
“thinking about what one is doing. It entails a process of contemplation with an

openness to being changed, a willingness to learn, and a sense of responsibility for

doing one’s best” (p.11). Reflection also allows teachers to deal with the uncertainty

and ambiguity in teaching (Schon, 1983), thus teachers who are willing to reflect are

also more willing to take risks in their teaching. Reflective teachers, as Akbari (2005)

argues, are able to come up with ideas to improve their performance and enhance

students’ learning through critically examining their practices and apply those ideas

to their teaching. When teachers constantly reflect on their own actions, to question

who they are and will become, their reflexivity is activated in the process

(Danielewicz, 2001). Giddens (1984) explains that reflexivity is “not merely self-

conscious but as the monitored character of the on-going flow of social life” (p.9).

Qually (1997) further states that it “involves a commitment to both attending to what

we believe and examining how we came to hold those beliefs while we are engaged

in trying to make sense of another” (p.5). In other words, reflexivity enables teachers

not only understand “what” to teach, but also “why” to teach. Therefore, they gain

self-knowledge through the on-going self-reflexivity in their teaching career.

Mr. C’s reflexivity was manifested in his “inner dialogue” with himself. The

“self-dialogue” supported him as he reflected on his teaching experiences, learned to

understand his strengths and weakness as a teacher, and refined his teaching

beliefs. Mr. C’s “self-dialogue” took many forms. The most common one was through

reflective journal writing. Mr. C also wrote a teaching autobiography and reflected on

the “milestones” in his teaching career. His reflective narratives led him to a

deepened understanding of himself and the people (students, colleagues, school

administrators etc.) around him. Since the narratives were embedded in concrete

literacy teaching practices, his understanding of himself and others were not abstract

142
but context- specific His autobiography showed that reflexivity gradually developed

through continuous “self-dialogue” over the course of his career. It was this dialogue

that enabled him to think in terms of “teaching himself to students”. His self-

knowledge was the solid source for his reading/writing modeling and literate life

sharing with students.

Teachers’ Interpersonal Knowledge

Interpersonal knowledge involves with one’s relationships with others. It

demands empathy, honesty, trust, respect, good communication skills and a sense

of political awareness within a teaching context (Collinson, 1999). Sullo (1990)

believes that exemplary teachers put the same energy into building relationship with

others as they do to develop their teachings. The “others” include students and their

parents, teacher colleagues, school administrators, and a larger educational

community. Furthermore, as Collinson (1994) states, exemplary teachers who are at

a high level of interpersonal knowledge tend to adopt multiple perspectives when

dealing with complex issues in their teaching. These exemplary teachers are realistic

and aware that they work within political systems (Sternberg & Horvath, 1995).

Mr. C’s interactions with students were about much more than just teaching

them literacy skills and content. He built relationships with students and modeled

how to live a literate life to them. He wanted to know about them and built

connections with student individually. He was curious about students’ reading

interests, their lives and perspectives, and was willing to embrace those in his

teaching practices. The connections and bonds he established with students brought

them closer to him, not only as their teacher, but their reading/writing model and the

person who taught them how to be life-long learners. His interactions changed their

mindsets regarding literacy learning under China’s severe testing culture. His way of

143
building conversations with students in class fit the description of “dialogue” brought

by Freire (1968), who argues dialogue is a pedagogical process, in which teachers

and students actively pursue learning through discussions and debate of

sociopolitical realities:

through dialogue, the teacher-of-the-students and the students-of-the-

teacher cease to exist, and a new term emerges: teacher-student with
student-teachers. . . The teacher is no longer merely the one who
teaches, but one who is taught in dialogue with the students, who in their
turn while being taught also teach (p.53).

Mr. C’s interactions with his colleagues in his school and the educational

community also showed his collaborative ability and professionalism as an

exemplary teacher. His efforts in creating a school wide literate culture reflected

Collison’s descriptions of teachers who enjoyed great interpersonal knowledge:

they tend to become involved in extra-curriculum and professional

activities at the school, community, or state level, and they learn to think
in an ever-expanding scope of perspectives and professional community.
They learn how to work within political system and see themselves as a
contributing member of a larger profession that include administrators,
researchers, teacher educators. . . . (Collinson, 1999, p.6).

Mr. C’s collaboration with other CLA colleagues in his school manifested his

leadership and team spirit. Most of all, the school wide literacy teaching and learning

community they created together also resembled the idea of “open space” brought

by Alterator and Deed (2003), who metaphorically describe beyond classroom

teacher collaboration as an open neighborhood which “provides for the awareness,

expression, and translation of a set of different perspectives that potentially can

influence teaching practice” (p.326). Teaching is no longer confined in individual

classrooms but reaches a wider community of learning (Howey & Collinson, 1995).

The collaboration and rapport he built within this teaching community

convinced the school administrators the feasibility of literacy activities school wide.

The effective communication he developed with his principal led Mr. C to share

144
concerns from his principal’s perspectives. For example, he made a clear budget for

each project and was working hard to seek for external funding for his school.

Mr. C’s interactions with colleagues and school administrators led them to

acknowledge his core literacy teaching values. He helped them see that, to him,

meaningful reading/writing was more important than test-preparation. As a result, his

two-way communication, negotiation, and discussion within CLA teaching community

and administrators, continuously reinforced this significant belief school wide through

both words and actions. To a great extent, it gradually influenced the school culture,

and made Shisan high school nationally known for its high-quality CLA instruction.

As Sternberg and Horvath (1995) state, expert teachers must understand the

way to apply their teaching knowledge in a particular social and organizational

context. As a practicing teacher, Mr. C not only rooted himself in his classrooms, but

also made his voice heard by his colleagues, school administrators and educational

community beyond his school. He attended provincial and national academic

conferences, where he spoke up about the consequences of the test-driven culture

upon the youth of the nation and hoped educators and policy-makers would pay

attention to this national crisis. He advocated for meaningful literacy teaching and a

school wide literate life at the conferences and presented his school’s efforts to

achieve the goal. He constantly looked for opportunities to collaborate with other

educators. In Howey and Collinson (1995)’s words, exemplary teachers “tended to

see everyone and everything as a potential source for learning or as a possible

resource for improving their teaching and students’ learning” (p.24). Mr. C never

confined his identity to that of a CLA teacher alone but regarded himself as a

practitioner-researcher who was committed to contributing to improve of the

education nationwide. His interactions with the educational community further

145
nurtured his professional life and brought additional educational resources to his

school and students.

Teachers’ Practical Knowledge

Teachers’ practical knowledge is the knowledge that comes from a specific

teaching context, one’s teaching actions, and one’s experiences. It is “a particular

way of reconstructing the past and the intentions of the future to deal with the

exigencies of present situation” (Connelly & Clandinin, 1988, p.25). Clandinin (1985)

use the concept of teachers’ practical knowledge to explain the relationship between

one’s teaching theories and their actual practices in the classroom. She claims that

one’s dialectical process of reflection on classroom practice contributes to one’s

theoretical understanding of teaching. Through interaction with students, colleagues,

administrators and parents, teachers construct and interpret their teaching

experiences. The constant reflections then lead them arrive at the stage of “flow” ---

the joy and fulfillment--- in teaching (Garcia & O’Donnell-Allen, 2015). Simply put,

teachers’ practical knowledge is “a knowledge embodied in and manifested through

practices, routines, spatial orderings, and aesthetic dimensions of experience”

(Clandinin, 1986, p.174). It guides teachers’ actions in practice (Lantz & Kass, 1987;

Verloop, 1992). In my case study, for example, when I interviewed Mr. C about his

pace and rhythm in teaching, he provided a narrative account that revealed practical

knowledge gained from years of teaching.:

I don’t need to see the clock on the wall, I just know when to start, when
to change the topic, and when to stop. I have an internal clock inside me
(Interview, 4.25.2017).

However, teaching experiences do not automatically transform into practical

knowledge. Experienced teachers face difficulties in their teaching environment just

as novice teachers do, but more often they tend to look back into what they believe

146
and regard the difficulties as challenges that push them forward in their professional

lives.

Mr. C’s teaching beliefs grounded his practices. At the same time, his

practices were reshaping his beliefs. They both contributed to his practical

knowledge. His practical knowledge was continuously developed by his reflective

disposition. Mr. C’s reflective disposition enabled him to notice the “wobbling

moments” in his teaching. As Fecho (2011) states in his book, wobbles in the

teaching cause teachers to “stare and consider” as well as “nudge them toward

actions” (p.53). Mr. C’s reflective internal dialogue reconstructed the narratives of his

teaching experiences. Thus, his practical knowledge was enhanced through his own

experience in the practical situations (Clandinin, 1989). In addition, interactions with

both students and adults provided him various opportunities to receive feedback

about his teaching practices. Thus, he was able to see his image in other people’s

eyes and adjusted his practices accordingly.

The power of practical knowledge explained his perseverance to teach in the

cracks of the top-down mandated curriculum under China’s test-pressed context. His

teaching beliefs were not “taught” to him directly from any textbooks or workshops

but were reinforced again and again by his class practices. Even though there were

many rough edges in his teaching context and those external forces might have led

him in a different direction, his beliefs were rooted in him and were not easy to alter

in incompatible ways. As Van Driel, Beijaard and Verloop (2000) conclude, teachers’

practical knowledge is both person-and context-bound. In fact, it is “affected by

teachers’ concerns about their own teaching context” (p.142). This leads to my next

discussion based on the question, “Has my participant teacher also met the criteria

of an exemplary teacher in U.S. educational context?”

147
 A Cross Cultural Perspective on Exemplary Teachers

Chinese society, and its particular culture values certain qualities in a good

teacher. In a cross-cultural study, Jin and Cortazzi (1998) compare British and

Chinese students’ standards for good teachers. They find while British students care

more about teachers’ “teaching skills”, Chinese students characterize a good teacher

as the one who possess great knowledge and are able to answer all questions.

Teachers’ professional and subject knowledge are specifically honored in China’s

educational context. Teachers who are considered knowledgeable are called “expert

teachers” in China. The researchers then assert that because Chinese culture is

deeply rooted in Confucianism, Chinese students tend to see their teachers as the

authority figure in class. Consequently, they are supposed to be “right” all the time

and fully control the class because “making mistakes” is seen as “losing face” in front

of students.

As a teacher who taught CLA for over thirty years and enjoyed a rich literate

life, Mr. C was very knowledgeable in CLA discipline, but he broke the image of a

traditionally defined “no-mistake” teacher by showing his own vulnerability to

students. By doing this, he also broke the hierarchical relationship (Holmes, 2004)

between students and teachers. It turned out students thrived in reading and writing

under the democratic learning environment he built in the class. For many teachers

and students in U.S. educational context, such democratic behavior might seem

natural in classes since it is regarded as the foundation in U.S. social system. Some

of teaching practices such as conducting group discussions or inviting students to

construct meanings along with teachers might sound as common practices from

western educators’ perspective. Yet these practices are very rare in an educational

148
context where teaching and learning are usually “fragmented, linear, competition-

oriented, and authority-centered” (Hammond & Gao, 2002, p.228-229).

Exemplary teachers, even though “individuality is one of the essential

attributes” (Sullo, 1999, p.17) among them, do share common traits in their practices

around the world. As Williams (2001) state, exemplary teachers are the ones who

never give up searching for innovative ways in their teaching and students’ learning.

They search ways to engage students’ interests as they want to create a learning

experience that provide students deeper and wider knowledge (Ayers, 1995).

Despite the specifics in his teaching under China’s culture influences, Mr. C’s in-

class and beyond-class literacy practices, driven by his deep believe in meaningful

reading and writing, fit this description of the exemplary teacher.

As for the testing culture in China’s society, Wang (2016) conducts a

qualitative research on exemplary teaching with 24 exemplary teachers in China,

more than half of them place “capacity to prepare students well for tests” as the

priority among exemplary teachers’ qualities. This survey echoes the exemplary

teacher criteria I presented in Chapter 4, which also place students’ test scores as

the gatekeeper for recognizing good teachers in China. The challenges Mr. C

confronted in achieving his literacy teaching beliefs in a test-pressured environment

were not only practical ones, such as limited teaching time or pressures from tests.

He also had to fight students’ negative and indifferent attitude towards reading and

writing. In this sense, he was fighting against the testing culture. Mr. C’s practice of

bringing meaningful reading and writing beyond textbooks to students might be

regarded as regular practice in a relatively flexible curriculum framework in U.S.

teaching context. Yet it requires strong teaching beliefs and considerable courage to

do so under China’s extremely restricted curriculum. According to Allington (2001)’s

149
study, exemplary teachers “managed to produce better achievement regardless of

which curriculum materials, pedagogical approach, or reading programs they used”

(p.742). Mr. C’s successes verified this.

In addition to strong professional practices, exemplary teachers share

overlapping qualities from both intrapersonal knowledge and interpersonal

knowledge. For instance, Rallis and Rossman (1995) argue that stellar teachers are

lifelong learners and they display undeniable passion for teaching. They are

committed to reflection and inclined to be teacher-researchers. They are creative,

curious and willing to take risks in their teaching. Collinson (1996) conclude that

exemplary teachers “understand that students need to learn more than subject

matter in order to be ready for life beyond the classroom” (p.10). Thus, they hold a

bigger vision towards their teaching and students’ learning and know how to build

relationships with others in their teaching career. In Waller (1965)’s words, they

understand “the important things that happen in school result from the interaction of

personalities” (p.1).

There is no doubt Mr. C shares the qualities in exemplary teachers from

around the world. What impressed me the most was not his actual teaching skills

and practices, but the deep meaning behind his actions. Even though he taught in a

culture with a burning testing fever, a curriculum that almost squeezed out one’s

teaching autonomy Mr. C never let the test curriculum take over the control of his

practice but found ways to “work within the system” (Garcia & O’Donnell-Allen, 2015)

--- the ways that teachers “meet the mandates but doing on their own terms” in their

teachings (p.9). He understood education and curriculum reform might take

generations to achieve, but he recognized his strength as one of the contributors to

the change and reform. Most importantly, he was a passionate learner and even

150
though he confronted the challenges in his teaching career, he enjoyed teaching and

helping his students become passionate learners as well. This depth of feeling as a

professional was characterized by Palmer (1998),

the best inward sign of vocation is deep gladness. If a work is mine to

do, it will make me glad over the long haul, despite the difficult days.
Even the difficult days will ultimately gladden me because they pose the
kinds of problems that can help me grow in a work that is truly mine
(p.30).

This is the core value of an exemplar teacher --- he enjoys his work.

Implications of the Study

Teaching in a country historically rooted with a testing culture, CLA teachers

in China are under huge pressures from the Chinese society. Their counterparts,

ELA teachers in U.S. are also concerned about their pressed teaching autonomy and

students’ lost joy in reading and writing within the test-driven curricula currently

dominate across of the nation of U.S. There are implications for teachers in both

countries as well as for policy makers and teacher-educators. There are also

implications for research in exemplary teachers’ studies. Even though there are

significantly different sociocultural contexts, those implications are applicable to

education in both U.S. and China.

Implication for Teachers

This study has several implications for teachers in both China and U.S, which

I listed as below.

Work within the system

For individual teachers in a test-driven teaching context, understanding how to

work within the system might be a way they could maintain their literacy teaching

beliefs while meeting mandates. As Garcia and O’Donnell-Allen (2015) suggest,

when teachers are asked to comply with the systematic constraints that contradict

with their beliefs, they should “pause and critically read the system, then determine

151
how to intentionally proceed in ways that won’t require you (them) to compromise

your (their) principles” (p.9). Metaphorically, teachers needed to “meet the letter of

the law, while transcending the spirit of the law” (p.9).

For most teachers in both China and U.S and, in many instances, globally, it

is not easy for individuals to fight against the mandated curriculum and the required

high-stakes tests. This is especially for the new teachers. Working within the system

focuses on teaching beyond the rules set by policy-makers. This is different from

demanding that practitioners try to change the system in a revolutionary manner.

Considering Mr. C’s alternative ways to achieve what he believed in literacy teaching

within China’s rigid education system, I think that knowing how to work within the

system might be a solution to the reading/writing teachers who feel their teaching

practices go awry from their beliefs in the classrooms.

Reflect and develop self-knowledge

Jay (2003) places reflection as the heart of one’s teaching practices, as it

“involves shuttling back and forth between thinking and action” (p.12). Reflection is

also the inner teaching courage Palmer (1998) advocates for teachers, for it helps

teachers to understand their teaching beliefs, values and gain the self-knowledge.

He further states, “the more familiar we are with our inner terrain, the more

surefooted our teaching-and living-becomes” (p.5). Therefore, reflection should

become part of teachers’ daily or routine practice. Mr. C kept reflective journals

regarding his teaching. By doing this, he was always connected with his inner self

through “self-dialogue.” Teachers could write reflective journals or teaching

autobiographies and “value their own lives and experiences as a source of

knowledge about what they may expect to encounter in their own classrooms and

lives of children they will teach” (Braun & Crumple, 2004, p.61).

152
 Reflective practices could also enhance teachers’ practical knowledge, which

facilitate the application of theories to their specific teaching environment. Moreover,

it helps them theorize their actions. Most importantly, when teachers embrace the

triumphant moments or confront the shadows and limits in their teachings, they are

also becoming more conscious of their integrated selves. The rich self-knowledge, or

a strong sense of personal identity will eventually find its way into their teaching

practices in and beyond their classrooms.

Build a literate life and become a lifelong learner

For reading/writing teachers, one of the most effective ways to engage

students in literacy learning is through modeling reading and writing to them (Rief,

2014; Routman, 2005). Setting up good literacy models for students requires

teachers to build their own literate lives and become lifelong learners themselves. As

Gomez (2009) suggestes, to help students build personal connections to literacy,

teachers should “allow their literate lives become public in their teaching” (p.20).

Teachers’ “literate identities” (Gomez, 2005), their personal sense of self as a literate

person, are deeply connected to how they create literacy learning environment for

students. In this case study, Mr. C enjoyed a rich personal literate life. He read

extensively and intensively, and naturally connected his literate life to his teaching

practices. His action resonated with Kaufman (2002), who exclaimes: “If I want my

students to become passionately literate people, I, too, must be a passionate, literate

person, who reads, writes, and learn in front of them” (p.51).

According to Kaufman (2002), modeling should be “the act of living one’s life

under the gaze of another” (p.51). Therefore, one’s literate life becomes the lived life

in the eyes of students. It empowers teaching practices more than any conscious

transmission of the subject matter. When teachers become literate people, they also

153
share dispositions of lifelong learners. As Graves (1990) argues: “Literate people

have a passion for asking questions, both big and small, a hunger for learning new

things and for making connection. In short, they have a particular stance toward the

universe: one of constant engagement and learning” (p.105).

Even though literacy teachers today are faced with severe testing pressures

and heavy workloads in their teaching, I do believe it is more than necessary for

them to reconnect themselves with the joy in reading and writing, to establish their

own literate lives, and model their literate identities in and beyond their classrooms to

students.

Collaborate within the teaching community

When she addresses the significance of interpersonal knowledge in teaching,

Collinson (1996) expresses her concern about teacher isolation from their

colleagues. Palmer (1998) also worries that academic culture in U.S. built barriers

between colleagues because of the potential competition and the “private nature” of

western classrooms. However, teachers should make deliberate efforts to

collaborate with each other and build their own teaching community in the school. As

Little (1987) says,

teacher teamwork makes complex tasks more manageable, stimulates

new ideas, and promotes coherence in a school’s curriculum and
instruction. . . .The accomplishments of a proficient and well-organized
group are widely considered to be greater than the accomplishments of
isolated individuals” (p.496).

Because collectivism is more valued in Chinese culture, and many schools

adopt the idea of “open-classrooms”, any teacher can apply to visit an exemplary

teachers’ class. Teachers, especially novice teachers, are more likely to get access

to regular interactions with their colleagues do to this. In my case study, Mr. C and

his CLA colleagues were together in their commitment to a school wide literate life.

154
They had regular meetings and lunch time mini-talks, thus they were able to “engage

in a professional discourse about their own learning and instruction” (Goddard,

Goddard & Moran, 2007, p.880). They not only built a school culture that celebrated

literacy, they also progressed professionally in this teaching community. Such

collaboration should be highly recommended to any teachers in any school system.

Furthermore, I think teachers should collaborate to fight for their teaching

autonomy in the education system. They should make their voices heard by policy-

makers that students should be nurtured in a meaningful learning environment rather

than being regarded as merely test-takers. As more and more teachers share their

teaching beliefs and voice their opinions in the system, I believe their joint efforts will

make a difference in the education field.

Implications for Policy-Makers and Teacher Educators

The findings of my case study suggested that meaningful reading and writing

mattered to students. Their reading and writing interests were triggered by the topics

that related to their real lives and the issues they cared about in society. Students

were also enlightened that reading/writing were not test-bounded tasks in school but

became real and functional in their lives in classroom. However, it is sad to see how

much effort was needed by my participant teacher and other exemplary teachers in

both China and U.S. to achieve their teaching beliefs under the test-driven and one-

size-fits-all curriculum (Allington, 2001). It is also sad to see even though teachers

are the ones who know students and their learning the best, they are often excluded

from educational policy making. Policy makers need to understand the importance of

listening to teachers’ voices, consider restructuring curriculum frameworks in ways

which afford teachers more autonomy and students more time to read and write

meaningfully. Specifically, I think involving a team of teachers in the decision-making

155
process would benefit teaching and learning at both school and district levels.

Additionally, policy-makers should also give teachers space to take risks and grow

while teaching, rather than use accountability measures to control and pressure

them to become robot-like practitioners.

Teacher educators need to demonstrate that teachers’ knowledge is never

limited to professional or subject matter. Teacher training should not only focus on

teaching skills and strategies. Teacher education programs should prepare pre-

service teachers for the “messy reality of teaching” (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009).

Our future teachers need to know classrooms are fulfilled with uncertainties and

ambiguities, their teaching is enriched not only by the theories they acquire from

educational programs, but as they evolve along with inter/intrapersonal knowledge

as well as their practical knowledge. To get pre-service teachers ready for their

future classrooms, it is necessary for teacher educators to advocate a school-

university partnership in the programs. Such partnerships might provide more

opportunities for pre-service and novice teachers to see what exemplary teachers

are like, or maybe even work with exemplary teachers in K-12 schools. Moreover, to

cultivate pre-service teachers’ habit of minds in terms of reflection, teacher educators

should deliberately set up structures for them to engage in reflective practices. To

ensure pre-service teachers actively build a collaborative relationship in their future

teaching communities, I think their interactions with peers and their mentor teachers

should also be included in their practicum evaluation report, as it is critical to develop

their interpersonal skills in teaching. Last but not the least, teacher educators should

work with teachers and school administrators to fight against the harmful system that

confines both teachers and students to passive practitioners and learners.

156
Implications for Future Research

My case study presented an exemplary literacy teachers’ practices under a

test-driven system. While the findings answered my initial research questions, this

study also generated further questions on exemplary teachers. How do personal

experiences in learning influence teaching practices in and beyond classrooms? In

what ways do teachers enhance their teacher identities throughout their teaching

careers? Do other exemplary teachers in the same Chinese teaching context share

consistent qualities with my participant teacher? If so, do the similarities have

anything do to with specific school culture or administrative support? In a different

sociocultural context, are there any specific differences in teaching practices when

exemplary teachers deal with test pressures? These questions need further research

related to exemplary teachers around the world. For example, to get broader

knowledge on exemplary teaching, a multinational comparative case study on

exemplary literacy teachers might be conducted in two or three different cultures and

social systems. Or, to get a deeper knowledge of exemplary teachers’ inner sources

for “teaching in the cracks” under high-stakes tests, the researcher could conduct a

case study of one or two exemplary teachers while adopting ethnographic lens and a

life history narrative methodology.

Also, during casual talks with my participant teacher in the study, I am

informed Mr. C totally devotes himself to his teaching. While his passion for teaching

makes him a successful teacher, he seldom has time for his family. His wife takes

care of almost everything in the family. As a result, my participant teacher is able to

see teaching as his life. As the researcher, I am wondering if all exemplary teachers

have to sacrifice that much of their lives in order to be exemplary. Is it possible for

any exemplary teacher to have a balanced life and also achieve exemplary practices

157
in their teaching career? I’d like to study those exemplary teachers, especially the

female teachers who have dominated our K-12 teaching field globally, to see how

their examples might be adopted among many other teachers.

Lastly, for education researchers, especially researchers in China, I do

suggest that they pay more attention to K-12 classroom teachers and students. They

need to understand how teachers really teach within the rigid textbook-bound

curriculum, listen to teaching beliefs and concerns, set foot in their classrooms and

work with individual teachers. Researchers also need to observe how and what

students really learn under such test-oriented environments, listen to what students

really care about in terms of reading and writing. I hope such studies could also

become the bridge between teachers and policy-makers and teacher educators and

contribute to the future curriculum reforms.

Limitations of the Study

This qualitative research was designed as one single case study. As Yin

(1994) stated, the findings in a case study cannot be used to draw general

conclusions. As the researcher of this study, I didn’t intend to generalize or replicate

my findings to other settings but felt it to be more urgent to look at my collected data

with deeper lens.

Rather than simply focusing on “how to teach”, I shared my participant

teacher’s perspectives on “why to teach.” However, as I reflect on my data collection

and analysis process, I do feel I could have reached further into my participant

teacher’s prior experiences since a teacher’s past experiences contribute

significantly to his/her personal. practical knowledge. The reason I didn’t go further

into the data for his life history and his teacher identity construction was that the

158
focus of my current study was his teaching practices. I was more curious about what

did he do in and beyond class to nurture students into readers and writers.

Even though I argued in the implications that exemplary teachers share some

universal qualities, I understand there are still some dispositions my participant

teachers presented in the study that may not fit the value in western culture. For

example, Mr. C spent almost all his time in teaching and learning. While this passion

in teaching is considered dedication in China, it might be considered as a road to

burnout for teachers in U.S. Mr. C. didn’t have much time to live a relaxed personal

life. As the researcher, I also question myself if this uniqueness in my participant

teacher is applicable to many teachers, or even presents an implication as sacrifice

for teachers to make in lives in order to become exemplary.

The other thing I am concerned about is my subjectivity in this study. I am an

“insider-researcher” (Breen, 2007). I looked into a culture that I was born and raised

in. While this role provides me good understanding of the system and an intimacy

with my participants, the familiarity I bring with me towards the culture may also lead

to a loss of objectivity (Delyser, 2001). I might unconsciously make biased

assumptions in my observations and interviews and be blinded by those biases.

Additionally, as I received education and pedagogy theories, especially in literacy

instruction field within a U.S. context, I understand that my mindset on exemplary

literacy teaching practices is also influenced by this educational background. Even

though I tried hard to confront these biases and constantly reflected during the study,

some struggles brought by my role duality might be inevitable in the process.

Concluding Thoughts

I was educated in this very competitive and test-pressed education system in

China for 12 years. I experienced personally the pain of gradually losing joy in

159
reading and writing throughout my own junior and senior high school years. I still

remember what an energetic and creative young writer I was before 8 th grade, and

how my own passion for writing faded away by simulating writing templates for tests

after that.

When I met Mr. C and observed his teaching, I did wish I had been his

student in high school. I was at first impressed by his way of bringing meaningful

reading and writing to students, then I was touched by his strong beliefs, values,

faiths and courage in literacy teaching. His great intrapersonal and interpersonal

knowledge explained why he could achieve his literacy teaching beliefs with so

limited teaching autonomy in China’s education system. I do hope my participant

teacher sets a model for teachers who are torn between their beliefs in teaching and

the state or district mandates in curriculum, a situation becoming challenging in

education globally.

160
 APPENDIX A
ORIGINAL IN-CLASS FIELDNOTES SAMPLE

Photo Courtesy of the Author

161
 APPENDIX B
TYPED BILINGUAL FIELDNOTES SAMPLE

162
 APPENDIX C
ORGINAL INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPTION SAMPLE

163
 APPENDIX D
TRANSLATED INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPTION SAMPLE

2017/2/10 Friday Interview Sample

(D refers to the researcher, C is Mr. C)

D: Teachers are too busy today, they seldom have time to reflect on their own
teaching practices. When did you realize reflection played an important role in your
teaching career? What did you do when you realized it?

C: From the time I decided to really devote myself in teaching. I decided to put my
life in my teaching, and I began to reflect and try to conclude after a while. But the
quality of my reflection keeps going up. In the early stage, I would write some simple
stuff, mostly just reflect my own teaching practices, it was not systematic and lacked
deeper thinking. But that was my growing phase as a teacher, and every teacher
need to be there and experience that. From 2000, I began to realize I need to
systematically organize my reflections on teaching. I developed self-consciousness
on teaching around that time. I think this idea was prompted by the process of
applying for superb teacher. I began to think about what I have, what I can tell other
teachers, my peers, my colleagues about my teaching? Others may feel that I had so
many stuffs at hand, everything looked so great. But no, I was very suspicious about
myself. What is my originality in teaching? What is my asset as a practicing teacher?
It is not a theory, I don’t think our practicing teachers are destined to build theories in
teaching. So, the problem became, how many classes I can share with my peers? I
need something tangible that I can have a discussion with others. I began to record
my own classes, my own teaching with cameras. I recorded 80 classes in total and
transcribed them into scripts. I categorized them into 40 writings.

D: What role do your think self-reflection play in teachers’ professional development?

C: I think you know about yourself matters the most in teaching. Teaching is teaching
yourself. Very few Chinese teachers realize that, because we don’t reflect. Reflection
is painful. Who reflects? People with a career ambition. But too many teachers think
teaching is just a profession, not their career. Another reason is that reflection to
Chinese is to deny selves. If you don’t have an inner drive, you just follow the
policies, follow the rules. You need authorities to prove your teaching. For me, I’ve
already known how to listen to myself, and I put my passion, love into my class.
Myself is becoming stronger and integrated. I teach my faith, good characteristics to
students, and Chinese language arts is just a medium, a vehicle

164
 APPENDIX E
SEMI-STRUCTURED SAMPLE INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

1. What do you think of teacher’s self-reflection?

您如何看待教师自省的问题？

2. Can you tell me how do you reflect on your own teaching practices?
可以请您告诉我，您如何对自己的教学进行自省吗？

3. Would you like to share with me the most impressive story in your classroom?
您是否愿意和我分享在您的教室里发生的最为印象深刻的故事呢？

4. Do you consider yourself as a reader? If so, since when?

您认为自己是读书人吗？如果是，从何时起呢？

5. Do you consider yourself as a writer? If so, since when?

您认为自己是一名写作人吗？如果是，从何时起呢？

6. What do you think of the relationship between teachers and students?

您如何看待师生关系？

7. How do you build relationship with students?

您如何建立师生关系？

8. In the school-wide literacy projects, how did you persuade principal to invest
time and money?
你是如何说服校长对学校的语文项目投入时间金钱呢？

9. What you do think about the CLA teaching community in your school?
您如何看待您学校的语文教学组？

10. I notice you developed mentorship with newly-hired CLA teachers, how did
you build this mentorship?
我注意到您与新进教师建立了良好的师徒关系？您是如何建立这样的关系的
呢？

165
 APPENDIX F
RESEARCH MEMO FOR DATA ANALYSIS SAMPLE

166
 APPENDIX G
CONSENT FORM

同意书

亲爱的各位同学，

欢迎参与此项关于语文学习的个案研究。这项个案研究，意在调研一位高中特级语文
教师的语文教学，试图回答在中国考试文化重压的语境下，该教师如何培养学生对阅
读写作的兴趣。更为具体地说，这项个案研究将观察该语文教师课堂内外的语文教
学，重点观察他在考试文化语境下，为学生创建有效阅读写作所做的努力。作为研究
者，我将倾听他作为语文教师面临的困境，为摆脱困境所做的努力，以及他从教生涯
中所获得的经验，知识。这些都构成了即便在考试文化的语境下，他仍然能保留极具
个人特色语文教学的能力。

一旦你成为该项研究的一员，你的阅读以及作文可能会被我收集，作为研究数据的一
部分。在研究过程中，我也可能对你进行采访。但不用担心，作为研究参与者，你没
有任何风险。是否参与该项研究，完全出于你自愿。你随时可以退出该项研究，研究
者不会追究你的任何责任。

你的个人信息是完全保密的，这意味着研究者不会对任何人透露你的姓名，身份。我
会亲自收集分析研究你的写作范本，并向你保证在我阅读期间，无他人在场。所有收
集到的资料都会被妥善保管，只有研究者有访问权限。

非常感谢你的参与!

如你对该研究有疑问，可联系：

董蓉蓉，佛罗里达大学教育学院语言与读写教育项目博士生。电话：352-777--9499,
电邮：villus001@ufl.edu

傅丹灵，佛罗里达大学教育学院语言与读写教育项目教授。电话：352-273-4193，电
邮：danlingfu@coe.ufl.edu

关于你作为研究参与者的权利，可联系：

佛罗里达大学 伦理审查委员会，P.O. Box112250, Gainesville, FL, 32611-2250; 电

话： 352-392-0433，电邮： irb2@ufl.edu

同意

我已阅读上述程序。我自愿参与该研究，并持有同意书复印件。

167
参与人（学生）： 日期：

研究者： 日期：

Informed Consent Form

Dear students,

You are welcomed to attend a case study of Chinese language class. This case
study intends to examine an exemplary high school Chinese language teacher’s
effort in stimulating students’ writing interests under the test-driven culture in China.
To be more exactly, this case study will take a close look at this exemplary teacher’s
everyday work inside and outside of the class, focusing on his efforts in creating
effective reading and writing environments for his students beyond test preparation.
As a researcher, I will listen to his frustration as a Chinese language teacher, his
efforts for overcoming those troubles and his experience and knowledge. All of these
are not easy for him. However, he can remain his special accent in Chinese
language teaching in a test-driven culture.

Once you join in the study, your reading and writing may be collected as part of the
research data. And I may also interview you sometimes during the study. But as a
participant, there is no need to be worried about the anticipated risks in the study.
Your participation in my study is completely voluntary. You are free to quit the study
at any time during the research, and there is no consequence that you need to
consider about.

Your personal information will be totally confidential. It means your name and identity
will not be revealed to others. I will examine the writing samples and assignments
and ensure that nobody will be by my side when I read them. All the data collected in
class will be safe with me.

Thank you for your participation.

To whom you may contact, if you have any questions:

Rongrong Dong, PhD student in Language and Literacy Education, School of

Teaching and Learning, College of Education, University of Florida. Tel: 352-777-
9499, E-mail: villus001@ufl.edu

Dr. Danling Fu, Ph.D. Professor in Language and Literacy Education, School of
Teaching and Learning, College of Education, University of Florida. Tel: 352-273-
4193, E-mail: danlingfu@coe.ufl.edu

To whom you may contact about your rights as a participant in the study:

168
University of Florida Institutional Review Board, P.O. Box112250, Gainesville, FL,
32611-2250; Phone: 352-392-0433; E-mail: irb2@ufl.edu

Agreement:

I have read the procedure described above. I voluntarily agree to participant in the
study, and I have received a copy of this form.

Participant(Student): Date:

Principal Investigator: Date:

169
 LIST OF REFERENCES

Ableser, J. (2011). Teaching for All to Learn: Exemplary Practices from Preschool to
Graduate School. THE SCHOLARSHIP OF TEACHING, 22.

Ableser, J. (2012). Exemplary teaching practices across educational contexts (P-20+):

Unifying principles and an ecological model for Teaching for All to Learn. Journal of
Teaching and Learning, 8(2).

Ackerman, P. T., & Dykman, R. A. (1996). The speed factor and learning disabilities:
The toll of slowness in adolescents. Dyslexia, 2(1), 1-21.

Adams, P. (2006). Exploring social constructivism: Theories and practicalities.

Education, 34(3), 243-257.

Akbari, R. (2005). Reflections on reflection: A critical appraisal of reflective practices

in L2 teacher education. System. 35. 192-207. 10.1016/j.system.2006.12.008.

Allington, R. L. (2002). What I’ve learned about effective reading instruction. Phi Delta
Kappan, 83(10), 740-747.

Allington, R. L., Johnston, P. H., & Day, J. P. (2002). Exemplary fourth-grade teachers.
Language Arts, 79(6), 462-466.

Alterator, S., & Deed, C. (2013). Teacher adaptation to open learning spaces.
Educational Research, 23(3), 315-330.

Ambe, E. B. (2007). Inviting reluctant adolescent readers into the literacy club: Some
comprehension strategies to tutor individuals or small groups of reluctant readers.
Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 50(8), 632-639.

Anderson, J., Purcell-Gates, V., Jang, K., & Gagne, M. (2009). Implementing an
intergenerational literacy program with authentic literacy instruction: Challenges,
responses, and results. Vancouver: University of British Columbia.

Applebee, A. N., Langer, J. A., Nystrand, M., & Gamoran, A. (2003). Discussion-based
approaches to developing understanding: Classroom instruction and student
performance in middle and high school English. American Educational Research
Journal, 40(3), 685-730.

Assaf, L. (2006). One reading specialist's response to high‐stakes testing pressures.

The Reading Teacher, 60(2), 158-167.

Atwell, N. (1998). In the middle: New understandings about writing, reading, and
learning. Boynton/Cook Publishers, Inc., A Subsidiary of Reed Elsevier Inc., 361
Hanover Street, Portsmouth, NH 03801-3912.

170
Atwell, N. (2015). In the middle: A lifetime of learning about writing, reading, and
adolescents. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Au, K. H. (1998). Social constructivism and the school literacy learning of students of
diverse backgrounds. Journal of literacy research, 30(2), 297-319.

Au, W. (2007). High-stakes testing and curricular control: A qualitative meta synthesis.
Educational Researcher, 36(5), 258-267.

Baker, D. P., & Stevenson, D. L. (1986). Mothers' strategies for children's school
achievement: Managing the transition to high school. Sociology of education, 156-166.

Bao, B.B. (2014). Teachers’ self-knowledge. Journal of Chendu University:

Educational Science Edition, 7, 39-41.

Barksdale-Ladd, M. A., & Thomas, K. F. (2000). What’s at stake in high-stakes testing

teachers and parents speak out. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(5), 384-397.

Barnitz, J. G. (1994). Discourse diversity: Principles for authentic talk and literacy
instruction. Journal of Reading, 37(7), 586-591.

Bazeley, P. (2013). Qualitative data analysis: Practical strategies. Sage.

Beers, K. (2000). Reading strategies handbook for high school: A guide to teaching
reading in the literature classroom. Austin, TX: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

Beijaard, D., Meijer, P. C., & Verloop, N. (2004). Reconsidering research on teachers’
professional identity. Teaching and teacher education, 20(2), 107-128.

Birch, S. H., & Ladd, G. W. (1997). The teacher-child relationship and children's early
school adjustment. Journal of school psychology, 35(1), 61-79.

Block, C. C., & Mangieri, J. N. (2009). Exemplary literacy teachers: What schools can
do to promote success for all students. Guilford Press.

Block, C. C., Oakar, M., & Hurt, N. (2002). The expertise of literacy teachers: A
continuum from preschool to grade 5. Reading research quarterly, 37(2), 178-206.

Bomer, K. (2005). Missing the children: When politics and programs impede our
teaching. Language Arts, 82, 168–176.

Bower, G. H. (1975). Cognitive psychology: An introduction. In W. K. Estes (Ed.),

Handbook of learning and cognition (pp. 25-80). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and

code development. Sage.

171
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn (Expanded
ed.). Washington, DC: National Academy.

Braun Jr, J. A., & Crumpler, T. P. (2004). The social memoir: An analysis of developing
reflective ability in a pre-service methods course. Teaching and Teacher Education,
20(1), 59-75.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative
research in psychology, 3(2), 77-101.

Breen, L. (2007). The researcher'in the middle': Negotiating the insider/outsider

dichotomy. The Australian Community Psychologist, 19(1), 163-174.

Brown, M. (1989). Graded Assessment and Learning Hierarchies in Mathematics—an

alternative view. British Educational Research Journal, 15(2), 121-128.

Bruner, J. S. (1996). The culture of education. Harvard University Press.

Bulgar, S. (2012). The Effects of High Stakes Testing on Teachers in NJ. i-Manager's
Journal on Educational Psychology, 6(1), 34.

Campbell, K.P.(1988). Adaptive strategies of experienced expert teachers: A grounded

theory study. ETD collection for University of Nebraska - Lincoln. AAI8914070.

Cao, Y.J. (2012). The face and core of Chinese language arts teaching. JiangSu:
Education Publisher Company.

Carbonaro, W. J., & Gamoran, A. (2002). The production of achievement inequality in

high school English. American Educational Research Journal, 39(4), 801-827.

Carter, G., & Jones, M. G. (1994). Relationship between ability‐paired interactions

and the development of fifth graders' concepts of balance. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 31(8), 847-856.

Chall, J. S. (2000). The Academic Achievement Challenge: What Really Works in the
Classroom? New York: Guilford Publications.

Chase, S. (1996). Personal vulnerability and interpretive authority in narrative research.

In R. Josselson (Ed.), Ethics and process in the narrative study of lives (Vol. 4, pp. 45-
59). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cheng, L. (2004). The washback effect of a public examination change on teachers’

perceptions toward their classroom teaching. Washback in language testing:
Research contexts and methods, 147-170.

Chien, C. L. (2016). Beyond Authoritarian Personality: The Culture-Inclusive Theory of

172
Chinese Authoritarian Orientation. Frontiers in psychology,7, 924.

Clay, M. M. (2005). Literacy Lessons Designed for Individuals: Why? when? and how?
Heinemann Educational Books.

Cochran-Smith, M. (1991). Learning to teach against the grain. Harvard educational

review, 61(3), 279-311.

Collinson, V. (1994). Teachers as Learners: Exemplary Teachers' Perceptions of

Personal and Professional Renewal. Austin & Winfield Publishers.

Collinson, V. (1996). Becoming an exemplary teacher: Integrating professional,

interpersonal, and intrapersonal knowledge. Paper presented at the Japan-United
States Teacher Education Consortium Annual Conference, Naruto, Japan.

Collinson, V. (1999). Redefining teacher excellence. Theory into Practice, 38(1), 4-11.

Collinson, V., Killeavy, M., & Stephenson, H. J. (1998). Exemplary Teachers: Practicing
an Ethic of Care in England, Ireland, and the United States. Paper Prepared for the
annual meeting of American Educational Research Association.

Connelly, F. M., & Clandinin, D. J. (1988). Teachers as Curriculum Planners. Narratives

of Experience. Teachers College Press, 1234 Amsterdam Ave., New York, NY 10027.

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
approaches. CA: Sage.

Curby, T. W., Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., & Ponitz, C. C. (2009). Teacher–child interactions

and children’s achievement trajectories across kindergarten and first grade. Journal of
educational psychology, 101(4), 912.

Danielewicz, J. (2001). Teaching selves: Identity, pedagogy, and teacher education.

Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Daniels, D. H., & Perry, K. E. (2003). " Learner-Centered" according to children. Theory
into Practice, 42(2), 102-108.

DeLoach, J. (1995). Early understanding and use of symbols. Current Directions in

Psychological Science, 4, 109-113.

DeLyser, D. (2001). “Do you really live here?” Thoughts on insider research. The
Geographical Review, 441-453.

den Brok, P., Levy, J., Brekelmans, M., & Wubbels, T. (2005). The effect of teacher
interpersonal behaviour on students' subject-specific motivation. The Journal of
Classroom Interaction, 20-33.

173
Derry, S. J. (1999). A Fish called peer learning: Searching for common themes. In A.
M. O'Donnell & A.King (Eds.).

Dewey, J. (1910). The influence of Darwin on philosophy. New York: Henry Holt and
Company.

Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education: the Kappa Delta Phi lecture series. New
York, NY: Kappa Delta Pi. ISBN 0-684-83828-1.

Dewey, J. (1966). Lectures in the philosophy of education. New York: Random House.

Dickerson, V. C., & Zimmerman, J. L. (1996). Myths, misconceptions, and a word or

two about politics. Journal of Systemic Therapies, 15(1), 79.

Ding, F., & Yang, J.J. (2014) Chinese Language Arts (High School 10th grade). JiangSu:
Phenix Education.

Dong, J.H (2016). The teaching strategies of an expert teacher. Yuwen Jiaoxue
Tongxin (High school, A) 9, 28-30.

Dorn, S. (1996). Creating the Dropout: An Institutional and Social History of School
Failure. Praeger Publishers, 88 Post Road West, Westport, CT 06881.

Drake, C., Spillane, J. P., & Hufferd-Ackles, K. (2001). Storied identities: Teacher
learning and subject-matter context. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 33(1), 1-23.

Duke, N. K., Purcell‐Gates, V., Hall, L. A., & Tower, C. (2006). Authentic literacy
activities for developing comprehension and writing. The Reading Teacher, 60(4), 344-
355.

Dyson, A. H. (1990). Talking up a writing community: The role of talk in learning to

write. In S. Hynds & D. L. Rubin (Eds.), Perspectives on talk & learning (pp. 99–114).
Urbana, Ill.: National Council of Teachers of English.

Easen, P., & Bolden, D. (2005). Location, location, location: what do league tables
really tell us about primary schools? Education 3-13, 33(3), 49-55.

Edelsky, C. (1986). Writing in a bilingual program: Habia una vez. Ablex Publishing
Corporation, 355 Chestnut Street, Norwood, NJ 07648.

Elish-Piper, L., Matthews, M. W., & Risko, V. J. (2013). Invisibility: An Unintended

Consequence of Standards, Tests, and Mandates. Journal of Language and Literacy
Education, 9(2), 4-23.

Ernest, P. (1995). The One and the Many. In L. P. Steffe & J. Gale
(Eds.),Constructivism in education (pp. 459-486). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence

174
Erlbaum.

Everson, B. J. (1991). Vygotsky and the Teaching of Writing. Quarterly of the National
Writing Project and the Center for the Study of Writing and Literacy, 13(3), 8-11.

Exemplary Teacher Evaluation Criteria. (2018). Retrieved from:

http://www.nanjing.gov.cn/xxgk/bm/jyj/201803/t20180302_5328303.html

Fecho, B. (2011). Teaching for the students: Habits of heart, mind, and practice. New
York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Feikes, D. (1995) One teacher's learning: a case study of an elementary teacher's

beliefs and practice, in: D.T. OWENS, M.K. REED & G.M. MILLSAPS (Eds)
Proceedings of the Seventeenth PME-NA Conference, Vol. 2, pp. 175-180
(Washington, DC, Office of Educational Research and Improvement).

Feiman-Nemser, S. (2001). Helping novices learn to teach: Lessons from an

exemplary support teacher. Journal of teacher education, 52(1), 17-30.

Flax, J. (1990). Thinking fragments: Psychoanalysis, feminism, and postmodernism in

the contemporary West. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Freire, P. (2018). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Bloomsbury Publishing USA.

Gallagher, K. (2006). Teaching adolescent writers. Stenhouse Publishers.

Garcia, A., O’Donnell-Allen, C. (2015). Pose, wobble, flow: A culturally proactive

approach to literacy instruction. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Giddens, A. (1984) The Constitution of Society, Cambridge: Polity Press.

Goddard, Y. L., Goddard, R. D., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (2007). A theoretical and

empirical investigation of teacher collaboration for school improvement and student
achievement in public elementary schools. Teachers college record, 109(4), 877-896.

Gomez, K. (2005). Teachers of Literacy, Love of Reading, and the Literate Self: A
Response to Ann Powell‐Brown. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 49(2), 92-96.

Gomez, K. (2009). “Living the literate life”: How teachers make connections between
the personal and professional literate selves. Reading Psychology, 30(1), 20-50.

Graves, D. H. (1990). Discover your own literacy. Heinemann; Toronto: Irwin Pub.

Gredler, M. E. (1997). Learning and instruction: Theory into practice (3rd ed). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

175
Greene, S. & Smith, E. (1999). Teaching talk about writing: Student conflict in acquiring
a new discourse of authorship through collaborative planning. In K. L. Weese, S. L.
Fox, & S. Greene (Eds.), Teaching academic literacy (pp. 149–174). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Guba, E. G. (1990). The alternative paradigm dialog (pp.17-30). Newbury Park, CA:
Sage Publications, Inc.

Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1988). Do inquiry paradigms imply inquiry methodologies?
Qualitative approaches to evaluation in education, 89-115.

Hammond, S., & Gao, H. (2002). Pan Gu’s paradigm: Chinese education’s return to
holistic communication in learning. Chinese communication studies: Contexts and
comparisons, 227-244.

Harman, S. (2000). Resist high-stakes testing! High stakes are for tomatoes.
Language Arts, 77,332-347.

Hoffman, J. V., Assaf, L. C., & Paris, S. G. (2001). High-stakes testing in reading: Today
in Texas, tomorrow? The reading teacher, 54(5), 482-492.

Holmes, P. (2005). Ethnic Chinese students’ communication with cultural others in a

New Zealand university. Communication education, 54(4), 289-311.

Howey, K. R., & Collinson, V. (1995). Cornerstones of a collaborative culture:

Professional development and preservice teacher preparation. Journal of Personnel
Evaluation in Education, 9(1), 21-31.

Huberman, M. (1993). Burnout in teaching careers. European Education, 25(3), 47-

69.

Huebner, D. (1987). The vocation of teaching. In F. Bolin & J. M. Falk (Eds.), Teacher
renewal: Professional issues, personal choices (pp. 17-29). New York: Teachers
College Press.

Ippolito, J., Steele, J. L., & Samson, J. F. (2008). Introduction: Why adolescent literacy
matters now. Harvard Educational Review, 78(1).

Jay, J.K. (2003). Quality teaching: Reflection as the heart of practice, Lanham, MD:
Scarecrow Press.

Jin, L., & Cortazzi, M. (1998). Dimensions of dialogue: Large classes in China.
International journal of educational research, 29(8), 739-761.

John-Steiner, V., & Mahn, H. (1996). Sociocultural approaches to learning and

development: A Vygotskian framework. Educational psychologist, 31(3-4), 191-206.

176
Jones, B. D., & Egley, R. J. (2004). Voices from the frontlines: Teachers' perceptions
of high-stakes testing. education policy analysis archives, 12, 39.

Kagan, D. M. (1992). Professional growth among preservice and beginning teachers.

Review of educational research, 62(2), 129-169.

Karp, S. (2013). The problems with the Common Core. Rethinking schools, 28(2), 10-
17.

Kaufman, D. (2002). Living a literate life, revisited. The English Journal, 91(6), 51-57.

Kaufman, D., & Brooks, J. G. (1996). Interdisciplinary collaboration in teacher

education: A constructivist approach. Tesol Quarterly, 30(2), 231-251.

Komesaroff, L., & Morrison, F. (2001). Shifting to More Authentic Language and
Literacy Activity in the Middle Years. Paper presented at the Joint National Conference
of the Australian Association for the Teaching of English and Australian Literacy
Educators’ Association.

Kozulin, A. (2003). Vygotsky's educational theory in cultural context. Cambridge

University Press.

Kozulin, A., Gindis, B., Ageyev, V. S., & Miller, S. M. (2003). Introduction: Sociocultural
theory and education: Students, teachers, and knowledge. Vygotsky’s educational
theory in cultural context, 1-14.

Kroll, L. R., & Laboskey, V. K. (1996). Practicing what we preach: Constructivism in a

teacher education program. Action in Teacher Education, 18(2), 63-72.

Kucan, L., & Beck, I. L. (1997). Thinking aloud and reading comprehension research:
Inquiry, instruction, and social interaction. Review of educational research, 67(3), 271-
299.

Kukla, A. (2000). Social Constructivism and the Philosophy of Science. New York:
Routledge

Langer, J. A. (2000). Excellence in English in middle and high school: How teachers'
professional lives support student achievement. American Educational Research
Journal, 37(2), 397-439.

Langer, J. A. (2001). Beating the odds: Teaching middle and high school students to
read and write well. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 837-880.

Lantz, O., & Kass, H. (1987). Chemistry teachers' functional paradigms. Science
education, 71(1), 117-134.

177
Lapadat, J. C., & Lindsay, A. C. (1999). Transcription in research and practice: From
standardization of technique to interpretive positionings. Qualitative inquiry, 5(1), 64-
86.

Larmer, B. (2014). Inside a Chinese test-prep factory. The New York Times Magazine.
Retrieved from:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/04/magazine/inside-a-chinese-test-prep-
factory.html

Li, D.S. (2005). Teaching quality and high-quality teaching. Educational Research, 7,
80-82.

Little, J. W. (2003). Inside teacher community: Representations of classroom practice.

Teachers college record, 105(6), 913-945.

Liu, L.N. (2016). Professional development of Chinese language arts teachers. Journal
of Education, 10(1), 124

Luna, C., & Turner, C. L. (2001). The impact of the MCAS: Teachers talk about high-
stakes testing. The English Journal, 91(1), 79-87.

Luo, W. (2012). Teachers feel exam pressure, too. ChinaDaily, USA.Retrieved from:
http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/epaper/2012-06/08/content_15487008.htm

Madaus, G. F. (1988). The distortion of teaching and testing: High‐stakes testing and
instruction. Peabody Journal of Education, 65(3), 29-46.

Madaus, G., & Russell, M. (2010). Paradoxes of high-stakes testing. The Journal of
Education, 190(1/2), 21-30.

Malikow, M. (2006). Teaching the affective domain: Turning a crier into a crier. Kappa
Delta Pi Record, 43(1), 36-38.

Martin, R. J. (1994). Multicultural social reconstructionist education: Design for

diversity in teacher education. Teacher Education Quarterly, 21(3), 77-89.

Mathews, J. (2004). Examining No Child Left Behind. The Washington Post, p. 2.

McCracken, N. M., & McCracken, H. T. (2001). Teaching in the Time of Testing: What
Have You Lost? The English Journal, 91(1), 30-35.

McNeil, L. M. (1985). Teacher culture and the irony of school reform. In P. G. Altbach,
G. P. Kelly & L. Weis (Eds.), Excellence in education: Perspectives on policy and
practice. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books.

Meng, H. (2012). Expert Chinese language arts teachers’ personal qualities. Yuwen

178
Jiaoxue Tongxin (High school, A), 2, 62-63.

Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation:

Revised and expanded from qualitative research and case study applications in
education. San Franscisco: Jossey-Bass.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded

sourcebook. Sage.

Miller, M., & Higgins, B. (2008). Beyond test preparation: Nurturing successful learners
through reading and writing workshops. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 44(3), 124-127.

Miller, S. M. (2003). How literature discussion shapes thinking. Vygotsky's Educational

Theory in Cultural Context. Ed. Alex Kozulin, Boris Gindis, Vladimir S. Ageyev, and
Suzanne M. Miller. New York: Cambridge UP, 289-316.

Moje, E. B. (1994). Using literacy to learn chemistry: An ethnography of a high school

chemistry classroom. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Purdue University,West
Lafayette, IN.

Moll, L. C. (1990). Introduction. In L. C. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky and education:

Instructional 317 implications and applications of sociohistorical psychology (pp. 1-27).
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press

Moore, D. W. (1996). Contexts for literacy in secondary schools. In YEARBOOK-

NATIONAL READING CONFERENCE (Vol. 45, pp. 15-46). THE NATIONAL
READING CONFERENCE, INC.

Muchmore, J. A. (2001). The story of" Anna": A life history study of the literacy beliefs
and teaching practices of an urban high school English teacher. Teacher Education
Quarterly, 28(3), 89-110.

Myers, S. M. (1996). An interactive model of religiosity inheritance: The importance of

family context. American Sociological Review, 858-866.

National Education Examinations Authority. (2003). NCEE directions. Retrieved March

8, 2004 from:
http://www.china-school.net/kssm/ 0327104100.htm (in Chinese)

Neisser, U. (1976). Cognition and reality: Principles and implications of cognitive

psychology. San Francisco: Freeman.

Neuman, S. B., Caperelli, B. J., & Kee, C. (1998). Literacy learning, a family matter.
The Reading Teacher, 52(3), 244-252.

Ninio, A., & Bruner, J. (1978). The achievement and antecedents of labelling. Journal

179
of child language, 5(1), 1-15.

Noden, H. R., & Vacca, R. T. (1994). Whole language in middle and secondary
classrooms. Harper Collins College Publishers.

Oldfather, P., & Dahl, K. (1994). Toward a social constructivist reconceptualization of

intrinsic motivation for literacy learning. Journal of Reading Behavior, 26(2), 139-158.

Palmer, P. J. (1998). The courage to teach: Exploring the inner landscape of a

teacher's life. John Wiley & Sons.

Parris, S. R., & Block, C. C. (2007). The expertise of adolescent literacy teachers.
Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 50(7), 582-596.

Peel, R. N. (2014). Integrating Arts in the Classroom: A Strategic Approach to Support

Common Core State Standards. Delta Journal of Education, 4(1), 63-72.

Pennington, J. L. (2004). Teaching interrupted: The effect of high-stakes testing on

literacy instruction in a Texas elementary school. Multicultural and multilingual literacy
and language. New York: Guilford.

Polanyi, M. (1967). The tacit dimension. Garden City, NY: Doubleday

Porter, L. (2000) Behaviour in schools: theory and practice for teachers (Buckingham,
Open University Press).

Prawat, R. S., & Floden, R. E. (1994). Philosophical Perspectives on Constructivist

Views of Learning. Educational Psychologist, 29(1), 37-48.

Pressley, M., Allington, R. L., Wharton-McDonald, R., Block, C. C., & Morrow, L. M.
(2001). Learning to read: Lessons from exemplary first-grade classrooms. New York,
NY, US: Guilford Press.

Preus, N. (1999). The legacy of schooling: Secondary school composition and the
beginning college writer. In K. L. Weese, S. L. Fox & S. Greene (Eds.), Teaching
academic literacy (pp. 67–84). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Puk, T. G., & Harnes, J. M. (1999). Are schools prepared to allow beginning teachers
to reconceptualize instruction? Teaching and Teacher Education, 15(5), 541-553.
Purcell-Gates, V. (2002). Authentic literacy in class yields increase in literacy practices.
Literacy Update, 11(7), 1-9.

Purcell-Gates, V. (2013). Literacy worlds of children of migrant farmworker

communities participating in a Migrant Head Start program. Research in the Teaching
of English, 68-97.

180
Purcell-Gates, V., & Duke, N. K. (2004). Texts in the teaching and learning of reading.
The texts in elementary classrooms, 3-20. Conference Paper.

Purcell‐Gates, V., Degener, S. C., Jacobson, E., & Soler, M. (2002). Impact of
authentic adult literacy instruction on adult literacy practices. Reading Research
Quarterly, 37(1), 70-92.

Qualley, D. J. (1997). Turns of Thought Teaching Composition as Reflexive Inquiry.

New Hampshire: Heinemann

Rallis, S.F., & Rossman, G.B. (1995). Dynamic teachers: Leaders of change.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Rashidi, N., & Moghadam, M. (2015). The Discrepancy between Teachers’ Belief and
Practice, from the Sociocultural Perspective. Studies in English Language Teaching,
3(3), 252.

Ravitch, D. (2014). The Myth of Chinese Super Schools. Retrieved from:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2014/11/20/myth-chinese-super-schools

Raymond, E. (2000). Cognitive Characteristics. Learners with Mild Disabilities (pp.

169-201). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon, A Pearson Education Company.

Reason, C., & Reason, L. (2007). Asking the right questions. Educational Leadership,
65(1), 36-40.

Rex, L. A., & Nelson, M. C. (2004). How teachers' professional identities position high-
stakes test preparation in their classrooms. Teachers College Record, 106(6), 1288-
1331.

Rief, L. (2014). Read write teach: Choice and challenge in the reading-writing
workshop. Heinemann.

Roehrig, A. D., Bohn, C. M., Turner, J. E., & Pressley, M. (2008). Mentoring beginning
primary teachers for exemplary teaching practices. Teaching and Teacher Education,
24(3), 684-702.

Ross, H., & Wang, L. (2014). Vocational Education (II): Challenges, Practical Efforts,
and Future Development: Guest Editors’ Introduction. Chinese Education & Society,
47(5), 3-7.

Rotberg, I. C. (2006). Assessment around the World. Educational Leadership, 64(3),

58.

Roth, W. M. (2000). From gesture to scientific language. Journal of pragmatics, 32(11),

1683-1714.

181
Routman, R. (2005). Writing essentials: Raising expectations and results while
simplifying teaching. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Ruddell, R. B., & Kern, R. B. (1986). The development of belief systems and teaching
effectiveness of influential teachers. Reading: The quest for meaning, 133-150.

Sadler, T. D. (2006). “I Won't Last Three Weeks”: Preservice Science Teachers Reflect
on Their Student-Teaching Experiences. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 17(3),
217-241.

Salteh, M. A., & Sadeghi, K. (2015). What Writing Teachers Say and What They
Actually Do: The Mismatch between Theory and Practice. Journal of Language
Teaching and Research, 6(4), 803-810.

Sandholtz, J. H. (2000). Interdisciplinary team teaching as a form of professional

development. Teacher Education Quarterly, 27(3), 39-54.

Santman, D. (2002). Teaching to the test? Test preparation in the reading workshop.
Language Arts, 79(3), 203.

Schon, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action (Vol.
1). New York: Basic books.

Schwandt, T.A. (1994). Constructivist, interpretivist approaches to human inquiry. In

N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp.118-137).
Thousand Oaks,CA:Sage.

Shisan High school Homepage Introduction. (2016). Retrieved from:

http://www.nj13z.cn/News/Details/2994

Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching.

Educational researcher, 15(2), 4-14.

Silva, D. Y., Gimbert, B., & Nolan, J. (2000). Sliding the doors: Locking and unlocking
possibilities for teacher leadership. Teachers college record, 102(4), 779-804.

Simsek, H., & Yildirim, A. (2004). Turkey: Innovation and tradition. Balancing change
and tradition in global education reform, 153-185.

Slater, W. H. (2004). Teaching English from a literacy perspective: The goal of high
literacy for all students. In T. L. Jetton & J. A. Dole (Eds.), Adolescent literacy research
and practice (pp. 40–58). New York: Guilford Press.

Smagorinsky, P. (2012). Vygotsky and literacy research (Vol. 2). Springer Science &
Business Media.

Sperling, M. (1990). I want to talk to each of you: Collaboration and the teacher-student

182
writing conference. Research in the Teaching of English, 279-321.

Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Sage.

Sternberg, R. J., & Horvath, J. A. (1995). A prototype view of expert teaching.

Educational researcher, 24(6), 9-17.

Sturtevant, E. G. (1996). Lifetime influences on the literacy-related instructional beliefs

of experienced high school history teachers: Two comparative case studies. Journal
of Literacy Research, 28(2), 227-257.

Sturtevant, E. G., & Linek, W. M. (2003). The instructional beliefs and decisions of
middle and secondary teachers who successfully blend literacy and content. Literacy
Research and Instruction, 43(1), 74-89.

Sturtevant, E.G. (1994). Reading, writing, and experience in high school social studies
and science. Contemporary Education, 65, 95-98.

Suen, H. K., & Yu, L. (2006). Chronic consequences of high‐stakes testing? Lessons
from the Chinese civil service exam. Comparative Education Review, 50(1), 46-65.

Sullo, R. A. (1999). The Inspiring Teacher: New Beginnings for the 21st Century. The
Inspired Classroom Series. Annapolis Junction: National Education Association
Professional Library Distribution Center.

Tellis, W. M. (1997). Application of a case study methodology. The qualitative report,

3(3), 1-19.

Tudge, J. (1992). Vygotsky, the zone of proximal development, and peer collaboration:
Implications for classroom practice. In L. C. Moll (Ed.),Vygotsky and education:
Instructional implications and applications of sociohistorical psychology (pp. 155-172).
New York, NY, US: Cambridge University Press.

Turner, J. D. (2005). Orchestrating success for African American readers: The case of
an effective third‐grade teacher. Literacy Research and Instruction, 44(4), 27-48.
Turuk, M. C. (2008). The relevance and implications of Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory
in the second language classroom. ARECLS, 5, 244-262.

Van Schaack, H., & Glick, I. D. (1982). A qualitative study of excellence in teaching.
ERIC Clearinghouse on Teacher Education.

Van Tartwijk, J., Brekelmans, M., Wubbels, T., Fisher, D. L., & Fraser, B. J. (1998).
Students’ perceptions of teacher interpersonal style: The front of the classroom as the
teacher’s stage. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14(6), 607-617.

Vanderburg, R. M. (2006). Reviewing research on teaching writing based on

183
Vygotsky's theories: What we can learn. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 22(4), 375-393.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological

processes. Harvard university press.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press (original
work published in 1934).

Waller, W. (1965). The sociology of teaching. New York: John Wiley & Sons,Inc.

Wang, H.Y. (2009). The interpersonal relationship in teachers’ practical knowledge.

Exploring Education Development, 10, 79-82.

Wang, X. B. (2006). An Introduction to the System and Culture of the College Entrance
Examination of China. Research Notes. RN-28. College Board.

Wang, Y.J. (2016). Good teachers in expert teachers’ eyes. Chinese Educational News.
Retrieved from:
http://www.jyb.cn/theory/rcpy/201604/t20160420_657761.html

Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociological approach to mediated action.

Cambridge: Harvard UP.

Wertsch, J. V. V. (1985). The social formation of mind. Cambridge: Harvard UP.

White, C. S., Sturtevant, E. G., & Dunlap, K. L. (2002). Preservice and beginning
teachers’ perceptions of the influence of high stakes tests on their literacy‐related
instructional beliefs and decisions. Literacy Research and Instruction, 42(2), 39-62.

Williams, J. S. (2001). Creativity, connectedness, and the spirit of teaching: Factors

that contribute to renewal and longevity of exemplary teachers. Western Carolina
University, ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.

Xiao, S.G. (2010). The current teaching to the test in Chinese language arts subject
and the reform, Journal of Changsha Raiway University, Social studies, 2, 141-142.

Yin, R. (1984). Case study research: Design and methods (1st ed.). Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage Publishing.

Yin, R. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publishing.

Yin, R. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods 4th ed. In United States:
Library of Congress Cataloguing-in-Publication Data.

Yu, Q. (1998). Standardized testing pushes Chinese language arts teaching into a

184
dead end. People’s Education, 6, 15-16

Zhang Y. (2013). Does private tutoring improve students’ national college entrance
exam performance? A case study from Jinan, China. Econ. Educ. Rev. 32:1–28.

Zhao, C.M. (2014). Creating teacher collaborative culture: the apprenticeship in the
school. Teacher Education Research, 4, 46-49.

Zhao, M., Mu, B., & Lu, C. (2016). Teaching to the Test: Approaches to Teaching in
Senior Secondary Schools in the Context of Curriculum Reform in China. Creative
Education, 7(01), 32.

Zhao, Y. (2009). Excerpted and adapted from Catching Up or Leading the Way:
American Education in the Age of Globalization (Chapter 4, "Why China Isn't a Threat
Yet"), Alexandria, VA: ASCD

Zhao, Y. (2014). Who's Afraid of the Big Bad Dragon: Why China Has the Best (and
Worst) Education System in the World. John Wiley & Sons.

Zhou, K. (1999). Set Chinese language arts teaching free from the high-stakes testing
chain. Curriculum, Teaching material, and method, 3, 20-25.

185
 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Rongrong Dong was born and raised in China. She received her master’s

degree in teaching Chinese as a second language in Nanjing University, China the

year of 2013. While studying in the graduate school, she also worked as an English

language teacher in one of the biggest language institutions in China for three years.

She came to U.S. for her doctoral program in education at University of Florida in

2013.

Her research interest generally falls into three categories. First, she studies

secondary literacy teaching and learning, with a focus on ELA/CLA teachers’ reading

and writing instruction in class. Second, she has an interest in children’s literature

and young adult’s literature. Third, she also has great interest in Chinese language

teaching and Chinese contemporary literature. During her study in the doctoral

program, she served as a member in a research team on literacy education in

secondary ELA classrooms, where she observed and interviewed ELA teachers.

She has presented her research on literacy education, children’s literature in

many state, national and international conferences, including International Literacy

Association, National Conference of Teachers of English, Florida Reading

Association Conference, and Journal of Language & Literacy Association

Conference. She also translated and edited on American scholar’s books during her

doctoral program. Her translated book is in progress for publication in China.

As for her teaching experience, she has served as a teaching assistant in her

doctoral program for three years. She has taught two undergraduate courses listed

as Children’s Literature and Language Arts for Diverse Learners. She also served as

a voluntary teacher in non-profit Chinese language school in Florida for two years.

186