The Growth of Higher Educators for Social Justice:
Collaborative Professional Development in Higher Education
Molly K. Ness, PhD
Assist ant Professor , Childhood Educat ion For dham Univ er sit y
Mar shall A. Geor ge, PhD Associat e Professor , English Educat ion
For dham Univ er sit y
Kr ist en Haw ley Tur ner , PhD Assist ant Professor , English Educat ion
For dham Univ er sit y
Jane Bolgat z, PhD
Associat e Professor , Social St udies Educat ion For dham Univ er sit y
In this article, we investigate what happened when, contrary to the typical isolation of faculty in higher education, a group of higher educators from various disciplines
in a graduate school of education met regularly to discuss issues related to our teaching and social justice. More specifically, we explored the following research question: How does collaboration among higher educators from various disciplines shape their beliefs and practices of teaching for social justice? Over three years of collaboration and conversation, not only did we expand our own knowledge and understandings of notions of social justice, but we began to take important steps towards increasing our social justice actions in our teaching. This article explores our efforts to create a self-directed professional development group of higher educators and provides suggestions for similarly interested higher educators.
Adult Learning and Collaboration
For m uch of t he last cent ur y, r esearcher s w ho ex am ined t he pr ofessional liv es of t eacher s consist ent ly found t hat t eacher s work in isolat ion, in t he insulat ed env ir onm ent of t heir ow n classroom s ( Lit t le, 1990; Lor t ie, 1975) . However , effor t s hav e been m ade at all levels of educat ion t o br eak down t he bar r ier s of solit ude facing t eacher s and t o cr eate “ pr ofessional com m unit ies of t eacher s” ( Grossm an, Winebur g, & Woolw or t h, 2001) . Scholar ly lit er at ur e from t he field of educat ion incr easingly descr ibes t eacher inquiry gr oups ( Chandler - Olcot t , 2002; Cochr an-Sm it h & Ly t le, 2001; Fecho & Allen, 2003) , educat or net w or k s ( El- Haj , 2004) , collabor at iv e st udy gr oups ( Lew is & Ket t er , 2004; Lyons & Pinnell, 2001) , and facult y lear ning com m unit ies ( Richlin & Cox , 2004) . While such pr ofessional developm ent effor t s ar e m ore com m on in pr im ary and secondar y school set t ings, t he t w ent y - fir st cent ur y has seen increasing at t ent ion paid t o higher educat ion facult y inv olv ed in collabor at iv e pr ofessional developm ent endeavor s ( Br ancat o, 2003; Fecho, 2000; Richlin & Essingt on, 2004; Rogers et al., 2005; Sandr et t o et al., 2007) .
Underst andings of ourselves as adult lear ner s guided our collabor at iv e effor t s. Specifically , w e oper at ed w it h t w o assum pt ions about adult learners: 1) t hat w e, as adult lear ner s, ar e m ot iv at ed t o lear n w hen lear ning is r elev ant and m eaningful t o us ( Pr at t , 1998; Wlodk ow sk i, 1999) , and 2) per spect iv e t r ansfor m at ion can occur w hen w e, as adult lear ner s, engage in our ow n r eflect ion -on- act ion ( Moon, 1999; Schon, 1997) and dialogue w it h ot her s ( Br ookfield, 1987; Mezir ow , 2000) .
West ( 1996) , w hen discussing group lear ning ex per iences in t he w or kplace, suggest s t hat dialogue is t he k ey t o effect iv e collabor at iv e inquir y :
[ Dialogue] allows for t r ansfor m ing t he t hink ing t hat lies behind t he w ords t hat ar e said….The goal of dialogue is t o help t he gr oup br ing assum pt ions t o t he sur face and clar ify t heor ies- in- use, w hich m ust happen befor e a shar ed set of m eanings and a com m on t hink ing process can be developed. ( p. 56)
Dialogue, how ev er , needs t o be m or e t han spor adic conver sat ions in t he hallw ay s or a one- day ret r eat at t he beginning of t he school y ear . Rat h er , ongoing effor t s at com m unicat ion ar e cr ucial t o t he success of professional developm ent effor t s. Roger s et al. ( 2005) suggest t hat “ I t is gener ally accept ed t hat t he m ost effect iv e professional developm ent occurs over t im e r at her t han in isolat ed m om ent s” ( p. 348) . Dialogue and ex t ended collabor at ion w ere at t he hear t of t he process of our st udy gr oup.
Social Justice in Teacher Education: A Goal, a Process, and a Stance
As facult y at a Jesuit univ er sit y , w e oft en see and hear t he m ot t o “ m en and w om en for ot her s” —on fly er s adv er t ising com m unit y serv ice pr oj ect s, in gr aduat ion speeches, and in t he univer sit y’s prom ot ional lit er at ure. I t m akes sense, t hen, t hat aft er beginning as a group t o suppor t one anot her ’s research, w e quick ly ident ified t he t opic of social j ust ice as a com m on, if not yet defined, t hr ead of our int erest as higher educat or s. We began our w or k t oget her w it h t he belief t hat social j ust ice w as undeniably link ed t o our r esponsibilit ies of pr epar ing K- 12 t eacher s.
Taking a social justice
stance means embracing the
need for change and reflecting on one’s actions and questioning
“commonsense”
assumptions about the way things are.
k inds, and t he process of developing recogn it ion of and respect for t he v alues and ident it ies of all cult ur al gr oups. Finally , t ak ing a social j ust ice stance m eans em br acing t he need for change and r eflect ing on one’s act ions and quest ioning “ com m onsense” assum pt ions about t he w ay t hings ar e. The st ance is a lens t hr ough w hich one quest ions t he wor ld.
The const r uct of social j ust ice is com plex , and our s is not t he fir st group of educat or s t o t ack le it s m eaning. Rogers et al. ( 2005) descr ibed t he st ages of a four -y ear r esearch group ex am ining t he com plex r elat ionships bet ween pr ofessional developm ent and social t r ansfor m at ion. Cochr an - Sm it h et al. ( 1999) dem onst r at ed a “ proof of possibilit y ” t o ot her t eacher
educat ion facult y as t hey engaged in a “ Seek ing Social Just ice” proj ect at Bost on College. Their nine- m em ber m ult i- y ear collabor at iv e resear ch and professional developm ent proj ect encouraged facult y “ t o ex am ine t heir ow n underst andings of social j ust ice issues as par t of t he process of helping t heir st udent s do t he sam e.” They also sought t o “ encour age st udent s t o w or k for social
change and effect iv ely m eet t he needs of t he incr easingly div erse K- 12 school populat ion” ( p. 229) . These aut hor s suggest t hat t he est ablishm ent of inquiry com m unit ies of “ co- lear ner s and co- resear cher s” ( p. 233) m ight best facilit at e t he difficult work of placing social j ust ice at t he cor e of t eacher educat ion. The work of t he Bost on College facult y inspir ed our ow n “ self - st udy ” at bot h t he depar t m ent al and indiv idual facult y lev els, as w e ex plor ed our underst andings of t he const r uct of social j ust ice as a goal, pr ocess, and st ance.
Guiding Questions
As a com m unit y of “ co- lear ner s and co- resear chers” ( Cochran- Sm it h et al., 1999) , w e began w it h five broad quest ions about social j ust ice:
1. How do t eacher educat or s fr om var ious disciplines define social j ust ice? 2. How do t eacher educat or s from v ar ious disciplines ex plor e issues of social
j ust ice w it h t eacher candidat es in t heir cour ses?
3. What happens w hen t eacher educat ors fr om v ar ious disciplines ex plore social j ust ice collabor at ively?
4. How does collabor at ion am ong t eacher educat or s from v arious disciplines shape t heir under st andings and visions of int egr at ing social j ust ice int o t eacher educat ion cour sew or k?
5. How can our collabor at ion im pact our gr aduat e st udent s and how , in t ur n, can or does t his w or k im pact our gr aduat e st udent s’ K- 12 st udent s? While we wer e all anx ious t o get t o t he last quest ion—our ult im at e goal w as t o im pact t he lear ning and liv es of K- 12 st udent s, par t icular ly t hose liv ing in pov er t y in t he lar ge cit y w her e we t aught —w e decided t o focus fir st on our ow n developm ent as educat ors.
Though initially we envisioned the group as a place to advance our
individual research goals, as our work evolved, we began to see the process of our collaboration to be just as important as the productsof our individual scholarship. Our “Teacher-Educators-for-Social-Justice” Inquiry Group
Our lear ning com m unit y m et fr om fall 2006 t o spr ing 2009 at a Jesuit univer sit y in a m aj or m et ropolit an ar ea in t he nor t heast er n Unit ed St at es. Over t he t hr ee- year collabor at ion, facult y m em ber s float ed in and out of t he group, but four core m em ber s rem ained v olunt ar y par t icipant s t hroughout t he inquir y . All of t he par t icipant s had been elem ent ar y or secondar y school t eacher s pr ior t o w or k ing in higher educat ion. Our areas of exper t ise w ere childhood lit er acy , m iddle school English educat ion, secondar y English educat ion, social st udies educat ion, Teaching English t o Speakers of Ot her Languages ( TESOL) , and adult educat ion. At t he st ar t of t he proj ect , four m em ber s w ere in t heir fir st y ears of a t enur e- t r ack posit ion, one m em ber was in her six t h y ear , while t he r em aining m em ber was a t enur ed, m id -car eer professor . The group w as r elat ively hom ogenous in t er m s of class and r ace: m ost of us cam e from m iddle or upper - m iddle class back grounds; one par t icipant is Lat ina and t he rest ar e w hit e.
Mem ber s cam e t o t he gr oup w it h differ ing int ent ions and int er est s. For ex am ple, as a j unior facult y m em ber , Molly j oined in hopes of finding suppor t am ong colleagues for her per sonal r esear ch and wr it ing. Also a j unior facult y m em ber , Kr ist en becam e inv olv ed in order t o collabor at e wit h colleagues in r esear ch endeavors. Jane w as int r igued by t he oppor t unit y t o conduct collabor at ive r esear ch, while Marshall, hav ing r et ur ned from a y ear long leave of absence wor k ing in a public school, was eager t o rej oin t he r esear ch wor ld of higher educat ion and t o suppor t t he new facult y m em bers w ho w er e j oining t he depar t m ent .
Though init ially w e env isioned t he group as a place t o adv ance our indiv idual r esear ch goals, as our work ev olved, we began t o see t he pr ocess of our collabor at ion t o be j ust as im por t ant as t he
product s of our indiv idual scholar ship. At our init ial m eet ing, we discov ered t hat we were each ex plor ing som e aspect of cr it ical pedagogy , language, and discour se w it hin our specializat ions and t hat w e w er e independent ly gr appling w it h int egr at ing social j ust ice int o our t eaching.
Despit e our univ er sit y ’s com m it m ent t o ideals of social j ust ice, w e w er e concer ned
t hat our t eacher candidat es w ere not t r uly underst anding or enact ing social j ust ice in t heir t eaching. We decided, t hen, t o broaden t he focus of our group t o serv e bot h as suppor t for our indiv idual r esear ch effor t s as w ell as a collabor at iv e “ t eacher -educat or s- for - social- j ust ice” inquir y gr oup ( Cochr Sm it h et al., 1999; Cochr an-Sm it h and Lyt le, 2001) ar ound issues of social j ust ice in our ow n pr act ice. We agr eed t o m eet m ont hly . We also agr eed t hat w e w ould collect and ex am ine m ult iple sour ces of dat a so t hat w e could bet t er under st and our pr ofessional developm ent effor t as well as it s im pact on our t eaching.
Year One: Our Journey Together Begins
st udy group collect iv ely and as t eacher educat or s indiv idually ( see Appendix A for r eading list ) .
For our fir st t ex t discussion, w e r ead Cour t ney Cazden’s ( 2001) Classroom Discourse: The Language of Teaching and Learning. We discussed t he r ole of language in educat ional set t ings as well as t he sy st em at ic m et hodologies t hat Cazden and ot hers hav e used t o st udy classr oom discourse. At t he conclusion of t hat m eet ing, w e agr eed t hat it w as necessar y t o ex am ine our t eaching and t he wor k we wer e doing indiv idually t o t each for social j ust ice.
At t he follow ing m eet ing, w e each brought ar t ifact s t o share t o help us t alk about t he w ays t hat w e t each and st udent s lear n about social j ust ice. The docum ent s w e shar ed included assignm ent s fr om our sy llabi and st udent w ork t hat r esult ed fr om t hose assignm ent s. They included linguist ic biogr aphies, list s of works of adolescent lit er at ur e used t o explore social j ust ice in book clubs, list s of r eading assignm ent s in adult educat ion w it h a social j ust ice focus, a cult ur al field t r ip assignm ent , cult ur al and linguist ic case st udy of an urban com m unit y, and TESOL st udent r eflect ions on t heir ex per iences in diver se classroom s. ( See Appendices B and C for ex am ples; t hese ar t ifact s ser ved as t he first dat a source for our self st udy.) Our ex am inat ion of cour se assignm ent s and t he r esult ing st udent w ork confirm ed Cochr an- Sm it h et . al’s ( 1999) suggest ion t hat individuals const r uct social j ust ice different ly . Our discussion m ade it ev ident t hat group m em ber s did not oper at e w it h com m on, or ev en w ell- defined, under st andings of t he t er m social j ust ice. This led us t o t w o uncer t aint ies t hat w e felt t he need t o addr ess: How do w e, as a group and as indiv iduals, define social j ust ice? How can we be sur e t hat our st udent s ar e not m er ely parr ot ing not ions of social j ust ice because t hey t hink t hey are supposed t o?
Our Efforts to Define Social Justice
I n an effor t t o capt ure our under st andings of social j ust ice, w e decided t o each wr it e definit ions of t he t er m social justice and br ing t hese t o our “ dialogic space” dur ing t he first m eet ing of t he spr ing t erm . This m ar k ed our fir st use of t he pr act ice of pr ofessional dev elopm ent t hrough wr it ing ( Diaz- Maggioli, 2004) . I t also m ar k ed t he fir st for m al philosophical st eps t hat m any of t he gr oup m em ber s had t ak en spurr ed by our inquir y .
At t he m eet ing w hen w e shar ed our definit ions, t he group engaged in spir it ed dialogues about each of t hem . I n an audio- r ecorded session, w e discussed point s of connect ion and point s of div er gence am ong t he definit ions, and w e w ere st r uck by t he v ar ious w ays group m em ber s int erpr et ed t he t ask t o define social j ust ice. Molly pr ov ided a st r ict t ex t book definit ion of social j ust ice, ex plaining it as “ t he idea t hat societ y giv es indiv iduals and gr oups equal t r eat m ent , access, and shar e of benefit s” . Kr ist en, on t he ot her hand, defined social j ust ice by ex am ining her ow n per sonal philosophy and her life nar r at iv e. She wrot e t hat “ social j ust ice is about k now ledge and act ion, em pat hy and suppor t , and v ision and effor t . I t is about people work ing t oget her t o creat e a bet t er w or ld, bot h socially and econom ically , for all who live in it .” Mar shall and Jane t ook m ore w or ldly v iew s of t he const r uct .
We found common themes across our beliefs, including equity, access,
empowerment, and respect. I ronically —giv en our concer n about our st udent s par rot ing definit ions— w hen w e began t o ex am ine our ow n definit ions, w e were st r uck by t heir ‘book ish’ nat ur e; in fact , sev er al of us dr ew on out side sour ces t o w r it e our definit ions. Kr ist en confessed t hat her definit ion w as lar gely shaped by an online dict ionar y , and Mar shall const r uct ed his definit ion aft er r eading r elev ant lit er at ur e. Despit e t he personal nat ur e of t he t ask —t o ex plain w hat social j ust ice m eant t o us as indiv iduals—sev er al of us wr ot e v ery im per sonal definit ions. This shar ing w as im por t ant for our wor k , as it helped us realize t hat in or der t o effect iv ely t each wit h social j ust ice at t he cor e of our progr am s, w e needed t o grapple w it h t he const r uct , m ak ing it t angible t o our selv es, befor e w e could ex pect our st udent s t o do t he sam e.
Lik e Cochr an- Sm it h et al. ( 1999) , w e found com m on t hem es acr oss our beliefs, including equit y , access, em power m ent , and r espect . As t he discussion t ur ned back t o our st udent s, w e ar gued t hat social j ust ice involv ed “ per spect iv e t r ansfor m at ion” of approaching ot her s w it h
hum ilit y and under st anding, r ecognizing our ow n pr ej udices, t ak ing ow ner ship of bias, and seeing equit y t hr ough a lens of diversit y . Thr ough our dialogue, as w e sear ched for conv er gences and divergences across our
indiv idual definit ions, w e did not r each a consensus of w hat social j ust ice is or how t o act ualize social j ust ice. We realized, however , t hat our indiv idual concepts of social j ust ice influenced t he differ ing processes by w hich w e at t em pt ed t o m eet our goals of t eaching for social j ust ice ( Gr ant & Agost o, 2008) .
Though w e decided aft er t hat m eet ing t hat our st udy group should t ur n it s focus t o our pedagogy , our w ork in defining social j ust ice and dev eloping our individual philosophies w as by no m eans com plet e. I n subsequent w eek s, w e read t he dr aft of a por t ion of t he Handbook on Teacher Education ( 3r d ed.) ent it led “ Teacher Capacit y and Social Just ice in Teacher Educat ion” ( Gr ant & Agost o, 2008) w hich gav e us m uch insight int o t he issues we had grappled w it h dur ing our conv er sat ions and ser ved as t he pr im ar y lens for t he dat a analy sis of our st udy group ar t ifact s. We r et ur ned t o our indiv idual and collect iv e definit ions of social j ust ice t im e and again ov er t he t hr ee- year per iod and w it nessed an evolut ion of our under st anding of t he t er m .
Reassessing Old and Designing New Curricula
At t he final m eet ing of t he first y ear of our collabor at ion, w e again shar ed sy llabi, assignm ent s, and st udent work t hat highlight ed issues of social j ust ice in our t eaching. Tr anscr ipt ions of our audio- r ecorded session allow ed us t o ex am ine w hat , if any , change had occur red in our t eaching dur ing t he fir st year of our professional dev elopm ent effor t s. We found t hat alt hough our t eaching, including r eading and w r it ing assignm ent s, had changed lit t le ( m ost of us w ere t eaching differ ent cour ses in t he spr ing t han w e had in t he fall, m ak ing a com par ison difficult ) , w e all w er e aw ar e t hat our under st anding of, com for t w it h, and com m it m ent t o social j ust ice had gr ow n significant ly in t his shor t t im e. We also r ealized our st udent s’ work did not ev idence any deep consider at ion of t hese issues
Dur ing t hat final spr ing m eet ing, Mar shall, who had been r eading gr aduat ion por t folios t hrough t he lens dev eloped by his par t icipat ion in t he st udy group, shar ed t he follow ing r eflect ion he had as he ex am ined st udent work .
t hey ’v e m et t he st andards, but t hey ar e not doing it show ing docum ent s from [ univ er sit y ] cour sework . They ar e doing it [ based on t heir exper iences in t he K- 12 schools w here t hey are st udent t eaching] , w hich is fine, but t hey don’t hav e [ our Univ ersit y ] cour sework .
Mar shall’s com m ent highlight s an epiphany t hat m any of us had dur ing our conv er sat ion: if w e w ant ed st udent s t o t r uly em br ace t eaching for social j ust ice, w e had t o be m or e ov er t in our univ er sit y - based cour ses.
I n response t o t hese conver sat ions, fiv e of t he six group m em ber s developed and led a sum m er inst it ut e called With Literature andJustice for All. The inst it ut e w as a t w o- w eek , int ensiv e cour se w it h speaker s fr om ar ound t he count r y shar ing w it h our m ast er ’s and doct or al st udent s resear ch and pr act ice relat ed t o t he int egr at ion of lit er acy dev elopm ent , lit er at ur e st udy , and social j ust ice. As we had dur ing t he pr ev ious t wo sem est ers, our students gr appled w it h t he m eaning of “ t eaching for social j ust ice.” They creat ed act ion plans for t aking a social j ust ice st ance in t heir ow n classr oom s and for m ulat ed t he processes by w hich t o do so. This ev ent serv ed as a capst one for our year as higher educat ors ex plor ing social j ust ice t oget her and set us on t he pat h of pedagogical t r ansfor m at ion.
Though w e r ealized success in pedagogical change v ia our inquir y gr oup, t he dialogic space ser ved also as a place of r esist ance. Dur ing our shar ing session, Molly ex pr essed fr ust r at ion wit h her inabilit y t o br ing an assignm ent or st udent work t o t he t able. The cor e cour se she w as assigned t o t each included r equir ed assignm ent s, called “ gat ew ays.” She r eflect ed on t his course w it h t he gr oup:
My class is all gat ew ays, so I ’m pr et t y const r ained. And t he gat ew ay assignm ent s are t o cr eat e a t hem at ic unit of inst r uct ion, a four - w eek unit about a social st udies t opic, or a science t opic, or a chapt er book or som e m aj or t hem e, and int egr at e lit er acy int o t hat t hem e for t he four weeks. And t he second assignm ent is t o t each and car r y out som e of t hat unit and r eflect on t he ex per ience of planning it out and t eaching it . So w it hin t hose gat ew ay assignm ent s I have v ery lit t le w iggle r oom as t o w hat I can expect from t hem j ust because of t he nat ur e of t he gat ew ay . I t hink t hat t her e ar e social j ust ice issues t hat ar e im plied in bot h of t he assignm ent s as w ell as in m y class. Cer t ainly not any t hing as k ind of deep or ex plicit and m eaningful in som e of t he work t hat y ou guy s have shared. They ar e expect ed t o— Their unit is ex pect ed t o r each all st udent s and have specific inst r uct ion for t he div er se needs of t heir lear ner s, and t hey ar e ex pect ed t o show ev idence of t hat in t heir planning and how t hey w ent about differ ent iat ing t heir inst r uct ion t o m eet ev er yone’s needs….I hav e felt fr ust r at ed w it h gat ew ay s in gener al, and how gat ew ay s are evaluat ed.
The group could v isibly see Molly ’s fr ust r at ion about being unable t o share wor k t hat she consider ed “ m eaningful” dur ing our discussion. I nit ially , gr oup m em bers focused on r esponses t hat would help Molly uncov er t he “ social j ust ice issues t hat ar e im plied” in her cour se, but Kr ist en t ur ned t he conv ersat ion, pushing Molly t o r et hink her appr oach t o gat eway assignm ent s.
Kr ist en: I guess I ’m j ust w onder ing, I m ean t he gat ew ay assignm ent s, at least t he ones t hat I ’v e been given, t hey ar e assignm ent s, but t he angle t hat y ou t ak e on t he assignm ent s could var y . I t has t o be lit er acy across t he cont ent ar ea, but could y ou r equir e t hat t hey t ak e a social j ust ice slant on t hat ?
Kr ist en: Oh, ok ay .
Molly : And again, w hen I cam e I t ook [ a colleague’s] wor k and [ m y colleague] and I w ould probably appr oach t he class in ver y differ ent w ays, and it ’s a challenge t o t ake som ebody else’s sy llabus and m ak e it y our s when y ou ar e v er y unfam iliar w it h t he lar ger fr am ework of t he univer sit y . So t hat w as m y st r uggle w it h it t he fir st sem est er .
Kr ist en: Ther e’s st ill a t ension. I t hink we ar e all sit t ing her e and seeing t he t ension in you.
Molly ’s exper ience r eflect ed t he t ensions m any of us felt as w e ex plored issues of social j ust ice; t he inquir y gr oup offer ed us a safe and collegial space t o gr apple w it h t hem .
Year Two: Being More Overt
Year t w o w as som ew hat different from t he first . Wit h t w o of t he six m em ber s depar t ing on leave for t he fall 2007 sem est er , t he group did not t ape-r ecoape-rd anot heape-r foape-r m al m eet ing unt il spape-r ing 2008, t hough w e cont inued discussions and collabor at ions via em ail, t hr ough infor m al conv ersat ions, and v ia ou r scheduled m ont hly m eet ings. Wher eas social j ust ice as goal and st ance had been our focus dur ing t hat first year , we spent y ear t wo work ing out indiv idually how we could im plem ent t he pr ocesses of t eacher educat ion for social j ust ice ( Gr ant & Agost o, 2008) .
We cam e t oget her in for m al group m eet ings dur ing t he spr ing of year t wo t o shar e our indiv idual pr ogress. Once again, we t ape- r ecorded t hese discussions. We also prepar ed wr it t en r eflect ions, focusing on how our not ions of social j ust ice had expanded t hrough our conv er sat ions and ot her act iv it ies t hat had occurr ed over t he pr ev ious y ear and a half; we focused, t oo, on how t his inquir y process and collabor at iv e w or k im pact ed our t eaching, r esear ch, and pr ofessional dev elopm ent . Across t hese r ecor dings and wr it ings, it was ev ident t hat t he conversat ions r aised m em ber s’ aw ar eness of connect ing social j ust ice t o t heir t eaching, r esearch, r eading, and per sonal lives.
Near ly all m em ber s not ed t hat t hey scr ut inized and ev aluat ed t heir course cont ent , assignm ent s, and r eadings because of t heir par t icipat ion in t he collabor at iv e group. Kr ist en ex plained, “ My t ex t select ion is curr ent ly influenced by our wor k in t his r esear ch group, and t he assignm ent s I m ake ar e also subj ect t o scr ut iny . My classr oom t alk is m or e conscious.” Mar shall not ed t hat not ions of social j ust ice “ w er e em er ging as one of t he under ly ing t hem es of m y t eaching.” I nspir ed by Kr ist en’s Linguist ics Dim ensions St udy ( see Appendix B) , Jane began designing assignm ent s for her classes t hat r equir ed st udent s t o analyze dim ensions of t heir st udent s’ com m unit ies in t er m s of st r engt hs and challenges ( see Appendix D) . She had not had t hose assignm ent s in t he courses pr ev iously .
Aida’s r eflect ion sum m ar ized for us t he pat h w e had each t ak en as w e ev aluat ed st udent work and ex plor ed not ions of social j ust ice in our t eaching:
Last y ear , as par t of t his r esear ch gr oup I offer ed an init ial definit ion of social j ust ice based on a group of candidat es’ com m ent s about t his t opic. This sur v ey t hat I did w it h st udent s m ade m e aw ar e of t he need t o ex am ine t his issue m or e in dept h in t he cour ses t hat I t each. I guess t hat I w as j ust assum ing t hat because of t he cont ent of m y cour ses, t his issue of social j ust ice w as a given.
We recognized that our professional development efforts were recursive rather than linear in nature and that our recursive process had affected us as researchers and teachers. t eaching; w e had t o be m ore over t . The lit er acy inst it ut e t hat focused on social j ust ice m ar k ed our first st ep. Our ongoing infor m al and for m al conv er sat ions prov ided t he suppor t each of us needed t o cont inue our grow t h. A y ear aft er she ar t iculat ed her st r uggle w it h at t ending t o issues of social j ust ice in a cour se t hat r equired par t icular assessm ent s of her st udent s, Molly w rot e and t hen shar ed t he follow ing w it h t he gr oup:
I n m y Lit er acy Across t he Cur r iculum cour ses, I ’ve included m or e r eadings and discussions about cult ur ally r esponsive t eaching. Fur t herm or e, because of t hese conv er sat ions, I ’ve added a new elem ent int o t he t hem e unit assignm ent . I now r equir e st udent s, in t heir r eflect iv e paper s, t o prov ide ev idence for how t hey pr ove t hem selv es t o be cult ur ally r esponsive t eacher s. Fur t her m or e, social j ust ice issues per m eat e m y doct or al class in w hich we st udy applied linguist ics and issues of power and cult ur e t hat ar e inher ent in language. This discussion is suppor t ed wit h readings by Purcell- Gat es and Shir ley Br ice- Heat h. This is t he beginning of w hat [ Br ice- Heat h] w ould prov e t o be a “ fr uit ful per sonal t r ansfor m at ion.”
For Molly , pr ior t o j oining t he group, “ social j ust ice was a buzzwor d, a plat it ude or an idea w it hout significant subst ance.” When she ask ed her st udent s, she found t hat she w as not alone. She said, “ At t he st ar t of t he sum m er inst it ut e, m any of m y st udent s w ere unable t o pr ov ide a definit ion for social j ust ice. I n t he cour se of t hose t wo week s, t his dr am at ically changed wit h all st udent s hav ing som et hing t o say about social j ust ice and how it per t ains t o t heir liv es and t o t heir t eaching.” This t r ansfor m at ion—of Molly ’s t eaching and of her st udent s’ under st anding —m ir rored t he ex per ience of m any group m em ber s. Aft er t wo year s of conv ersat ion, r eading, and w r it ing, our group m em bers w er e now m uch m or e ov er t in t heir t eaching for social j ust ice.
Year Three: Understanding Our Progress and Continuing Onward
I n t he t hir d y ear , m em ber ship shift ed as we inv it ed new facult y t o j oin us and ot her s chose not t o at t end. Dur ing y ear t hr ee, we cont inued t he facult y book club appr oach, reading com m on t ex t s as a gr oup and shar ing ot her r eadings w e had com plet ed indiv idually or in pair s. A few people r ead chapt er s from Diversity and the New Teacher: Learning from Experience in Urban Schools ( Cor nblet h, 2008) . Ot her s r ead select ed chapt ers from White Teachers, Diverse Classrooms ( Landsm an & Lew is, 2006) and t he Grant and Agost o ( 2008) ar t icle. Finally , a couple of m em ber s ( including a new group m em ber )
r ead excerpt s of v ar ious work s of Michael Foucault .
Our w or k also cont inued t hr ough infor m al conv er sat ions about w hat w as happening in our classes. We r egular ly sent ar t icles t o each ot her and dialogued about t hem via em ail or at depart m ent m eet ings. The conver sat ions w e had wer e a com binat ion
of t heory building and pr act ical quest ions. The st udy gr oup had evolv ed from form al m ont hly m eet ings t o a suppor t net w or k t hat t r anscended t he w alls of our indiv idual offices.
process and st ance, for ex am ple, w e w er e able t o ex am ine t he pat h our group t ook and t o r eflect on it s im pact on t he indiv idual m em bers.
We recognized t hat our pr ofessional developm ent effor t s w er e r ecur sive r at her t han linear in nat ur e and t hat our recursiv e pr ocess had affect ed us as r esear cher s and t eacher s. The m ult ifacet ed approach t o self - dir ect ed professional developm ent ( Diaz- Maggioli, 2004) serv ed us well. Our effor t s fell int o four ar eas: t he discussions of shar ed readings; conv ersat ions about our indiv idual ex per iences as higher educat ors and r esear chers; shar ing and discussion of indiv idual r eflect iv e wr it ing pieces r elat ed t o social j ust ice; and collabor at ion on scholar ly wr it ing endeavors.
The Impact of Our Self-Study Group
I n t he dialogic space ( Ny st rand, 1982) t hat em erged dur ing our dat a analysis discussions, w e becam e increasingly cognizant of t he im pact of our discussions. We began t o not ice t hr ee result s of our w or k t oget her : ( 1) an ex pansion and deepening of our under st andings of social j ust ice, ( 2) a cr it ical analy sis of our ow n t eaching t hat r esult ed in m or e over t t eaching for social j ust ice, and ( 3) a dev eloping collaborat iv e problem - solv ing com m unit y . We discuss each of t hese im pact s in fur t her det ail below.
Expanding Our Understandings of Social Justice
By developing a lear ning com m unit y w her e w e shar ed ideas, discussed and quest ioned per spect iv es, and cir culat ed k now ledge, each of us expanded our under st andings of social j ust ice. Ther e w er e significant shift s in t he way s t hat we indiv idually concept ualized social j ust ice: fr om vague, “ book ish” j argon t o language t hat r epr esent ed a dev eloping under st anding of social j ust ice as pr ax is. For ex am ple, discussions about t he differ ences bet w een multiculturalism and social justice helped each of us t o m ak e our language use m or e ex plicit . As a gr oup we det er m ined t hat social j ust ice involv ed m or e t han j ust a cer ebr al under st anding of inequalit y and inj ust ice. Each group m em ber achiev ed som e lev el of t r ansfor m at ion by developing t he language, k now ledge, and under st andings associat ed w it h social j ust ice. Most im por t ant ly , we wer e able t o t r ansfer our under st anding of social j ust ice int o ex pect at ions t hat our st udent s would dem onst r at e social j ust ice as a goal, a process, and a stance ( Gr ant & Agost o, 2008) .
Analyzing Our Own Teaching
The ex per iences of par t icipat ing in discussions on social j ust ice prom pt ed m em ber s t o r et hink t heir t eacher pr epar at ion cour sework . Ov er t he fir st t w o y ear s of conv er sat ions, w e ex am ined st udent w or k ; we r evisit ed t he assignm ent s and r eadings t hat w er e int egr al par t s of our coursework ; w e m ade t he decision t o t each m ore over t ly for social j ust ice.
The first st ep we t ook in our goal t o be m ore ov er t in our t eaching cam e in t he for m of a group pr oj ect . Mem ber s of our inquir y t eam concept ualized, designed, and im plem ent ed a t w o- w eek sum m er inst it ut e t hat focused on social j ust ice. Dur ing t hat inst it ut e, w e w er e able t o assess specifically st udent s’ under st anding of t he const r uct . We affir m ed t hat focusing ov er t ly on issues of social j ust ice is necessar y for st udent s t o gr apple w it h t hem and t o incorpor at e t eaching for social j ust ice int o t heir pr act ice.
r equired cour se r eadings. We each also r evisit ed and m odified cour se assignm ent s. For ex am ple, in t he first y ear of m eet ings, Molly expr essed concer n t hat a r equired cour se assignm ent in w hich st udent s creat e a lit er acy - r ich t hem at ic unit did not int egr at e elem ent s of social j ust ice. Thr ough conv er sat ions, she re- env isioned t he assignm ent and added a com ponent in w hich st udent s r eflect on t heir act ions and inst r uct ional choices as cult ur ally r elev ant t eacher s.
Creating a Problem-Solving Community
As t he gr oup developed, w e began r egular ly engaging in problem solv ing, and t his r eflect ion and collabor at ion cont inues t o be a pr ior it y . We believe t hat w e accom plished m uch of our grow t h t hr ough collabor at iv e problem solv ing and cr it ical r eflect ion as a com m unit y of lear ner s. Aida, for ex am ple, shar ed a st or y about a st udent who challenged her not ions of cr it ical lit er acy , and in discussing her r esponse t o t he st udent w it h t he group, she felt v alidat ed in her act ions. The scheduled m eet ings of t he r esear ch group pr ov ided a r egular oppor t unit y for us t o discuss t hese t y pes of pr oblem s and t o r eflect on our t eaching, and t hey opened t he door t o significant infor m al conv er sat ions. For ex am ple, Kr ist en r ushed t o Jane’s classroom aft er dialoguing w it h a st udent w ho w as dealing w it h r acial t ensions in his school and w ho had ask ed her t o offer adv ice t o him and his colleagues t o fix t he problem . Wor r ied about her r esponse t o t he st udent , Kr ist en r elay ed t he conv er sat ion t o Jane, w ho not only r eassur ed her but also agreed t o speak t o t he st udent herself.
We r egular ly found ourselv es infor m ally r eaching out t o ot her m em ber s of t he group in order t o r eflect on issues relat ed t o our t eaching, int er act ions w it h st udent s, and ev en sit uat ions w it h ot her colleagues. This aspect of t he lear ning com m unit y has been an essent ial vehicle by w hich w e ar r ived at incr eased t heor et ical and pedagogical under st andings. I n st r iving t o under st and issues of social j ust ice t oget her , w e uncover ed a valuable resour ce in t he gr oup as a w hole. As a r esult , we ar e no longer indiv idual facult y m em ber s who wor k in isolat ion; we ar e par t of a com m unit y of lear ner s “ w ho ar e differ ent ly posit ioned fr om one anot her and w ho br ing different k inds of k now ledge and ex per ience t o bear on t he collect iv e ent erpr ise” ( Cochr an- Sm it h et . al, 1999, p. 233) .
Where We Plan to Go From Here
Though our collabor at iv e effort s hav e r esult ed in deepened under st andings of social j ust ice and it s im pact on our professional liv es, our wor k in t eaching for social j ust ice has only begun. Theor et ical under st anding and pedagogical change ar e cer t ainly t wo desir able out com es of any professional dev elopm ent endeav or of educat or s. We hav e becom e m or e ov er t , but w e need t o assess t he effect our t r ansfor m at ion is hav ing. We w ant t o k now w het her our st udent s are parr ot ing our ow n beliefs or w het her t hey w ill w or k t o achiev e social j ust ice as a goal, process, and st ance wit h t heir ow n st udent s. Will t hey becom e t he agent s of change t hat we hope t hey will be? This quest ion rem ains for our inquir y group t o t ack le.
It is essential to create a safe environment which encourages multiple
perspectives and honors and respects diverse
experiences and viewpoints. Thr ee of t he m em bers of t he group work t oget her in t he adolescence educat ion progr am . As we cont inue t o m ov e forward we will use our findings fr om t his gr oup t o shape t he redesign of our init ial t eacher educat ion progr am — ev er y t hing fr om assessm ent s t o field ex per iences t o t he lit er at ur e our st udent s r ead.
Finally , w e hope t o open up our conv ersat ions t o addit ional m em ber s bot h w it hin t he school of educat ion and t he larger univ er sit y . Sev er al new m em bers have j oined us at v ar ious point s in t he last t hree years; our obj ect iv es ar e t o cont inue t o inv it e and welcom e new colleagues int o our conv ersat ions in m or e com pr ehensiv e way s. I t is our belief t hat new par t icipant s will ent er int o a m ut ually beneficial endeavor ; t hey w ill lik ely benefit fr om undergoing t he t ransfor m at ions w e hav e ex plained t hroughout t his ar t icle and w e w ill cer t ainly benefit from new perspect iv es. We are par t icular ly int er est ed in hav ing group m em ber ship becom e ev en m ore het er ogeneous in order t o hav e m eaningful conv er sat ions about t he connect ions bet w een r ace, et hnicit y , gender , language, r eligion, and sex ual or ient at ion and social j ust ice.
Advice to Those Interested in Following Similar Directions
As w e hav e com e t o under st and t he benefit s of our w ork t oget her , we encour age our higher educat ion colleagues t o ex plor e sim ilar proj ect s. We believ e t hat our m odel is replicable and offer t he following suggest ions for int er est ed par t ies. We for m ed our gr oup on a v olunt ar y basis and allow ed our ow n int er est s t o det er m ine t he agenda and dir ect ion. All div ision facult y m em ber s w er e inv it ed t o at t end, r egardless of exper ience, r ank , or specializat ion; as a r esult , our gr oup com pr ised bot h j unior and t enur ed facult y, novices and vet er ans, and a w ide r ange of t eaching and resear ch exper t ise. This div er se m em ber ship was adv ant ageous in our lear ning; howev er , it is essent ial t o cr eat e a safe env ironm ent which encour ages m ult iple perspect iv es and honor s and respect s div er se ex per iences and v iewpoint s.
We found it helpful t o hav e a gr oup coor dinat or w ho w as r esponsible for planning our m eet ings, facilit at ing conv er sat ions, and r em inding us of our long- t erm goals. Though our gr oup m em ber ship w as relat iv ely fluid, as m em ber s cam e and went for professional and personal reasons, it was also essent ial for us t o m aint ain a cor e of m em bers w ho w ere
consist ent over t he years. Our gr oup m em bers also com m it t ed t o r egular conv er sat ions; t hrough our m ont hly m eet ings, w e set reasonable goals for our lear ning and self- m onit ored our progr ess. We would also r ecom m end a m ult ifacet ed approach of wr it ing, r eading, and conv er sing; it was t he com binat ion of all t hr ee processes t hat expanded our t hink ing and added t o our k now ledge bases.
Concluding Thoughts
I n sum , our effor t s t o cr eat e a self - dir ect ed professional dev elopm ent group of higher educat ors pr ov ed t o be highly v aluable for us. Not only did we ex pand our ow n k now ledge and under st andings of not ions of social j ust ice, but we began t o t ake im por t ant st eps t ow ards increasing our social j ust ice act ions in our t eaching. As Sensoy and DiAngelo ( 2009) explain, “ j ust agr eeing t hat social j ust ice is im por t ant is not enough. Educat or s m ust pr act ice social j ust ice or else t he concept is m eaningless” ( p. 345) . Ov er a t hr ee- year per iod, w e found m eaning in t he concept of social j ust ice. Our concept ual under st andings becam e pr act ical agendas. Through t his collabor at iv e pr ocess, w e grew as indiv iduals w ho are com m it t ed t o issues of equalit y , w e gr ew as higher educat or s for social j ust ice, and per haps m ost im por t ant ly we gr ew as a com m unit y of t eacher s and lear ner s.
References
Anagnost opolous, D., Sm it h, E.R.., & Ny st r and, M. ( 2008) . Cr eat ing dialogic spaces t o suppor t t eacher s’ discussion pr act ices: An int roduct ion. English Education, 41, 4- 12.
Bir chak , B., Connor , C., Cr aw ford, K., Kahn, L., Kaser , S., Tur ner , S., & Shor t , K. ( 1998) . Teacher study groups: Building community through dialogue and reflection. Ur bana, I L: NCTE.
Br ancat o, V.C. ( 2003) . Pr ofessional developm ent in higher educat ion. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 98, 59- 65.
Br ookfield, S. D. ( 1987) . Developing critical thinkers. San Fr ancisco: Jossey - Bass.
Cazden, C. ( 2001) . Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning. Por t sm out h, NH: Heinem ann.
Chandler - Olcot t , K. ( 2002) . Jour ney int o t he w ilder ness: A t eacher -r esea-r che-r g-roup’s -r et -r eat . I n S. I nt r at or ( Ed.) , Stories of the courage
to teach: Honoring the teacher’s
heart ( pp. 218- 229) . San Fr ancisco: Jossey - Bass.
Cochr an- Sm it h, M., Alber t , L., Dim at t ia, P., Fr eedm an, S., Jack son, R., Mooney , J., Neisler , O., Peck , A. & Zoller s, N. ( 1999) . Seek ing social j ust ice: A t eacher educat ion facult y ’s self- st udy. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 2 ( 3) , 229-253.
Cochr an- Sm it h, M., & Ly t le, S.L. ( 1999) . Relat ionship of k now ledge and pr act ice: Teacher lear ning in com m unit ies. Review of Research in Education, 24, 249- 305.
Cochr an- Sm it h, M. & Ly t le, S.L. ( 2001) . Beyond cer t aint y : Taking an inquir y st ance on pr act ice. I n A. Lieber m an & L. Miller ( Eds.) , Teacherscaught in the action: Professional development that matters ( pp. 45- 60) . New York : Teacher s College Pr ess.
Cochr an- Sm it h, M. ( 2004) . Walking the road: Race, diversity, and social justice in teacher education. New York : Teacher s College Pr ess.
El- Haj ( 2004) . Const r uct ing ideas about equit y from t he st andpoint of t he par t icular : Ex plor ing t he w or k of one ur ban t eacher net work .
Teacher’s College Record, 105, 817-845.
Fecho, B. ( 2000) . Dev eloping cr it ical m ass: Teacher educat ion and cr it ical inquir y pedagogy . Journal of Teacher Education, 51( 3) , 194- 199.
Fecho, B., & Allen, J. ( 2002) . Teacher s resear ching com m unit ies of pr act ice for social j ust ice. School Field, XI I ( 3/ 4) , 119 - 141.
Gallav an, N. ( 2000) . Mult icult ur al educat ion at t he academ y: Higher educat or s’ challenges, conflict s, and coping sk ills. Equity & Excellence in Education, 33, 5- 11.
Geor ge, M. ( 2004) . Facult y - st udent book clubs cr eat e com m unit ies of r eader s in t wo ur ban m iddle schools. Middle School Journal, 35( 3) , 21- 26.
Gr ant , C., & Agost o, V. ( 2008) . Teacher capacit y and social j ust ice in t eacher educat ion. I n M. Cochr an-Sm it h, S. Feinm an- Nem ser , J. McI nt yr e, & K. Dem ers ( Eds.) , Handbook of research on teacher education: Enduring questions in changing contexts. Mahw ah, N.J.: Law r ence Er lbaum Publishers.
Gr ossm an, P., Winebur g, S., & Woolwor t h, S. ( 2001) . Tow ar d a t heor y of t eacher com m unit y . The Teachers College Record, 103, 942-1012.
Lew is, C., & Ket t er , J. ( 2004) . Learning as social int er act ion: I nt erdiscursiv it y in a t eacher and r esear cher st udy gr oup. I n R. Rogers ( Ed.) , An introduction to critical discourse analysis in education ( pp. 117- 146) . Mahw ah, NJ: Law rence Er lbaum Associat es.
Lit t le, J. W. ( 1990) . Teacher s as colleagues. I n A. Lieber m an ( Ed.) , Schools as collaborative cultures: Creating future now ( pp. 165- 193) . Br ist ol, PA: The Falm er Press.
Lor t ie, D. ( 1975) . Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago: Univ er sit y of Chicago Pr ess.
Ly ons, C.A., & Pinnell, G.S. ( 2001) . Systems for change in literacy education: A guide to professional development. Por t sm out h, NH: Heinem ann.
Mezir ow , J. ( Ed.) . ( 2000) . Learning as transformation: Critical
perspectives on a theory in progress. San Fr ancisco: Jossey - Bass.
Moon, J. ( 1999) Reflection in learning and professional development: Theory and practice. London: Kogan.
Nyst r and, M. ( 1982) . The st r uct ur e of t ex t ual space. I n M. Ny st r and ( Ed.) , What writers know: The language, process, and structure of written discourse ( pp. 75–86) . New York : Academ ic Press.
Pr at t , D. ( 1998) . The resear ch lens: A gener al m odel of t eaching. I n D. Pr at t & Associat es ( Eds.) , Five perspectives on teaching in adult and higher education ( pp. 3– 14) . Flor ida: Kr eiger Publishing Com pany .
com m unit ies. New Directions for Teaching & Learning, 97, 25- 39.
Richlin, L., & Cox , M. D. ( 2004) . Developing scholar ly t eaching and t he scholarship of t eaching and lear ning t hr ough facult y lear ning com m unit ies. New Directions for Teaching & Learning, 97, 127- 135.
Rogers, R., Kr am er , M.A., Mosley , M., Fuller , C., Light , R., Nehar t , M., et al. ( 2005) . Pr ofessional dev elopm ent as social t r ansfor m at ion: The lit er acy for social j ust ice t eacher r esear ch gr oup. Language Arts, 82, 347- 358.
Sandr et t o, S., Ballar d, K., Burk e, P., Kane, R., Lang, C., Schon, P., et al. ( 2007) . Nailing j ello t o t he wall: Ar t iculat ing concept ualizat ions of social j ust ice. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 13( 3) , 309- 324.
Schön, D. A. ( 1997) . Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. San Fr ancisco, CA: Jossey - Bass.
Sensoy , O., & DiAngelo, R. ( 2009) . Developing social j ust ice lit er acy : An open let t er t o our facult y colleagues. Phi Delta Kappan, 90( 5) , 345- 353.
Sm it h, K. ( 2003) . So, w hat about t he professional developm ent of higher educat or s. European Journal of Teacher Education, 26( 2) , 201- 215.
West , W. ( 1996) . Group lear ning in t he w or kplace. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education. 71,51- 60.
Wlodkowsk i ( 1999) . Enhancing adult motivation to learn: A comprehensive guide for teaching all adults. San Fr ancisco: Jossey - Bass.
Appendix A
A Sam pling of t he Readings We Com plet ed Ov er Our Thr ee- Year Effor t
Bolgat z, J. ( 2005) . Rev olut ionar y t alk : Elem ent ary t eacher and st udent s discuss r ace in a social st udies class. The Social Studies,96( 6) , 259- 264.
Bolgat z, J. ( 2005) . Talking race in the classroom. New York : Teacher s College Pr ess. Cazden, C. ( 2001) . Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning.
Por t sm out h, NH: Heinem ann.
Cor nblet h, C. ( 2008) .Diversity and the new teacher: Learning From experience in urban schools. New York : Teacher s College Pr ess.
Chr ist ensen, L. ( 2001) .Reading, writing, and rising up: Teaching about social justice and the power of the written word. Milwaukee, WI : Ret hinking Schools. Fine, M., Weis, L., Pow ell, L. & Wong, M. ( 1997) . Off white: Readings on race,
power, and society. New Yor k: Rout ledge.
Gr ant , C., & Cooper , J. ( 2002) . An educator’s guide to diversity in the classroom.
Bost on: Hought on Mifflin.
Gr ant , C., & Agost o, V. ( 2008) . Teacher capacit y and social j ust ice in t eacher educat ion. I n M. Cochr an- Sm it h, S. Feinm an- Nem ser , J. McI nt yr e, & K. Dem er s ( Eds.) , Handbook of research on teacher education: Enduring questions in changing contexts. Mahw ah, N.J.: Law r ence Er lbaum Publisher s.
Gr eene, S. & Abt - Per k ins, D. ( 2003) . Making race visible: Literacy research for cultural understanding. New York : Teacher s College Pr ess.
Heffer nan, L. ( 2004) . Critical literacy and the writer’s workshop: Bringing purpose
and passion to student writing. New ar k , DE: I nt er nat ional Reading Associat ion.
Ladson- Billings, G. ( 2001) . Crossing over to Canaan: The journey of new teachers in diverse classrooms. New Yor k: Jossey - Bass.
Landsm an, J., & Lew is, C. ( 2006) . White teachers / diverse classrooms: A guide to building inclusive schools, promoting high expectations, and eliminating racism. St er ling, VA: St y lus.
Lew is, C. ( 2000) . Lim it s of ident ificat ion: The per sonal, pleasur able, and cr it ical in r eader r esponse. Journal of Literacy Research, 32( 2) , 253- 266.
Lew is, C. ( 2006) . Reframing sociocultural research on literacy: Identity, agency, and power. London: Lawr ence Er lbaum Associat es.
Niet o, S. ( 2004) . Affirming diversity: The sociopolitical context of multicultural education. New York : Longm an.
Niet o, S. ( 2002) . Profoundly m ult icult ur al quest ions. Educational Leadership, 60( 4) , 6- 10.
Sensoy , O. & DiAngelo, R. ( 2009) . Dev eloping social j ust ice lit er acy : An open let t er t o our facult y colleagues. Phi Delta Kappan, 90( 5) , 345- 353.
Appendix B
Linguist ic Dim ensions St udy
Ther e is m uch m or e t o language and lit er acy t han r eading t he gr eat wor k s and wr it ing a good essay. Howev er , t hese sk ills ar e oft en wh at is v alued in school. I n t his pr oj ect , y ou w ill explore t he w ay s t hat st udent s use linguist ics, language, and lit er acies in and out of school. You will work t o find way s t o br idge t he gap bet w een t he “ local lit er acies” of t he st udent s’ hom e com m unit y and t he academ ic lit er acies v alued in school. This st udy will require t r adit ional m et hods of r esear ch ( libr ar y , j our nals, et c.) and m et hods of “ t eacher - r esear ch” t hat w e w ill discuss in class.
Phase 1: Community Selection
Select a com m unit y t hat represent s t he st udent populat ion w it hin y our school or w it hin a school w here you w ould lik e t o t each . You m ay choose t o select t wo or t hr ee focal st udent s from your classes t o serv e as case st udies for t his com m unit y . Wr it e a one- par agr aph descr ipt ion of t he com m unit y ( t he pr im ary discour se) and of t he st udent s w ho r epr esent t hat com m unit y . List your pot ent ial dat a sources for uncov er ing infor m at ion about t he st udent s’ use of language, linguist ics, and lit eracies in and out of school. Post t his infor m at ion on your personal w iki page.
Phase 2: Data Collection
Collect dat a on t he uses of lit er acy w it hin t he select ed com m unit y. Ex am ine linguist ic pr act ices ( including how w or ds sound and w hat t hey m ean) and social pr act ices. Pot ent ial sour ces of inquir y include:
Ov er heard conv ersat ions ( per haps r ecorded)
Running r ecor ds of your observ at ions ( w hat y ou hear and w hat you see) Wr it ing St udent int er v iew s ( and ot her
int er v iew s)
Ot her ar t ifact s Libr ary/ I nt er net r esear ch
Phot os Radio/ TV/ Media
Br ing t he dat a you hav e collect ed t o class so t hat y ou can begin t o analy ze w hat y ou hav e found. Post a list of t he sour ces of your dat a on your w iki page.
Phase 3: Analysis and Findings
I n class you w ill share your dat a w it h your analysis t eam , which will help y ou t o begin t o:
Cat egor ize t he local lit er acies
Ex am ine t he div er sit y and w ay s of m eaning in t he com m unit y Ar t iculat e t he hom e lit er acies of t he st udent s
Cont inue t his analy sis aft er t his class session and ident ify t hr ee t o four k ey findings. You should docum ent t he finding and pr ov ide suppor t ing ev idence fr om t he dat a y ou hav e collect ed. Post t hese findings t o y our personal w ik i page.
Phase 4: Turn to Teaching
Appendix C
Social St udies Curr iculum : Cult ur al/ Polit ical Ev ent
For t his assignm ent y ou will go t o a polit ical or cult ur al event t hat is not som et hing y ou would ordinar ily at t end. This m ight be a religious serv ice, a polit ical m eet ing, an MTA open m eet ing about t r ansit changes, a Young Republicans m eet ing, a cult ur al celebr at ion. The idea is t hat y ou ar e get t ing out and lear ning som et hing NEW in an act iv e, par t icipat or y w ay . Choose an ev ent t hat y ou w ould not go t o ot her w ise. Take a leap or r isk of som e sor t ( i.e. see a group you suspect y ou w ill disagr ee w it h; an ev ent in a neighbor hood w here you do not nor m ally feel com for t able explor ing, et c.) .
BE SURE TO GET NECESSARY I NVI TATI ONS AND DRESS APPROPRIATELY.
You will t hen wr it e a r esponse answ er ing t he following quest ions in as creat iv e a way as y ou lik e ( 1 page) :
What did y ou see and do? What did you lear n fr om t he event ? How does t his r elat e t o social st udies? How does t his r elat e t o t he readings and conv er sat ions in our class? Reference NCSS or NYSt at e st andar ds. I f st udent s w ent t o t his ev ent , w hat w ould t hey lear n? What quest ions w ould t his spar k ? What w ould st udent s need t o k now t o best appreciat e t he ev ent ?
Appendix D
Assignm ent s Jane added t o her curr iculum cour se
2008: Map of school
Using t he quest ions gener at ed in t he fir st class, you w ill cr eat e a m ap of your school and surr ounding neighbor hood not ing significant cult ur al, econom ic, social, and polit ical places.
2009: Community Analysis Sheet
Descript ion/ Ex planat ion How t his resource/ issue m ight be used
An ex cellent t eacher in y our school
What m akes t his t eacher effect iv e? Be specific. I f possible, relat e t o crit eria described in Ladson- Billings* or ot her t heory .
Can y ou shadow t his t eacher? Meet wit h him / her t o plan or t alk about t eaching? I nt erview st udent s t o see w hy t hey t hink he/ she is effect iv e? Team - t each wit h t he t eacher?
A com m unit y- based organizat ion housed in or associat ed wit h y our school
How does t his organizat ion w ork wit h st udent s? I n what w ay s is it ut ilized? What m ak es it effect iv e?
How m ight y ou part ner wit h t his organizat ion? What can y ou learn from t his organizat ion? Could it be im prov ed in som e w ay ?
A resource in t he local com m unit y , such as a com m unit y cent er, m osque, church, or sy nagogue
How does t his organizat ion w ork wit h st udent s? I n what w ay s is it ut ilized? What m ak es it effect iv e?
How m ight y ou par t ner wit h t his organizat ion? What can y ou learn from t his organizat ion? Could it be im prov ed in som e w ay ?
A com pelling social, econom ic or polit ical issue in t he local com m unit y such as high ast hm a rat es, high unem ploym ent
What are t he hist ory and polit ics of t his issue? How does it affect t he people in t he com m unit y ?
How m ight som e of t he issues st udent s are learning about in y our class be relat ed t o t his issue? I n w hat w ay s are t he
polit ical/ social/ econom ic quest ions or aspect s of t he issue sim ilar t o w hat st udent s are learning about in hist ory ? How m ight y ou craft an essent ial quest ion t hat w ould relat e t o bot h t his issue and t he ot her cont ent of y our class?
