This article presents a detailed case study analysis of oral and written language expressed by Jacqueline Meyer, a teacher of elementary English Language Learners (ELL), as she struggled to navigate the current political terrain with her students. Ms. Meyer's district adopted commercial materials and increased the amount and substance of testing for her students, thereby increasing the likelihood that her students would be viewed from a deficit point of view. Ms. Meyer was selected for an in-depth case study because in her words we heard the history of ELL marginalization and the local and federal mandates of NCLB that challenged the core of her beliefs, but we also saw her struggle to maintain her own (and her students') identities. Content, rhetorical, and critical discourse analyses of her talk revealed her teaching identity as a theoretician who speaks with an “art-full” and strategic voice. The rhetorical analysis illuminated Ms. Meyer's skill with persuasive language that evoked emotion, and the critical discourse analysis illuminated her ability to strategically use language to shift power and positioning. Together, these tools enabled us to see how she effectively used language to improvise a persuasive and poetic argument and to operate strategically in challenging times.
References
1.
AllingtonR. (2002). Big Brother and the national reading curriculum: How ideology trumped evidence. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
2.
AlvarezL.CornJ. (2008). Exchanging assessment for accountability: The implications of high-stakes reading assessments for English learners. Language Arts, 85(5), 354–365.
3.
BakhtinM. (1986). The dialogic imagination: Four essays. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
4.
BarnesD.ToddF. (1995). Communication and learning revisited: Making meaning through talk. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
5.
CamarotaS. R. (2007). Immigrants in the United States, 2007: A profile of America's foreign-born population. Washington, DC: Center for Immigration Studies. Retrieved January 27, 2009, from http://www.cis.org/articles/2007/back1007.pdf.
6.
CharmazK. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
7.
DaviesB. (1990). Agency as a form of discursive practice: A classroom scene observed. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 11(3). (01425692 Academic Search Elite).
8.
Dudley-MarlingC.LucasK. (2009). Pathologizing the language and culture of poor children. Language Arts, 86(5), 362–370.
9.
EisnerE. W. (1998). The enlightened eye: Qualitative inquiry and the enhancement of educational practice. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
10.
EisnerE. W. (2002). The educational imagination. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
11.
EricksonF. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In WhittrockM. C. (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 119–161). Old Tapan, NJ: Macmillan.
12.
FletcherR. (1993). What a writer needs. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
13.
FreemanD.FreemanY. (2000). Teaching reading in multilingual classrooms. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
14.
GeeJ. P. (1996). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
15.
GeeJ. P. (1999/2005). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method. New York: Routledge.
16.
GlesneC. (2005). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (3rd ed.). New York: Allyn & Bacon.
17.
GoodmanY. (2003). Valuing language study: Inquiry into language for elementary and middle schools. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
18.
GonzálezN.MollL. C.AmantiC. (2005). Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in households, communities, and classrooms. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.
19.
GravesD. (2002). Testing is not teaching: What should count in education. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
20.
HollandD.LachicotteW.SkinnerD.JrCainC. (1998). Identity and agency in cultural worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
LewisC.EnciscoP.MojeE. B. (2007). Reframing sociocultural research on literacy: Identity, agency and powerMahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
23.
MacgillivrayL.ArdellA. L.CurwenM. S.PalmaJ. (2004). Colonized teachers: Examining the implementation of a scripted reading program. Teaching Education, 15, 131–144.
24.
MenkenK. (2008). English learners left behind: Standardized testing as language policyClevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
25.
MerriamS. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
26.
MojeE.LewisC. (2007). Examining opportunities to learn literacy: The role of critical sociocultural literacy research. In LewisC.EnciscoP.MojeE. B. (Eds.), Reframing sociocultural research on literacy: Identity, agency and power (pp. 15–48). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
27.
MollL. C.DiazS. (1987). Change as the goal of educational research. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 18(4), 300–311.
28.
National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition and Language Instruction Educational Programs. (2008). National and Regional Data and Demographics. Retrieved January 27, 2009, from http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/stats/2_nation.htm.
29.
OhanianS. (2009). On assessment, accountability, and other things that go bump in the night. Language Arts, 86(5), 371–381.
30.
OlivoW. (2003). “Quit talking and learn English!”: Conflicting language ideologies in an ESL classroom. Anthropology & Education Quarterly34(1), 50–71.
31.
RosenblattL. (1976). Literature as exploration. New York: Modern Language Association.
32.
SchmidtR. (2005). Broken trust: Teachers talk about literacy teaching in times of mandates for accountability. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA.
33.
SiegelM. (2006). Rereading the signs: Multimodal transformations in the field of literacy education. Language Arts, 84(1), 65–77.
34.
TannenD. (2007). Talking voices: Repetition, dialogue, and imagery in conversational discourse. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
35.
TobinJ. (2000). “Good guys don't wear hats ”: Children's talk about the media. New York: Teachers College Press.
36.
TobinJ.WuD.DavidsonD. (1989). Preschool in three cultures: Japan, Chin, and the United States. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
37.
TooheyK. (2000). Learning English at school: Identity, social relations, and classroom practice. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
38.
ValdésG. (2001). Learning and not learning English: Latino students in American schools. New York: Teachers College Press.
39.
ValenciaR. R. (2009). A response to Ruby Payne's claim that the deficit thinking model has no scholarly utility. Teachers College Record. Retrieved July 29, 2009, from http://www.tcrecord.org.
40.
Van SluysK.LewisonM.FlintA. (2006). Researching critical literacy: A critical study of analysis of classroom discourse. Journal of Literacy Research, 38(2), 197–233.
41.
VillegasA. M.LucasT. (2002). Educating culturally responsive teachers: A coherent approach. Albany, NY: State University of New York.
42.
VygotskyL. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
43.
WeedonC. (1997). Feminist practice and poststructuralist theory (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
44.
WhitmoreK. F.BoldtG. M. (2004). A critical analysis of elementary teachers' talk about the literacy arts. Progress report for the Arts & Humanities Initiative. Iowa City, IA: The University of Iowa.
45.
WhitmoreK. F.CrowellC. G. (1994). Inventing a classroom: Life in a bilingual, whole language learning community. York, ME: Stenhouse.
46.
WhitmoreK. F.MartensP.GoodmanY. G.OwockiG. (2005). Remembering critical lessons from early literacy research: A transactional perspective. Language Arts, 82(5), 297–308.
47.
WilsonP.MartensP.AryaP.AltwergerB. (2004). Readers, instruction, and the NRP. Phi Delta Kappan, 86(3), 242–246.
48.
WohlwendK. (2009). Dilemmas and discourses of learning to write: Assessment as a contested site. Language Arts, 86(5), 341–351.
49.
ZembylasM. (2003). Emotions and teacher identity: A poststructural perspective. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 9(3), 213–238.
