Abstract
We are pleased to present in this issue four articles that demonstrate how literacy researchers are drawing on sophisticated theoretical perspectives and productive methodologies to create change that positively affects both teachers and students. The researchers in these articles pose in-depth questions to better understand the intricacies and complexities of literacy instruction in action that engages students in their learning.
The authors of two articles (Zoch and Ivey) describe studies of practices in a school context—Zoch in an elementary school and Ivey in a middle school; the article by Boyd examines teacher’s questions and children’s talk in an elementary English language learner (ELL) classroom; and the fourth article by Wilson-Fowler draws our attention to college students and provides a validated measure of morphological awareness.
Gay Ivey unpacks what happened when four middle school teachers changed their instruction in English/Language Arts to focus on student engagement. In this longitudinal study, Ivey worked with the teachers for 4 years. Over this time period, students increased the amount of reading they did, more students were found proficient on the state test, and changes were observed in the youth’s peer relationships, self-regulation, and conceptions of self. Ivey uses cultural historical activity theory to analyze the activities and students’ subjectivities and development. This article describes the evolution of student community development and provides examples of the interactional processes that feed the growth of individuals and the relational properties of the classroom communities.
Melody Zoch reports a literacy coach’s approach to supporting teachers in a high-stakes test environment where the scripted curriculum and instruction is often in conflict with what reading specialists know is good practice. This ethnographic study describes the enrichment, adaptations, and professional development provided by the coach. The professional development program focused on teacher-inquiry and the findings revealed that fostering teacher agency and a rich, literate environment combined to create a cohesive teacher community and dynamic school learning environment.
In a study of English learners, Maureen Boyd examines one teacher’s questioning patterns and the influence of those questions on student talk across two lessons. She uses a close discourse analysis of a teacher’s questioning pattern to illustrate how the teacher’s questions influence student talk and learning. Boyd’s description of how the teacher’s dialogic questioning and sensitive listening afforded support for student ideas, purposes for reading and writing and lines of reasoning about text.
The fourth article by Wilson-Fowler asks the question, “What is the influence of morphological awareness on college students’ literacy skills?” This article is particularly relevant for developmental college literacy educators. It reports on an elegantly designed validation of a researcher developed test of morphological awareness. Those in higher education may find this study useful for better understanding students’ instructional needs. The main finding was that morphological awareness was more important for predicting spelling than for word reading or sentence comprehension.
Collectively, these articles challenge us to consider deeply the ways that tools contribute to advancing our literacy practices and provide implications for practice and future research. Across the first three articles, we see the value of language processes to foster growth of individuals in community, both in schools and in classrooms. The fourth article, focused on testing a small unit of language—awareness of morphemes—suggests that language use is not much affected by isolated elements of language.