Futur del Fons de reserva

18. uh (.) the experiences that I had as a student/ 19. were with teachers that seemed to teach um/ 20. without asking too many questions/

21. as far as (.) uh getting us to think/ 22. and uh it was a lot more memorization// 23. But starting in third grade/

24. I'll never forget/

25. I had a TEACHER who would PUSH us to really have full comprehension/

26. and she would ask us to/

27. to ask questions while we were reading// 28. She would stop us and say/

29. do you really know what that means/ 30. do you know what this word means// 31. So I have that recollection/

32. of having a teacher that was interested in our thinking// 33. And then/

35. I remember specifically in sixth (.) grade/ 36. I had a wonderful teacher/

37. who really pushed us um/ 38. to be great readers/ 39. to enjoy reading (.) um/

40. even if it was just reading the back of a cereal box// 41. And even in high school/

42. teachers that (.) viewed teaching as dealing with the whole person/ 43. versus just the subject matter//

44. So they were interested in um/ 45. the things we enjoyed/

46. how we enjoyed learning/ 47. trying to (.) um/

48. create their lesson plan in a way that they could reach out to us/ 49. and get us to understand the material/

50. but in ways that were also enjoyable/

51. whether it be through games that they would create// 52. So it wasn't the old fashioned style of/

53. you know(.) teaching at the blackboard/ 54. and writing and copying//

55. It was very interactive/ 56. and I think that that made it/

57. Learning/ 58. very enjoyable//

Valentina’s discourse contrasts teachers who demonstrated an interest in her thinking and made learning enjoyable with others who taught in ways that did not engage students in thinking. She constructs a figured world where her education was, overall, a “positive experience” (line 16). She described her kindergarten to third grade teachers (lines 17-19) as typifying the rote style of learning similar to what was described by Lucille. However, Valentina described a significant change in her school experience beginning in the third grade (line 23), when a teacher took an interest in her thinking (line 32), a theme echoed in Valentina’s work with her own students and her pondering about their experiences inside and outside of school. She also described her high school teachers positively, emphasizing a type of learning that was “very interactive” (line 55) and “very enjoyable” (line 58). Of note is the similar use of the term “push” in

Valentina’s account (lines 25, 37) and the previously discussed account by Lucille (p.134). Both participants used the term “push” to express the emphasis (for Lucille, in the present context, for Valentina, in recollection of her school) to teach in a manner that stands in contrast to rote, transmission oriented teaching. Valentina’s account

highlighted a teacher who demonstrated an interest in students’ thinking and their understanding of content. She emphasized this in line 25, employing the modifiers “really” and “full” to demonstrate the significance of what this teacher “PUSH”[ed] her students to have— “to really have full comprehension.” Lucille stressed clarity in explaining to students the reasons why they are engaged in different tasks while

Valentina stressed the teacher’s “push” to get to know what they are thinking. That is, whereas Valentina’s “push” highlights an interest in student thinking, Lucille’s “push” stresses clarity of purpose to students for the tasks and activities in the classroom.

Thus, while Lucille described her interactions with teachers as largely devoid of meaning throughout her years as a student, Valentina experienced this only in her early years of learning but provided examples of teachers in later years who sought to make her learning interactive and enjoyable. Further, Valentina’s narrative highlights how she understood that her teachers were seeking to get to know her as a whole person and to make learning enjoyable. This type of experience contrasts with Lucille’s experience; she described engagement with teachers and classroom activities as compliance and students as being labeled and tracked in different groups throughout their schooling years. Lucille’s own identification as naturally adept at scholastic tasks prevented her from being placed in a low ability group. She reflected, not on what it was like for her to be in one of those groups, but on what it was like for students who were in those groups, as evidenced in the following excerpt from her first interview.

45. And from the very beginning (.) we were tracked according to ability// 46. So your homeroom (.) you could be in a different home room/

47. but you (.) there was group 1 (.) group 2 and group 3/ 48. and group 1 was the brightest/

49. and then 2 was middle/ 50. and then 3//

3//

52. And then you moved throughout the day/

53. even in 3rd grade (.) 2nd grade (.) with your group//

54. Adrian: This was all throughout elementary school/ 55. and when you were a student (.) were you aware then that there/ 56. Lucille: And I was in group 1//

57. And I (.) I was very aware that people hardly ever changed groups// 58. Like (.) I don't really ever remember anybody (.) like (.) if you were in group 1/

59. you were pretty much always in group 1/

60. if you were in group 3 (.) you were pretty much always in group 3// Lucille’s experience was, that once labeled as a certain kind of student, a student kept that label as she or he progressed through school. Her discourse described teachers who engaged in procedures that did not take into account who the students were, as illustrated in the following excerpt from her first interview.

84. And I just remember (.) I (.) I remember very clearly/

85. like (.) one teacher (.) she was very big on having different kinds of bees//

86. So we'd have math bees/

87. and I just remember standing along the edge of the room/ 88. and she would just read 2+3+5 divided by this/

90. A LOT/