RES 5535: Race, Class, and Gender in Literacy Research (summer 2009)

As I read both of these case studies I noticed I kept underlining & making notes about two thematic similarities: trust & culturally relevant curriculum. While Noll & Henry approached their research and reporting in very different ways, both case studies made clear the need to build trust within learning communities while involving the student’s unique cultural background as part of a responsive and culturally relevant curriculum.

Before reading these case studies, I had never considered the need for researchers to establish themselves as trusted members of a community rather than simply as observers. On page 241, Henry explains that she worked to build relationships with the girls in her study groups before ever pushing them to extend their thinking or take emotional and educational risks. It was almost as if she needed to reprogram these girls both to trust her and to trust themselves, as opposed to the prior system “in which the teacher does the thinking, knowing, talking, and decision making, and in which the students passively comply and regurgitate.” Her research was tiered, with each tier represented by an increased level of trust.

Initially, I was turned off by her word choice and seemingly prejudicial opinion statements. However, I made myself read the whole case study twice. During round two I understood what she meant by calling the research “outsearch” in which her dedication to the young ladies in the study was more important that her objectivity as a researcher. I appreciated her clarification and believe it brought a degree of humanity to the study.

Noll explains from the very beginning that she is an outsider asking to be included in the American Indian culture. She worked to cultivate trust from the very beginning, inviting parental, educator, and student input. Her responsiveness to parent and student understandings demonstrated a dedication to the people involved in the study. (An example of this is found on page 211 when she changes the name of the club to “Literary” rather than “Literacy Club”.)

I wonder if the research and “best practice” information that is handed down from us from county and state educational decision makers considers the humanity who are represented by the numbers and figures?

Both studies also make clear the need for schools to create culturally relevant curriculum that works to facilitate social change. I would argue that it is impossible for students to find and utilize their “voices” in classrooms that don’t recognize their unique cultural backgrounds. I love the quote Henry includes on 236, “Voice is power—power to express ideas and connections, power to direct and shape an individual life towards a productive and positive fulfillment for self, family, community, nation, and the world.” I think we, as teachers, ultimately desire all of our students to find their voices, but maybe we’re falling short on this.

Noll points to the disconnect between what’s taught and what’s real in the lives of Daniel & Zonnie. Although there is no reference to “voice,” both students are seen as nearly invisible. They participate minimally in school instruction, although both clearly have strong literacy skills that carry over into their home communities. It’s not okay for us to say that students are “just kind of there” (225). It hurts my feelings for Zonnie, but makes me think of many of my young Hispanic ladies who love poetry, friends, and boys, but fall through the public school cracks.

I thought both studies were thought-provoking. I’ll admit that I need to work on finding ways to include more culturally relevant information in my instruction—likely in Language Arts & Social Studies. I love the idea of an after school club that would get into more real issues like Henry’s did. Any suggestions on ways to do that with administrative support?

Ruth Johnson