PROYECTO ESPECIAL OLMOS TINAJONES

Since I was interested in investigating the nature of learning using interpretive discussions and multimodal activities—two activities that do not occur frequently in many classrooms (Applebee et al., 2003; Nystrand, 1997; Nystrand et al., 2003; Zoss, 2009), I selectively sampled (Patton, 1990; Sipe, 2000) to identify a teacher who valued multimodal project work and used discussion- based instructional methods. In order to encourage a wider use of these promising strategies it is

necessary to illustrate how these classroom activities result in students’ learning of disciplinary- based knowledge and skills (Zoss, 2009), especially in an instructional atmosphere informed by high-stakes assessments of student learning (Hamilton, 2003; Shepard, 2000). The teacher and I identified two sections of one course that would be the most likely to substantively engage (Nystrand & Gamoran, 1991) in both small group projects and classroom discussions in order to more closely study the processes that informed students’ learning through dialogic discussion.

Students in both class sections completed the Student Background Survey, small group unimodal or multimodal project work, and engaged in whole class discussions of three literary texts. Small groups in each condition were configured according to their responses on the Student Background Survey. Students who claimed to practice the greatest number of multimodal literacies were identified as “experts.” Students who indicated the fewest number of multimodal literacy practices were identified as “novices.” Students who engaged in a range of multimodal literacy practices between “novice” and “expert” ratings were classified as “intermediate” for their multimodal literacy engagement. Each small group, then, was composed of at least one “expert,” one “novice,” and one student rated for an “intermediate” level of exposure to multimodal activities.

One small group in each period was chosen randomly to function as the focal group for this study. In both cases, the focal group consisted of three persons who were rated “expert,” “intermediate,” and “novice” according to their responses on their background surveys (Appendix D). To promote potentially diverse perspectives, none of the focal groups consisted of solely boys or girls. All students had to have signed the consent form. One adjustment was made to the composition of the focal group in Period 3 since Mr. Smith informed me that Yasmine,

replace Yasmine, I added Leonard. Although this changed the composition in the group from two girls and one boy to two boys and one girl, Leonard had the same multimodal literacy rating as Yasmine, had also signed a consent form, and attended class meetings regularly. Focal students also engaged in interviews at the end of the semester. I attempted to establish reflexivity with the focal students in this study by demonstrating an authentic interest in how they experienced teaching and learning in their particular contexts, establishing “conversational partnerships” (Rubin & Rubin, 2005, p. 83) with students during interviews, and member checking to confirm a valid representation of focal students’ voices.

3.2.1 Focal students: Period 2

Natalie, Elizabeth, and Mike comprised the focal group in Period 2. This group engaged in two cycles of unimodal collaborative work and one cycle of multimodal collaborative work (cycle 3) prior to whole class discussions of Macbeth, The Natural, and The Princess Bride, respectively.

Natalie (“novice”) responded on the Student Background Survey that the purpose of discussion was “to hear other points of view.” This was a minority perspective among her peers in the class who overwhelmingly identified “reading comprehension” as the purpose of discussion. When asked to describe how she normally participated in classroom discussions of literature, Natalie responded that she usually offered her opinion on the topic even if it happened to be “off base.”

Elizabeth’s (“intermediate”) responses to the discussion-based survey questions indicated a focus on the importance of literary analysis. She identified the purpose of discussions as “To further understand the reading and analyze how/why characters do what they do.”

Finally, Mike (“expert”), on the other hand, indicated the purpose of discussion as “to help us better understand what we are reading so we know its [sic] not for no reason.” He indicated in his other responses that he found discussion and reading “boring.” Table 2 provides an overview of the ways in which all students responded to the question, “How do you typically participate during literature discussions?”

Table 2. Survey Responses to “How do you typically participate during literature discussions?”

Participation Types Period 2 (#) Period 2 (%) Period 3 (#) Period 3 (%)

Active 4 23.5 1 6.7 Active-Positive 1 5.9 6 40.0 Active-Negative 1 5.9 2 13.3 Passive 2 11.8 2 13.3 Passive-Positive 1 5.9 0 0.0 Passive-Negative 1 5.9 0 0.0

Listen, Think, Speak 4 23.5 1 6.7

Listen, Think, Speak, Relate 0 0.0 1 6.7

No Response 3 17.6 2 13.3

3.2.2 Focal students: Period 3

Nick (“novice”), Leonard (“intermediate”), and Louise (“expert”) comprised the focal group for Period 3, which engaged in two cycles of multimodal collaborative project work and, in cycle 3, engaged in a collaborative unimodal task prior to whole class discussions of Macbeth, The

Natural, and The Princess Bride.

Nick’s responses to discussion-based survey questions indicated a focus on understanding the topic of discussion. The primary ways that Nick characterized his participation in discussion was through “answering and asking questions on the topic” to promote reading comprehension.

Table 3. Survey Responses to “What do you think is the purpose of literature discussions?”

Discussion Purpose Period 2 (#) Period 2 (%) Period 3 (#) Period 3 (%)

Reading Comprehension 14 82.4 12 80.0

Explore Multiple Perspectives 2 11.8 2 13.3

Apply Literature to Life 0 0.0 1 6.7

No Response 1 5.9 0 0.0

Leonard provided equally unique responses in regard to the purposes of literature discussions and the ways in which he would describe his participation in such discussions. The purpose of discussion, Leonard noted, was “To help everyone understand the meanings of literature; when more than one person discusses something it gives more than one point-of- view.” This acknowledgement of the value of multiple perspectives was not common among his classmates (see Table 2). His characterization of his active participation in discussion was equally rare: “I give my 100% attention. I don't mess around; instead I give facts and help others learn. I always try to help someone who does not fully understand something.” Interestingly, this is the only response among all students in both periods that recognized the teaching potential involved in students’ participation in discussion.

Finally, Louise was the only student across both periods who not only identified the ways in which discussion can improve comprehension, but also characterized the purposes of discussion in terms of its ability to connect ideas in the text with “real life”: “To understand, find a deeper meaning, and apply it to real life.” Louise also identified the importance of classroom culture in determining how successful a discussion can be. “It really depends on the group,” was Louise’s response when asked to comment about the kinds of discussions in which she engaged in the past. These focal students, therefore, like all students, represented both shared and singular experiences and perspectives on schooling, learning, and literature.