POETRY CENTERS FOR THE PURPOSE OF LOWERING INHIBITIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS IN THE CONSTRUCTIVIST ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS CLASSROOM Except where reference is made to the work of others, the work described in this dissertation is my own or was done in collaboration with my advisory committee. This dissertation does not include proprietary or classified information. _______________________________________ Susan Nicole Piper Certificate of Approval: ______________________________ ______________________________ Robert Leier Alyson Whyte, Chair Assistant Professor Associate Professor Curriculum and Teaching Curriculum and Teaching _______________________________ ______________________________ Thomas Nunnally Daniel Henry Associate Professor Assistant Professor English Educational Foundations, Leadership, and Technology ________________________________ George T. Flowers Dean Graduate School POETRY CENTERS FOR THE PURPOSE OF LOWERING INHIBITIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS IN THE CONSTRUCTIVIST ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS CLASSROOM Susan Nicole Piper A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Auburn University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Auburn, Alabama August 10, 2009 iii POETRY CENTERS FOR THE PURPOSE OF LOWERING INHIBITIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS IN THE CONSTRUCTIVIST ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS CLASSROOM Susan Nicole Piper Permission is granted to Auburn University to make copies of this dissertation at its discretion, upon request of individuals or institutions and at their expense. This author reserves all publication rights. ___________________________ Signature of Author ___________________________ Date of Graduation iv DISSERTATION ABSTRACT POETRY CENTERS FOR THE PURPOSE OF LOWERING INHIBITIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS IN THE CONSTRUCTIVIST ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS CLASSROOM Susan Nicole Piper Doctor of Philosophy, (M.Ed., Auburn University, 2008) (M.Ed., Auburn University, 2000) (B.S., Auburn University, 1997) 332 Typed Pages Directed by Alyson Whyte The purpose of this study was to examine what happened in terms of lowering ELL students? affective filters when a particular teacher of English language learners introduced her poetry activities, centered on aesthetic response and scaffolding transactions, to a group of English language learners who varied in fluency from nonfluent to near fluent English proficiency. Ten ELLs from grades 8 and 9 who have different L1 backgrounds and who vary in fluency from non-English speaking to near- native English fluency participated in the study. The activities were developed based on an argument that transactions with particular poetry activities structured through centers will result in the lowering of students? inhibitions, thus accommodating access to the v target language in the learner?s environment and consequent target language acquisition in the academic domains. The results of the study demonstrated that transactions with particular poetry activities structured through centers indeed resulted in the lessening of participants? inhibitions, thus providing access to the target language in the learner?s environment and consequent target language acquisition in the English language arts academic domain. Participant products, both tangible and oral, seemed to indicate that learners? transactions with these poetry activities lowered inhibitions and resulted in interactions with and among other participants, thus suggesting evidence consistent with a lowered affective filter. vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Many thanks to my committee chair, Dr. Alyson Whyte, to my committee members Dr. Robert Leier, Dr. Thomas Nunnally, and Dr. Daniel Henry, to my interrater Dr. Laureen Fregeau, and to my outside reader Dr. Robin Sabino for their encouragement and advice along the path of my academic journey. Thanks also to Dr. Barbara Ash who has been with me since the start of my college career, and who taught me that educators should, above all else, put students first. A very special thanks to Dr. Terry Ley for showing me that the true power in education comes from within the student and that it is the task of the educator to help students find that inner power. Thanks to my husband Adam Piper, my personal support system from day one. Thanks to Ling Zhao who tirelessly and beautifully proofread, edited, and formatted my manuscript. Thanks also to the Piedmont Poets, Richarde Talbot, Cathy Buckhalt, Angela Ellis, and Lori Hardee, of whom I am proud to say I am a part and have benefitted more than I can ever express from their unswerving dedication to me personally and their belief in me artistically. Finally, I am most grateful to my parents Robert D. Ferguson and Elizabeth Ferguson for always believing in me and for teaching me the most important lesson of my life?that meeting the needs of others is the best way to demonstrate that you truly care for them. vii Style manual used: Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (5th ed.) Computer software used: Microsoft Office, 2007 QSR N6, 2002 Inspiration 8, 2006 viii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................. xi LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... xii ??????????????????????????????x I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................1 Significance of the study ..........................................................................................1 Language Learning and Acquisition ........................................................................2 English Language Learners and Legislation ............................................................3 Standards-Based Curricula.......................................................................................6 A Setting for Learning: The Transactional Classroom ............................................7 Poetry as Vehicle for Meeting ELL Needs ............................................................11 Definitions of Key Terms ......................................................................................15 II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE........................................................................................18 Overview ................................................................................................................18 Vygotsky?s and Krashen?s Theories of Learning ..................................................19 The Zone of Proximal Development......................................................................19 19 ????????????????????.19 Scaffolding in the Zone of Proximal Development ...............................................20 Multiple Literacies .................................................................................................24 Krashen?s Theories of Second Language Learning and Acquisition.....................25 Krashen?s Monitor Theory .....................................................................................26 The Monitor Hypothesis ........................................................................................27 The Affective Filter................................................................................................29 Krashen?s Input Hypothesis and Vygotskyan Theory ...........................................30 Lowering the Affective Filter for Language Acquisition and Learning to Occur .32 Constructivism and the Transactional Classroom..................................................34 Constructivism Compared to Behaviorism ............................................................34 Transformation .......................................................................................................36 Transaction .............................................................................................................37 English Language Learners in Academic Domains ...............................................39 Sheltered and Scaffolded Instruction in Academic Domains ................................40 Learning Centers as Sites of Peer Interaction ........................................................43 Poetry and English Language Learners .................................................................44 Implications from Literature ..................................................................................48 III.METHOD .....................................................................................................................49 Introduction ............................................................................................................49 ix Study Frame ...........................................................................................................49 Pilot Study and Teacher-as-Researcher Observations ...........................................51 Setting ...................................................................................................................52 Materials ................................................................................................................52 Researcher Role and Bias ......................................................................................53 Data Collection Procedures ....................................................................................55 Field Notes and Memoing ......................................................................................56 Audiotaping and Videotaping ................................................................................59 Participant Products and Feedback ........................................................................59 Data Analysis .........................................................................................................60 Software .................................................................................................................60 Hand Coding ..........................................................................................................61 Strategic Framework ..............................................................................................63 Conceptual Framework ..........................................................................................63 Demonstrating Credibility .....................................................................................65 Participants .............................................................................................................67 Limitations .............................................................................................................78 IV. RESULTS ....................................................................................................................80 Overview ................................................................................................................80 Context Charts and Observations...........................................................................80 Recruitment ............................................................................................................80 Data Analysis .........................................................................................................81 Day One .................................................................................................................82 Day Two...............................................................................................................100 Day Three.............................................................................................................108 Day Four ..............................................................................................................116 Day Five ...............................................................................................................124 Day Six.................................................................................................................134 V. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................142 Overview ..............................................................................................................142 Research Question 1 ............................................................................................143 Discussion: Lowering Participants? Affective Filters ..........................................152 Research Question 2 ............................................................................................154 Discussion: Transactions with Texts ...................................................................160 Research Question 3 ............................................................................................162 Discussion: Participant Interaction ......................................................................168 Implications for the English Language Arts Classroom ......................................169 Writerly Moves ....................................................................................................173 Talk ......................................................................................................................173 x Recasting ..............................................................................................................177 Practicing and Editing ..........................................................................................178 A Model for the Classroom..................................................................................179 Implications for Future Research .........................................................................179 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................181 APPENDIX A ? Notebook Pages from Pilot Study ........................................................194 APPENDIX B ? Poetry Center Activities .......................................................................203 APPENDIX C ? Conceptual Framework ........................................................................212 APPENDIX D ? Informed Consent Forms ......................................................................218 APPENDIX E ? Coding Sample......................................................................................231 APPENDIX F ? Transcript from Discussion about Poetry on Day One .........................257 APPENDIX G ? Community Transcript .........................................................................263 APPENDIX H ? Discussion during Composition of Community Quilt .........................265 APPENDIX I ? Scaffolds for Haiku, Tanka, and Lantern Poems ...................................275 APPENDIX J ? Scaffold for Recasting ?This is just to say? ...........................................279 APPENDIX K ? ?Fire and Ice? Power Point by Matthew ..............................................282 APPENDIX L ? ?Burning Trash? Power Point by John .................................................287 APPENDIX M ? Villanelle Scaffold Template ...............................................................292 APPENDIX N ? Semi Structured Interviews ..................................................................294 APPENDIX O ? Participant Daily Activities ..................................................................305 APPENDIX P ? Emergent Codes ....................................................................................316 xi LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Types of Data Collected.....................................................................................................56 Table 2 A Priori Codes ...................................................................................................................62 Table 3 Participant Characteristics .................................................................................................69 Table 4 Stages of Language Development .....................................................................................69 Table 5 Participant English Fluency ...............................................................................................85 Table 6 Participant Primary Language Fluency ..............................................................................86 Table 7 Participant English Fluency Perception .............................................................................87 xii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Interactions within Vygotsky?s Zone of Proximal Development ......................................20 Figure 2 Krashen?s and Vygotsky?s Theories of Language Development Compared .....................25 Figure 3 Elements of Krashen?s Monitor Theory ............................................................................26 Figure 4 Stages of Language Development Based on Krashen?s Natural Order Hypothesis ..........27 Figure 5 Krashen?s Monitor Hypothesis ..........................................................................................29 Figure 6 Krashen?s Affective Filter Hypothesis ...............................................................................30 Figure 7 Krashen?s Input Hypothesis ...............................................................................................31 Figure 8 Differentiation between Elements of Krashen?s Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis ..........33 Figure 9 Robert?s Demographic Relevant to this Case Study ..........................................................70 Figure 10 Matthew?s Demographic Relevant to this Case Study ......................................................71 Figure 11 John?s Demographic Relevant to this Case Study .............................................................72 Figure 12 Carrie?s Demographic Relevant to this Case Study ...........................................................73 xiii Figure 13 William?s Demographic Relevant to this Case Study........................................................73 Figure 14 Nicole?s Demographic Relevant to this Case Study ..........................................................75 Figure 15 Laura?s Demographic Relevant to this Case Study ...........................................................75 Figure 16 Jennifer?s Demographic Relevant to this Case Study ........................................................76 Figure 17 Angie?s Demographic Relevant to this Case Study ...........................................................77 Figure 18 Chris?s Demographic Relevant to this Case Study ............................................................78 Figure 19 Photograph of Participant Work Area................................................................................82 Figure 20 Photograph of Bilingual Spanish-English Poster of ?Como Tu? ......................................89 Figure 21 Photograph of Robert?s Lantern Quilt Piece ......................................................................91 Figure 22 Photograph of Angie?s Lantern Quilt Piece .......................................................................92 Figure 23 Photograph of Nicole?s Haiku Quilt Piece.........................................................................93 Figure 24 Photograph of Laura?s Lantern Quilt Piece .......................................................................94 Figure 25 Photograph of Chris?s Lantern Quilt Piece ........................................................................94 Figure 26 Photograph of William?s Lantern Quilt Piece ...................................................................95 xiv Figure 27 Photograph of Jennifer?s Lantern Quilt Piece ....................................................................96 Figure 28 Photograph of Carrie?s Lantern Quilt Piece.......................................................................97 Figure 29 Photograph of Matthew?s Haiku Quilt Piece .....................................................................98 Figure 30 Photograph of John?s Haiku Quilt Piece ............................................................................98 Figure 31 Photograph of the Community Quilt..................................................................................99 Figure 32 Photograph of Robert with his ?Rock Star Snake? puppet and monkey puppet .............101 Figure 33 Angie?s ?Proper British Man? and ?Redneck Girl? Puppets ...........................................102 Figure 34 Photograph of Chris?s Spanish-Speaking Puppet ............................................................103 Figure 35 Photograph of William?s English-Speaking Puppet ........................................................103 Figure 36 Photograph of Nicole?s Bilingual German-English Puppet with Poem ...........................104 Figure 37 Photograph of Nicole?s Romeo and Juliet Puppets..........................................................105 Figure 38 Photograph of John?s Jesus Puppet ..................................................................................106 Figure 39 Photograph of Laura?s ?Rasta? Puppet ............................................................................110 xv Figure 40 Photograph of Chris?s Valentine Poem Made from Conversation Heart Candies...........113 Figure 41 Photograph of Matthew?s Poetry Vase ............................................................................126 Figure 42 Photograph of Matthew?s Poetry Mushroom ...................................................................127 Figure 43 Photograph of Laura?s ?Burning Trash? Collage ............................................................136 Figure 44 Photograph of Angie?s ?Fire and Ice? Collage ................................................................137 1 I. INTRODUCTION The U.S. accommodates a growing number of speakers of English as a second language. Among the difficulties faced by English language learners (ELLs) is entry into the English language environment. More observable to native speakers are the pains with which newcomers approach social interactions. What is less evident are difficulties faced by many nonnative English speakers in terms of how to begin to interact in a predominantly English academic language environment. Though some learners in an academic situation readily take risks while learning and negotiating language, many are more likely to wait for an invitation to practice academic language. Even when such opportunities present themselves, some learners will participate with great hesitancy and apprehension (Zainuddin, 2002). Significance of the Study The purpose of this study was to examine what happened in terms of lowering ELL students? affective filters when a particular teacher of English language learners introduced her poetry activities, centered on aesthetic response and scaffolding transactions, to a group of English language learners who varied in fluency from nonfluent to near fluent English proficiency. The results of the study, indicating that transactions with particular poetry activities structured through centers seemed to result in the lessening of participants? inhibitions, thus accommodating access to the target language in the learner?s environment and consequent target language acquisition, may serve as a model for English language arts classroom practice in promotion of language 2 learning and acquisition. Participant products, both tangible and oral, seemed to indicate that learners? transactions with poetry activities lowered inhibitions and resulted in interactions with and among other participants, thus indicating evidence consistent with a lowered affective filter. Language Learning and Acquisition Gone are the days of assuming that ELLs have been well served if they can produce in English their addresses, names of colors, days of the week, and simple phrases that are useful primarily for finding a restroom and ordering in the school lunch line. Given the growing number of limited English proficient (LEP) members of our society, there is a growing need to educate more diverse students for successful lifelong endeavors. Wong Fillmore (1991) in her model for learning the social context of school, suggests elements that may be necessary to promote second language acquisition. Wong Fillmore asserts that there are three major components of second language acquisition: (1) learners who realize they need to learn the target [L2] language and are motivated to do so; (2) speakers of the target language who know it well enough to provide the learners with access to the language and the help they need for learning it; and (3) a social setting which brings them together frequently enough for learning to occur (Wong Fillmore, 1991, 50). Wong Fillmore?s conceptual framework for language learning may seem intuitive. Indeed, for language learning to take place there must exist a willing learner and a willing teacher in a classroom setting that promotes learning through communication with the learner. Unfortunately there is far too often a willing learner who meets with a teacher who feels less than equipped, therefore creating a classroom setting unfavorable for 3 promoting high-quality, meaningful learning experiences?resulting in degradation of student motivation. While some students are able to learn in spite of the absence of educational nurture, others become discouraged because, ?the only way they can have access to the social or academic world of school is by learning the language spoken there? (Wong Fillmore & Snow, 2000, 12). Valdes (2001) addresses the school and its constituents with her claim that students? success in acquiring English and in comprehending content knowledge relies heavily on their access to English during the school day (Valdes, 2001). In Learning and Not Learning English: Latino Students in American Schools, her multiple case study evaluation of school experiences of ELLs, Valdes emphasizes the difficulties of willing but ill-equipped teachers and schools, demonstrating that good intentions without the ability to follow through fall short in promoting student success. English Language Learners and Legislation The Elementary and Secondary Education Act as reauthorized by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 has resulted in a positive outcome concerning ELLs: people? educators?have been forced to take note of the education of ELLs and to be held accountable for the success or failure of this growing population (107th United States Congress, 2001). No longer may a child be passed along for knowing minimal vocabulary. A student?s failures may not be explained away based on date of entrance into the U.S. classroom, for the number of immigrant students unable to earn a high school diploma based on limited language and limited content knowledge must decline, just as that number must diminish for all students. The success of the immigrant student carries as much weight as that of the native speaker of English in federally mandated 4 measures of adequate yearly progress, in that the disaggregated data for students in special populations must reflect yearly gains at the school level. One outcome of monitoring fluency and academic advancement of ELLs has been frustration for many teachers who need resources and knowledge to meet the needs of this growing population. This documented need for teacher education, that ?teachers lack the knowledge because most have not had well-designed professional preparation for their current challenges? (Snow, 1992; Wong Fillmore & Snow, 2000), has brought to the forefront an imminent issue for those who had not, prior to the legislation, focused much attention on this marginalized population (Wong Fillmore & Snow, 2000). Many educators want to help these newcomers. Others see the legal ramifications of either withholding or failing to provide adequate support. Since this need to produce evidence of ELL student achievement is now one that rests on the shoulders of all school personnel who encounter the student, there has been an increase in the number of educators seeking ways to advance the academic achievement of ELLs (Herrell & Jordan, 2004). Short and Echevarria (1999), in their work on making content accessible in the English language learning environment, assert that it is the responsibility of the teacher to not only carefully plan and deliver content to meet the objectives of state and local curricula, but to do so in a way that supports student language development. Rosenblatt, who has served the world of language arts with her explanation of the essentiality of both reader and text in the making of meaning, offers similar advice. Rosenblatt (2005a) says, If the language, the setting, the theme, the central situation, are all too alien, even a ?great work? will fail. All doors to it are shut. The printed words will at best conjure up only a ghost of a literary experience. The literary work must hold out 5 some link with the young reader?s own past and present preoccupations, emotions, anxieties, and ambitions? (Rosenblatt, 2005a, 65). This charge to support language development by accessing student experience may be seen as a framework teachers can rely on in order to address the needs of ELLs within the classroom setting. Although many educators may recognize the need to go beyond rote memorization techniques in order to achieve high academic outcomes with students, there are those who do not know how nonroutine classwork looks in practice nor how to enact nonroutine teaching. Wong Fillmore and Snow (2000) suggest that teachers need help knowing how to design the classroom environment so that both language acquisition and content literacy learning are not impeded by linguistic obstacles (Wong Fillmore & Snow, 2000). One of my goals as both an educator and a researcher is to better inform mainstream classroom teachers, ESOL teachers, and other educational stakeholders of ways to effectively teach ELLs so that they may have access to success both inside and outside the classroom?s doors. As a teacher of ELLs and through my background in English language arts I believe poetry may be an aesthetic experience through which secondary English teachers can address students? inhibitions in an attempt to lower their affective filters (Krashen, 1985) concerning the target language. Utilization of inner capital (Rosenblatt, 2005b) within students may aid them in creating their own understandings grounded in poems as source texts for lessons. These understandings of poems may shape students? own realities within and extending beyond the world of the source text. That construction of literary understanding may build up ELLs? experience 6 in the target language and broaden the scope of ELLs? access to information in the target language. How can we expect our ELL students to use their prior knowledge, make the most of their lived-through experiences and broaden their academic horizons, if all that we provide them is restricted to the language and rules of the monolingual American English classroom environment? An even more pertinent issue in terms of ELLs is that ?inner capital? Rosenblatt examines. It is not that students enter the classroom without linguistic currency. It?s just that their currency is in a different denomination; they may not have been in the country long enough to exchange it. They may not know under what conditions and how to make the trade. Standards-Based Curricula Through working closely with mainstream classroom teachers of ELLs, I have come to understand concerns regarding the need for curricula that reflect adherence to standards for courses of study in the academic domains. I am not suggesting that a curriculum be standardized in the sense Eisner (1998) referred to when he warned that, ?The goals for teaching are not always the same, nor will the ?route? that proved effective with one group of students necessarily be effective with another group living and working in other situations? (Eisner, 1998, 209). Having served on standards committees focused on advocacy for ELLs I have seen firsthand how research-based, learner-centered standards can help ensure that ELLs receive access to the same high-quality educational outcomes as native speakers of English, providing not a decree for how to teach but rather a guide to ensure that all students are exposed to equitable content material. 7 The World Class Instructional Design in Assessment (WIDA) standards (2007) for English language learners are based on the content standards of the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) (1996), National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) (2000), and National Council of Teachers of Social Studies (NCSS) (2002) professional associations; on the National Science Education Standards (2008); and on the standards for Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) (1997). The WIDA standards offer not only a guide for instruction in the academic domains but also sample indicators of progress to inform evaluation at varying levels of English language proficiency within these four academic domains. The transactional learning environment I have advocated in the preceding pages fulfills the intent of and aligns with the standards for reading, writing, speaking, and listening as outlined in the WIDA standards. These standards may be seen as a guide for planning instruction, for without such a guide too many teachers with good intentions might otherwise miss the mark on ways and scope of educating ELLs. While there are many practices that seem to work well for all students regardless of native language background, there are key issues that are important to consider when planning for meeting the needs of ELLs. The WIDA standards offer a guide which teachers may consult as they look for ways to advance the fluency of their ELLs. A Setting for Learning: The Transactional Classroom One way to provide ELLs opportunities to enter an English language environment is to create a setting in which transactions may take place between the learner and source texts. Rosenblatt explains the Vygotskian idea of educational transactions: ?Reading is a 8 transaction, a two-way process involving a reader and a text at a particular time under particular circumstances? (Rosenblatt, 2005, 73). She clarifies her reference to text as, ?. . . a set of signs capable of being interpreted as verbal symbols. Far from already possessing a meaning that can be imposed on all readers, the text actually remains simply marks on paper [or marks on other media], an object in the environment, until some reader transacts with it. The term reader implies a transaction with a text; the term text implies a transaction with the reader. ?Meaning? is what happens during the transaction: hence the fallacy of thinking of them as separate and distinct entities instead of factors in a total situation? (7). Here Rosenblatt claims that meaning is a product of transactions between readers and texts. This research takes a similar stance on meaning as not preexisting but rather an outcome of transaction between a particular reader and a particular text. While I am not presuming that transactions with poetry will propel students into rapid oral or literary fluency, based on a pilot study and my experiences in English language arts and ESOL classrooms it has seemed that both oral interactions among ELL students and the products generated as the students transact with the words and the rhythms and other aural features of poems as source texts are worth considering. In ?What Facts Does this Poem Teach You?,? Rosenblatt?s argument for fostering transactions between students and source texts is that such transactions in classrooms ?honor the developments of the social and aesthetic sensibilities of children as of equal importance with their logical or cognitive development.? Rosenblatt suggests, ?The [social, aesthetic, and logical] facets of the personality should be seen as mutually supportive. The school and classroom environment should provide for activities and 9 pursuits that foster the acquisition of language by enabling the child to bring meaning [calling on prior experience] to the printed page? (Rosenblatt, 2005c, 103). Social and aesthetic experience, Rosenblatt contends, can and should support development of students? logic as critical and integrative thinkers, speakers, listeners, readers, and writers. Whether a student makes meaning of all, some, or none of the words in a poem, the rhythms and other aural features of poems may invoke feeling within the reader. Rosenblatt comments on another occasion, ?We must pay attention not only to the sense of the words?what they refer to, the ideas we organize with their help?but also to such things as the sound and rhythm of the words. All of these are important, we know, if we are to experience a poem? (Rosenblatt, 2005c, 97). We certainly experience transactions with songs to which we do not understand the words, feeling emotions in response to love songs in other languages, in response to national anthems of other countries. May we not also transact with the music of the sounds of poetry regardless of familiarity with the words? In this aesthetic experience we ?respond to the very story or poem that we are evoking during the transaction with the text. In order to shape the work, we draw on our reservoir of past experience with people and the world,? perhaps, when the words are familiar ones, together with, ?our past inner linkage of words and things, our past encounters with spoken or written texts? (Rosenblatt, 2005, 75). A pilot study allowed me to observe the ways students with limited to near zero experience (see Table 4 on page 59 for a full explanation of English fluency levels) with the English language transacted with poems in a variety of ways such as visual interpretation, performance, multimedia representation, and recasting, or ?exploring 10 many different ways of reading a piece of literature? (Claggett, Reid, & Vinz, 1996, 2). An early explanation I would like to offer as to why poetry may lower the affective filters of English language learners may be best summarized by Rosenblatt (2005), who claims that students should not be passively exposed to poems as ?ready-made objects.? She poses that a poem is rather, ?a happening, an event,? which the reader approaches with all his or her lived-through experiences that are stimulated by the words (Rosenblatt, 2005c, 96). One might question how it would be possible for a student who does not know the target language to have a transaction with a poem in that language. Rosenblatt (2005) says that we must reject the rationalization that a student must ??understand? the text cognitively, efferently, before it can be responded to aesthetically.? This theory of literature may expand the possibilities for teachers who have previously harbored concerns about whether the students comprehend the content of literature studied in school. Rosenblatt says, ?The child may listen to the sound, hear the tone of the narrative ?voice,? evoke characters and actions, feel the quality of the event, without being able to analyze or name it? (Rosenblatt, 2005, 80). Not having encountered some of the limitations implied by many teachers from the United States who reportedly squeeze poetry into the last week of school, or teach poetry as having one definitive, hidden meaning (Linaberger, 2004), the ELLs involved in the pilot study and subsequent research I have conducted were met with short texts, dramatic readings and re-readings, colorful drawings, and other multimodal expressions of meanings constructed from source texts. While the English native language students and the more fluent ELLs and I were likely to show the newcomers ways of knowing about the literature, I was careful to refrain from imposing absolutes on or preferences for 11 the way of knowing about literary pieces, for as Rosenblatt says, ?? we have seen that the aesthetic stance, in shaping what is understood, produces a meaning in which cognitive and affective, referential and emotive, denotation and connotation . . . are intermingled? (Rosenblatt, 2005, 80). Students heard poems through my reading and through read alouds by other students. They saw works being performed through dramatic readings and interpretive dance and skits. Perhaps that is why these students seemed generally open to attempting communication early in their U.S. classroom experience as evidenced through their participation in conversations and their practice of written English. I have tried teaching specifically about form and function (e.g., line and meter) as well as presenting lenses through which literature could be interpreted, and the resulting response by newcomers and other limited fluency students was much delayed as they struggled to relate the content to anything in their experiential background. I have observed that first sharing poetry and what it has to offer in terms of aesthetics seems a more welcoming entry into language acquisition. Poetry as Vehicle for Meeting ELL Needs It might seem futile to try to define poetry, for in the words of Kennedy (1966) in his An Introduction to Poetry, ?If poetry is to be deeply known and powerfully experienced, definitions of its essence will be of little help? (Kennedy, 1966, xiii). Nevertheless, it seems helpful to at least try to explain why poetry, over other literary forms and venues, is appropriate for this study. Poetry is highly accessible literature because it may be performed, sung, written, quoted, observed: all in as long or as brief a time as the audience and performer would give it. While there are certainly poems epic 12 in scale, the length of most poems makes them seem more approachable and less threatening than lengthier works of literature. Lewis and Robb (2007) point out, ?. . . poems are short and cut to the heart of a topic. In just a few minutes you can use a poem to connect students to your content topic in powerful and memorable ways? (Lewis & Robb, 2007, 6). A brief poem can quickly acquaint students with a topic. Rosenblatt suggests that when we experience poems, ?. . . we draw on our reservoir of past experience with people and the world? ( Rosenblatt, 2005, 75). Drawing on past experience may be especially helpful when teaching populations of students who have, for one reason or another, little experience with the target language. I have witnessed highly interactive ELLs have a difficult time learning the target language, for they interacted almost exclusively with classmates who spoke their L1. Conversely, I have seen growth in language development by those less interactive ELLs who say less but sit back and observe more. The poetry center activities I used in this study make room for both highly interactive and less interactive students. Students who generally observe more than interact may still respond with as much evidence of personal understanding as those who are generally very interactive. Allowing the students to make presentation response choices (e.g., between oral response and graphic representation, and between texts written in their native languages and texts written in English) may help keep their affective filters low (Krashen, 1985) and their comfort levels high (Freeman & Freeman, 2006). Building on the pilot study I conducted with ELLs, I characterized and studied possibilities for lowering participants? affective filters to facilitate both access to the target language and construction of understanding of poetry as a kind of literary text in 13 English. By lowering ELLs? levels of anxiety, this approach may help ELLs become more receptive to taking in the language environment that surrounds them. Rosenblatt describes the classroom environment that supports transactions between students and literature as, ?A nurturing environment that values the whole range of human achievements . . . stimulating experiences, cultivation of habits of observation, . . . a sense of creative freedom? (Louise Rosenblatt, 2005, 81). Together with the Vygotskian (1978) ideas of scaffolding learning, of ?taking students from where they are and leading them to a higher [more advanced] level of understanding [of the skill or content to which they are being exposed],? some recent practitioner accounts (Freeman & Freeman, 2003; Gordon, 2005; Starz, 1995) suggest that this kind of constructivist approach to education for ELLs may foster interaction and consequent L2 learning. What remains problematic is the lack of active use, due to nonchalance or to lack of training, of such practices and scant validation through empirical study. In their 2003 book, Multilingual Education in Practice: Using Diversity as a Resource, Schecter and Cummins argue for the importance of ?acknowledging to students that their L1 represents a significant accomplishment? (Schecter & Cummins, 2003, 35). This acknowledgement, Schecter and Cummins found through their case studies of bilingual classrooms, both fills students with a sense of pride that they have in their lifetimes made linguistic accomplishments and illustrates for classmates that this student, too, has a background and a heritage. Further, acknowledgement of the L1 makes students? home languages and lived experiences resources for the academic work taking place (Wong Fillmore & Snow, 2000). Freeman and Freeman (2006) explain the importance of incorporating L1 textual support as being of intrinsic value: ?Cultural 14 literacy helps readers understand their own history and culture and how they fit into and also shape the social structure [of the classroom as microcosm of the wider society]? (Y. S. Freeman, & Freeman, David E., 2006, 88). Through allowing students to express, create, and write in and with their L1, we demonstrate to L1 students and their classmates that student?s authorial voice and its resonance with others. By incorporating literature (in this case poetry) of various cultures into the classroom situation, we demonstrate equity to all students?that school as a social institution values their culture and other cultures, including cultures beyond those of the students in a particular class, school, or city?as being of as much import as the most typically taught instances of the world?s languages (Wong Fillmore & Snow, 2000) and the identities and bodies of works of art that reside there. When L1 literature and students? L1s are used as a scaffold, ELLs may be less inhibited to move into L2 use (Freeman, & Freeman, 2006). 15 Definitions of Key Terms 1. Aesthetic stance ? A preparedness to focus on lived-through experience during a reading event, and to focus on both the public and the private aspects of meaning shaped by the transaction (Rosenblatt, 2005b, 11; Rosenblatt, 1995, 292). 2. Affective filter ? A filter or screen of emotion that may inhibit language acquisition or learning if it makes the learner too self-conscious to take risks during communication (Krashen, 1981, 21). 3. Bilingual instruction- Instruction delivered in school settings through both the native language and a second target language (TESOL, 1997, 153). 4. Comprehensible input ? Content material understandable to a second language learner, often aided by teacher use of a variety of methods and modes for enabling understanding (Echevarria, Vogt, & Short, D, 2004, 17). 5. Constructivism ? A philosophy of knowledge and learning that emphasizes the student?s role in constructing meaning based on prior knowledge and the teacher?s role providing opportunities and strategies for building conceptual knowledge (Dixon-Krauss, 1996, 18). 6. Efferent stance ? A readiness to focus on what information is to be taken away from the reading event (Rosenblatt, 2005b, 11). 7. Immersion ? A classroom instructional delivery model in which students are put into classes where only the predominant language (i.e., English in the United States) of that nation (or region or state) is used (Valdes, 2001, 14). 16 8. Input hypothesis ? The hypothesis that for language advancement to occur, input should be comprehensible while offering a challenge that is slightly beyond the learner?s current level of understanding (Krashen, 1981, 12). 9. Language acquisition ? An informal, unconscious, implicit process by which language is ?pick[ed] up? (Krashen, 1981, 19). 10. Language learning ? A formal, conscious, explicit process through which language is ?known? (Krashen, 1981, 19). 11. Mainstream ? A classroom or student generally not employing or needing accommodations in order to operate in the target language (Valdes, 2001). 12. Monitor hypothesis ? The hypothesis that a learner considers the rules of language before responding to a language stimulus, or prior to producing language (Krashen, 1981, 12). 13. Natural order hypothesis ? The hypothesis that there is a typical sequence when acquiring a second language that is akin to the sequence in which a first language is acquired (Krashen, 1981, 64). 14. Poetry center? An area containing materials such as poems, books, and art supplies where participants may study poetry either independently or with a group. (Heard, 1999, 7). 15. Response ? An evocation (?object of thought? or ?a structure of elements of consciousness construed as meaning?) of a text based on an array of potential reactions informed by lived-through experiences (Louise Rosenblatt, 2005b, 15). 17 16. Scaffold ? A temporary structure that is erected for support, then removed as less support is needed (Gibbons, 2002, 10). 17. Sheltered content classes ? Content-area classes that are designed to maximize interaction by students whose L1 is not the predominant language with the content knowledge by making mainstream curricular plans comprehensible for the language learner (Echevarria, Vogt, & Short, D, 2004, 99). 18. Target language ?The language a learner desires to learn or acquire (Krashen, 1981, 64). 19. Text ? Signs (?marks on paper, an object in the environment?) that may be interpreted as verbal symbols (Rosenblatt, 2005b, 7). 20. Transaction ? A mutual process of reader and text contributing to understanding, such that the reader?s lived-through experience ?sets up notions of the subject,? just as the text itself ?stir(s) up? parts of the reader?s personal understanding (Rosenblatt, 2005b, 73). 21. Transformational setting ? An environment in which students can reflect on their perspectives through a balance of teacher support and challenge (Freire & Macedo, 1987). 22. Zone of proximal development ? The theoretical space between what a learner, based on development, can do independently, and what potential for development that learner has with more expert peer or adult support or scaffolding (Vygotsky, 1978, 85). 18 II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE Overview The literature review for this study spans several decades, considering earlier foundational literature that addresses student learning relatively generally and then progressing to more detailed review of contemporary literature specific to language acquisition and, in particular, English language learning. The purpose of this study is to examine what happens when a particular teacher of English language learners introduces her poetry activities, centered on aesthetic response, student choice, and scaffolding transactions, to a group of English language learners whose language proficiency levels ranged from beginner to advanced; both the theory behind currently advocated practice and how the theory is situated in the classroom are relevant to the study. The chapter begins with a discussion of Vygotsky?s theoretical zone of proximal development (ZPD) and how that concept may be viewed as the foundation of contemporary empirical research on language acquisition in classroom settings. The review of literature then moves into a discussion of Krashen?s Monitor Model, discussing the interrelatedness of Vygotsky?s and Krashen?s theories as well as their influence on more contemporary research and classroom practices pertaining to English language learners. The discussion continues into classroom issues of constructivist teaching and the transactional English language arts classroom and concludes with consideration of English language learners in content-area classrooms. 19 Vygotsky?s and Krashen?s Theories of Learning Current researchers and practitioners of ESOL principles look to the theories of Vygotsky and Krashen to better understand how ELLs might best interact in learning environments. Vygotskyan theory suggests that it may take ELLs from 4 to 10 years of study before they can be considered proficient in English (Cummins, 1981; Freeman & Freeman, 2006; Wong Fillmore & Snow). Much of Krashen?s theoretical work aligns with Vygotsky?s ideas in that Krashen suggests both that the language environment should be meaningful, and that the academic content should be comprehensible to the learner (Krashen, 1982). A number of variables have been related to these two principles of second language learning and acquisition. These variables include time to work through and process information, student choice, and accessibility of instructional content. A further variable that has been related to second language learning and acquisition is access to speakers of the target language (Fay & Whaley, 2004; Valdes, 2001; Wong Fillmore, 1991). The Zone of Proximal Development Vygotsky explains, ?Instruction is only useful when it moves ahead of development. When it does, it impels or awakens a whole series of functions that are in a stage of maturation lying in the zone of proximal development? (Vygotsky, 1987, 112). The zone of proximal development (see Figure 1) represents the space, or cognitive gap, between what a learner can do without help and what the learner can do collaboratively with a more experienced party (Chaiklin, 2003; Gibbons, 2002; Miller, 2003). Chaiklin describes the ZPD as, ?an interaction? between a more skilled and a less skilled person such that a task that is at first difficult becomes less so over time (Chaiklin, 2003, 31). 20 Hedegaard (1990) suggests that the ZPD actually forms the ?basis for instruction,? citing that Vygotsky, ?pointed out that the main characteristic of instruction is that it creates the ZPD, stimulating a series of inner developmental processes? (Hedegaard, 1990, 350). Freeman and Freeman (2006) explain the relevance of Vygotsky?s ZPD to language learning and acquisition, suggesting that language learners at first need help but over time may produce and understand a second language with less assistance (Freeman & Freeman, 2006). Figure 1. Interactions within Vygotsky?s zone of proximal development. Scaffolding in the Zone of Proximal Development Though Vygotsky?s explanation of the ZPD seems general, applicable to any learner or situation, much of the research in the field of second language learning and acquisition utilizes the theory. The ZPD is especially relevant to the bilingual and sheltered language classroom. As suggested through the key variables related to second 21 language learning and acquisition (Fay & Whaley, 2004; Valdes, 2001; Wong Fillmore, 1991), students first read in their L1, then in their L2 with the help of more experienced adults and peers and gradually read independently; they write in their L1, then in their L2 with help from more experienced peers, then independently (Freeman & Freeman, 2006; Rueda & Garcia, 2003; Truscott & Watts-Taffe, 2003). Referring to this in their own research as the gradual release of responsibility model, Freeman and Freeman (2006) have explained what is commonly termed throughout ESOL literature and educational research as scaffolding. Just as in building a physical structure, scaffolding during teaching is a temporary structure that is put up in the process of building and is later removed as it is no longer needed for support (Bruner, 1978). This may be evidenced through parent-child teaching interactions (Truscott & Watts-Taffe, 2003; Wood, Bruner, & Ross, 1976) or through classroom interactions, now being systematically applied widely to English language learning (Echevarria, Vogt, & Short, 2004; Gibbons, 2002; Truscott & Watts-Taffe, 2003). During the past decade empirical research has identified recommended ways of scaffolding in order to activate the ZPD in bilingual, sheltered, immersion, and ESOL classrooms. Gibbons? (2002) guidebook, Scaffolding Language, Scaffolding Learning: Teaching Second Language Learners in the Mainstream Classroom, offers newcomers to the field of ESOL education case-specific classroom practices for scaffolding based on case study analysis. Echevarria, Vogt, and Short (2004) have developed a protocol for monitoring accommodations for English language learners based on multiple case study analysis and ethnographic research. The outcome, Making Content Comprehensible for English Language Learners: The SIOP Model, operationalizes scaffolding in reference to 22 Vygotsky?s ZPD, explicitly demonstrating the positive outcome when students have access to instructional content and to speakers of the target language as well (Fay & Whaley, 2004; Valdes, 2001; Wong Fillmore, 1991). Echevarria, Vogt, and Short (2004) explain that ?In the classroom, teachers scaffold instruction when they provide substantial amounts of support and assistance in the earliest stages of teaching a new concept or strategy and then decrease the amount of support as the learners acquire experience through multiple practice opportunities? (Echevarria, Vogt, & Short, D, 2004, 86). Miller (2003) challenges teachers to transform their classrooms into environments where the ZPD can function. Based on a series of teacher observations correlated with student academic progress, she postulates that for some teachers this means changing student roles and allowing for more student interaction (Miller, 2003). The classroom then takes the form of, ?a supportive social space in which mutual assistance creates new ways of talking and thinking about texts?that is, such discussion creates a zone of proximal development? (312). Miller describes ?supportive interpretive questioning? where teachers pose ?legitimate questions,? meaning questions to which they do not know the answer (296), and ?supportive evaluative questioning,? meaning inviting students to evaluate what they think an author is saying, free from the opinion of the teacher (297), as ways of integrating instruction in students? zones of proximal development. Vygotsky?s research suggests that good instruction in the learner?s zone of proximal development moves from social interaction to independent functioning, from other-regulated to self-regulated activity (Dixon-Krauss, 1996; Truscott & Watts-Taffe, 2003). Vygotsky?s theory of the ZPD suggests that teachers can plan instruction that is just ahead of the student?s current level of development in order to instigate that 23 development (Echevarria, Vogt, & Short, 2004; Gibbons, 2002; Kutz, Groden, & Zamel, 1993). In terms of overall implications for the classroom Vygotsky?s work implies that children need to learn in the context of an apprenticeship that provides progressive induction into high-quality strategies for learning while being encouraged to engage in oral discourse in the course of that apprentice activity (de Jong & Grieci, 2005; Echevarria, Vogt, & Short, 2004; Gibbons, 2002; Gordon, 2005). In Vygotsky?s (1978) ?Prehistory of Written Language,? he expresses concern that a ?contradiction . . . appears in the teaching of writing . . . namely that writing is taught as a motor skill and not as a complex cultural activity. Teaching writing,? Vygotsky continues, ?necessarily entail[s] a second requirement: writing must be ?relevant to life? ? (Vygotsky, 1978, 117). Vygotsky seems interested in young, developing writers? language exposure: how drawing, ?make-believe play,? and writing can all be seen as ?different moments in an essentially unified process of development of written language,? viewing writing as a ?complex cultural activity? (Vygotsky, 1978, 118). During the past twenty years, scholars have argued that translated to the classroom Vygotsky?s points concerning very young writers? development imply that to foster language acquisition and language learning the classroom must be an environment of talk allowing learners to explore lines of reasoning, questioning, responding to the ideas of fellow classmates, hypothesizing, and clarifying concepts (Gibbons, 2002; McLane, 1990; Zainuddin, Yahya, Morales- Jones, & Ariza, 2002). 24 Multiple Literacies The concept of the ZPD, as it relates to the ESOL classroom, suggests that exposure to multilingual texts may scaffold informational content of L2 texts for both language ability and conceptual understanding of the L2 (Fay & Whaley, 2004). ?Multiple ways of knowing,? (Harste, Short, & Burke, 1995, 18), meaning both the use of language and the use of showing or demonstrating (as in Vygotsky?s complex activities for the classroom), provide input for students that helps them see and understand, hear and know about language (Fay & Whaley, 2004; McCarty & Dick, 2003; Harste, Short, & Burke, 1995). Fay and Whaley argue that ?teachers of ELLs must incorporate as many of these varied literacies into their classrooms as possible. Because alternate literacies do not rely on English, using other literacies in our classrooms enables ELLs to participate and show us their understanding in ways that do not rely on language? (Fay & Whaley, 2004, 17). These ELL researchers highlight student choice as a possible key variable in second language learning and acquisition (Fay & Whaley, 2004; Valdes, 2001; Wong Fillmore, 1991). Through K-12 case study accounts Fay and Whaley demonstrate that literacies such as ?creating art, participating in drama, and using manipulatives,? are entries into linguistic literacy that do not require knowledge of English, suggesting that, ?students understand [linguistic] concepts by experiencing them rather than by merely being told how something [some target language pattern] works? (Fay & Whaley, 2004, 17). Classroom contexts that activate students? prior knowledge and personal experience by means of tasks that invite multiple linguistic, graphic, and gestural ways of learning demonstrate what is known as the constructivist perspective on education, which will be 25 addressed later in this review of literature on pages 31-34 (Freeman & Freeman, 2006; Nieto, 1999; Dixon-Krauss, 1996). Krashen?s Theories of Second Language Learning and Acquisition Much of Krashen?s theoretical work aligns with Vygotsky?s ideas concerning each person?s ZPD, such as Vygotsky?s points that the language environment should be meaningful and that academic content in the language environment should be comprehensible to the learner, as shown in Figure 2. Figure 2. Krashen?s and Vygotsky?s fundamental theories of language development compared. Krashen?s theories of second language acquisition (see Figure 2) postulate that language is more successfully acquired when learning conditions are similar for both the L1 and the L2 student (Krashen & Terrell 1983, Valdes, 2001; Zainuddin, 2002). Applications of Krashen?s Monitor Theory (see Figure 3), which includes The Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis, The Natural Order Hypothesis, The Monitor Hypothesis, The Input 26 Hypothesis, and The Affective Filter Hypothesis, have fundamentally shaped the field of language acquisition (Morales-Jones, 2002; Richards & Rodgers, 2001; Valdes, 2001). Figure 3. Elements of Krashen?s Monitor Theory (Krashen, 1982). Krashen?s Monitor Theory Krashen claims that second language acquisition follows a natural, innate progression much like first language acquisition, explaining, ?It (second language acquisition) does not occur overnight. . . real language acquisition develops slowly, and speaking skills emerge significantly later than listening skills, even when conditions are perfect? (Krashen, 1982, 6). He cites four stages that occur in both first and second language acquisition (see Figure 4), which include: preproduction, early production, speech emergence, and intermediate fluency (Krashen, 1982). Many researchers and practitioners take this hypothetical order into consideration when analyzing ELL study outcomes and when planning for instruction (Krashen, 1982; Morales-Jones, 2002; Valdes, 2001). 27 Stages of Language Development Krashen Pre-production stage (Silent/Receptive Period) (10 hours ? 6 mos) Early Production Stage (an additional 6 months) Speech Emergence Stage (an additional year) Intermediate Language Proficiency Stage (an additional year) Figure 4. Stages of language development based on Krashen?s Natural Order Hypothesis (Krashen & Terrell, 1983). Some of this progression may be attributed to a natural order of learning as students progress toward acquiring more language, according to Krashen, offering students comprehensible input that continues to challenge them at a level just above their current fluency level. Thus comprehensible input aides student progress as students interact both verbally and nonverbally and through written communication. When they see progress, students? affective filters lower, making way for more observations and more input (Freeman & Freeman, 2006; Krashen, 1982; Wong Fillmore & Snow, 2000). The monitor hypothesis. Of benefit to students in such an educationally conducive environment are time and opportunity to monitor their own language (Kagan, 1995; Krashen, 2000; Wong Fillmore & Snow, 2000). Krashen claims in his monitor hypothesis (see Figure 5) that language learners must be given time to consider what they say before they say it, and may need to consider form before they say anything. They need to know the form and function of words so that they make correct choices in application of rules that might otherwise hinder them socially if they did not know the application of standardized grammar principles. When learners over-monitor they either become intimidated and do not produce any oral or written language, or they take long 28 periods of time prior to responding. In contrast, in an environment where the learner?s affective filter is lowered and input is comprehensible by self-help, the learner successfully monitors his or her language production. Krashen and others claim that this scaffolded monitoring leads to an decrease in anxiety and corresponding language learning and acquisition (Krashen, 1981; Laine, 1987; Richards & Lockhart, 1994). Krashen comments at the conclusion of this explanation of the Monitor Theory that the particular students he studied ?acquired second languages while they were focused on something else, while they were gaining interesting or needed information, or interacting with people they liked to be with? (Krashen, 1982). 29 Figure 5. Krashen?s Monitor Hypothesis (Krashen, 1981). The affective filter. When input is comprehensible, students are less likely to be inhibited; such learning environments lower anxiety, thus allowing both language acquisition and language learning to take place (see Figure 6). Krashen (1982) claims that, ?People acquire languages when they obtain comprehensible input, and when their affective filters are low enough to allow the input in? (Krashen, 1982, 31). 30 This suggests that students need to feel free to take chances and that they need to be comfortable with practicing language use without fear of criticism. Both positive feedback and opportunities for peer interaction may assist in lowering the affective filter (Morales-Jones, 2002; Richards & Lockhart, 1994; Valdes, 2001). Figure 6. Krashen?s Affective Filter Hypothesis (Krashen, 1982). Krashen?s input hypothesis and Vygotskyan theory. If teachers attempt to reach ELLs with materials that are insufficiently comprehensible, students may become discouraged and unable to make meaning of the linguistic encounter. If teachers use materials that are neither linguistically or academically challenging students eventually 31 reach a roadblock in their acquisition process. They will not likely acquire new material. Krashen?s input hypothesis addresses the question of how language is acquired (Krashen, 1982; Morales-Jones, 2002; Wilson, 2000). Krashen?s model of comprehensible input (see Figure 7) follows a principle of i+1, or input (i) that is understandable and just a bit beyond (+1) the student?s current level of understanding (Morales-Jones, 2002; Valdes, 2001; Vygotsky, 1987). According to Krashen, comprehensible input is input or information that is understandable and attainable by the participant with a bit of a challenge just above his current fluency level. The classroom is important because it can offer the learner access to relevant and comprehensible language. Relevance and comprehensibility may be addressed by the teacher via use of visuals and manipulatives, modeling of student activities, and adjustment of phonemic clarity, intonation, and rate of speech patterns (Echevarria, Vogt, & Short, 2004; Richards & Lockhart, 1994; Valdes, 2001). Figure 7. Krashen's Input Hypothesis (Krashen, 1985). Krashen ties the issue of the relevance of input to the issue of comprehensibility of input when he claims, ?The best methods are therefore those that supply ?comprehensible input? in low anxiety situations, containing messages that students really want to hear. These methods do not force early production in the second language, but allow students to produce when they are ?ready,? recognizing that improvement comes 32 from supplying communicative and comprehensible input, and not from forcing and correcting production? (Krashen, 1982, 6). Lowering the affective filter for language acquisition and learning to occur. In connection with his theories concerning comprehensible input, a natural order of language development, and affect and language monitoring, Krashen makes a distinction between language acquisition and language learning (see Figure 8). He describes language acquisition as an informal, unconscious process. Krashen says, ?What theory implies, quite simply, is that language acquisition, first or second, occurs when comprehension of real messages occurs, and when the acquirer is not ?on the defensive.?? Language is acquired by picking up information from the surroundings (Krashen & Terrell,1983; Richards & Rodgers, 2001; Zainuddin, 2002). This differs from language learning in that learning is more formal, more deliberate. When a learner is consciously seeking to understand language, to ?know about? language, he is learning language. Krashen says in order for a student to actually acquire a language teachers need to focus on communication to the exclusion of form and rules, for ?knowing about? language does not develop communicative competency; it only adds to a body of knowledge about language (Krashen & Terrell, 1983; Valdes, 2001; Zainuddin, 2002). While Krashen claims that people produce language they have acquired, he admits that language they have learned is useful in self-monitoring their output. The existence of certain conditions may aid learner monitoring. These conditions include, as was mentioned earlier, allowing learners time to consider what they are about to say ( Fay & Whaley, 2004; Valdes, 2001; Wong Fillmore, 1991). Additionally, learners need time to focus on the form of what they are going to say and how they will say it. Further they need some 33 linguistic knowledge on how to apply the rules of the language or at least recognize nonstandard forms (Fay & Whaley, 2004; Krashen, 1982; Morales-Jones, 2002). Not all learners monitor in the same ways or with the same degrees of success. Some learners over- monitor, thus not allowing fluency to progress. Others who have not yet learned or who do not use their conscious knowledge do not heed error correction by others. Sometimes those who monitor on a limited basis may still self correct, but based on their feelings and intuitions of what is correct rather than actually monitoring their language production (Rueda & Garcia, 2003; Wilson, 2000; Yahya, 2002). Krashen claims, ?Language acquisition does not require extensive use of conscious grammatical rules, and does not require tedious drill? (Krashen, 1982, 6). This hypothesis suggests that meaning is in the foreground, and while the speaker has an idea of what is being communicated, he or she may be unable to ascribe grammar and language rules to the communication (Gibbons, 2002; Rosenblatt, 2005b; Suranna, 1998). Figure 8. Differentiation between elements of Krashen?s Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis. 34 Constructivism and the Transactional Classroom Dewey, interested in how both interaction among students and individual reflection and experience influence learning and development, explains in his pedagogic creed of 1897 what he sees as the teacher?s role in the classroom. He postulates, ?The teacher is not in the school to impose certain ideas or to form certain habits in the child, but is there . . . to select the influence which shall affect the child and to assist him in properly responding to these influences? (Dewey, 1897, 4). This perspective or idea is referred to broadly as the constructivist stance toward teaching and learning in school (Dixon-Krauss, 1996; Freeman & Freeman, 2006; Nieto, 1999). Freeman and Freeman (2006) highlight a history of constructivism in the bilingual classroom with a translation from Braslavsky?s 1962, ?La querella de los m?todos en la ense?anza de la lectura?: ?. . . the process of teaching and learning should not be a mechanical reflection of the teacher?s planning nor should it be a simplistic reflection of students? spontaneity. From a new, nonsimplifying curricular perspective, it should be the result of naturally integrating the educational objectives of the teacher (expressed as the hypothesis about the desired scholarly learning) and the reflective [student introspective] and organized [in terms of student development] interests of the students (expressed as problems to investigate in class)? (Y. S. Freeman, & Freeman, David E., 2006, 89). Constructivism Compared to Behaviorism A constructivist approach to learning differs from a behaviorist approach, promoted by such educational theorists as Skinner, who claimed, ?It has long been known that behavior is affected by its consequences. We reward and punish people, for 35 example, so that they will behave in different ways? (Skinner, 1988, 171). Gibbons expresses this, playing off Freire?s (1972) problematization of the ?banking model? of teaching as consisting of teachers ?deposit[ing]? skills and knowledge into students, describing a type of behaviorism as the ?empty vessel? approach to teaching and learning consisting of a reduced understanding of ?the teaching-learning relationship? as ?transmission and reception?transmission of a body of knowledge by the teacher, and the reception of this knowledge by the students? (Gibbons, 2002, 6). In the kind of behaviorist classrooms Gibbons describes, students are generally met with decontextualized materials that are uniform?materials that may be found in any generic classroom, with any student and any teacher, supported by imitation and memorization activities (Gibbons, 2002; Goodman & Goodman, 1990; Dixon-Krauss, 1996). In this kind of behaviorist classroom the teacher?s role is to explain tasks and provide prompt and corrective feedback. Students, in turn, tend to take a passive role in a predominantly behaviorist classroom setting (Skinner, 1988; Schmittau, 2003; Eisner, 1998). The teacher dominates instruction and conversation, leaving little room for students to use language except in prespecified, routinized ways. Prior to the mid-1960s, such methods as The Grammar Translation Method wherein students translated words from the target language into their primary language, and The Audiolingual Method, with its use of repetition and mimicry and enforcement of correct responses (Brown, 2000). Such an environment is less than conducive to exploratory learning of a target language. While students may come to know pieces of information that may be used to demonstrate some level of on-grade task mastery, the predominantly behaviorist classroom situation does not facilitate language acquisition, nor verbal and gestural collaboration and 36 resultant learning of concepts as well as facts. The students are receptors of information, so there is little room for active student participation other than to replicated teacher- specified routines, lessening the role of individuals in contributing to their overall learning experiences (Echevarria, Vogt, & Short, D, 2004; Vygotsky, 1962; Wong Fillmore & Snow, 2000). Students in predominantly behaviorist classrooms are not presented with frequent, regular situations that allow them to invoke past constructs in order to draw parallels between the materials with which they are confronted, and their own, lived-through, experiences (Blanck, 1990; Eisner, 1998; Rosenblatt, 2005a). Transformation The foundation for a more egalitarian society may depend upon teacher-learner relationships. Some ways of teaching for transformation Cranton identifies are creating an activating event through exposure to ?films, documentaries, short stories, and poems? that ?portray unusual perspectives in dramatic and interesting ways?; articulating assumptions to describe what one believes and why; . . . self-reflection; openness to alternatives and to understanding differing perspectives; discourse; revision of assumptions and perspectives; and acting on revisions, claiming that teachers need to provide ?an ever-changing balance of power,? employing questioning strategies at times and ?validating a student?s thoughts and feelings? at other times (Cranton, 2002, 71). In teaching for transformation of the students? socio-political situation teachers provide an environment in which students can reflect on their perspectives through a balance of teacher support and challenge (Cranton, 2002; Freire & Macedo, 1987; Giroux, 1997). This view of transformation seems to overlap with constructivism as it is addressed in this particular study. Giroux distinguishes between the role of teacher in a 37 transformative community as ?bearer of . . . knowledge, rules, and values,? and the ?the dominant view? of teacher as ?technician or public servant? whose role in the community is to ?implement? (Giroux, 1997, 103). The intent of mentioning transformation in this context is not to negate the psychological or political connotation of the term, but it is outside the scope of this study to address the political aspects of transformation. While there is no particular prescription for guaranteed transformative learning (Cranton, 2002), a consensus seems to exist concerning facets of transformative learning (Cranton, 2002; Freire & Macedo,1987; Mezirow, 1997). Cranton (2002) articulates through multiple studies how transformation might take place in the institution of school. Cranton admits that ?we cannot identify how or why it [transformation] happens. But we can teach as though the possibility always exists that a student will have a transformative experience? (Cranton, 2002, 71). Transaction Citing Dewey, Rosenblatt uses the term transaction . . . to emphasize the contribution [to a reader?s evocation] of both reader and text. The words [the text] in their particular pattern stir up elements of memory, activate areas of consciousness. The reader, bringing past experience of language and of the world to the task, sets up tentative notions of a subject, of some framework into which to fit the ideas as the words unfurl (Rosenblatt, 2005). Each student brings to the educational situation his or her own set of lived-through experiences. While we may guess about some background knowledge, we cannot begin to know the whole of the experiences of another being. A predominantly constructivist teacher seeks to intertwine student experience and prior knowledge and understanding 38 with the ideas and concepts the teacher wishes to better understand with his or her students (Bruner, 1966; Daniels, 2007; Robbins, 2001). We can only estimate what rich life experience might lead to self discovery and conceptual learning through literary experience. We may situate this idea through Rosenblatt?s work, ?The Acid Test for Literature Teaching,? in which she explains, ?When we teach literature we are therefore concerned with the particular and personal way in which students learn to infuse meaning into the pattern of the printed symbols? (Rosenblatt, 2005a). Student resources take the form of prior language experience and understanding of how language works. These resources include, in addition, prior lived- through experiences. Through the vehicle of school we create a context where students have opportunity to draw upon their past years of language and life knowledge in interaction with classmates and the teacher (Schecter & Cummins, 2003). Rosenblatt asserts that students have within them ?qualities? that make them conducive to learning?qualities she refers to as ?inner capital.? In ?The Transactional Theory of Reading and Writing,? she writes, ?Embodying funded [teacher validated] assumptions, attitudes, and expectations about language and about the world, this inner capital is all that each of us has to draw on in speaking, listening, writing, or reading? (Rosenblatt, 2005b, 5). Since the school histories of many students may consist of learning presented in the form of routines to be replicated and absolutes accompanied by demerits for inaccuracies (Blanck,1990; Eisner, 1998; Skinner, 1988) students will need to see evidence that they are being held responsible and encouraged to make sense of their situation by transacting with the classroom texts they encounter (Echevarria, Vogt, & Short, D, 2004; Rosenblatt, 2005b; Wong Fillmore & Snow, 2000) . In the words of 39 Dewey, education may ?begin with a psychological insight into the child?s capacities, interests, and habits? and may be most fruitful when, ?controlled at every point by reference to these same considerations? (Dewey, 1897, 4). ELLs, like primary speakers of the target language, need time to read and write without being hurried through the process. They may also benefit from student choice so that they may invest in their own content and linguistic growth (Dewey, 1897; Fay & Whaley, 2004; Wong Fillmore & Snow, 2000). Dewey goes so far as to say, ?The child?s own instincts and powers furnish the material and give the starting point for all education? (Dewey, 1897,1). English Language Learners in Academic Domains Over the past quarter century, growing interest in the U.S. in advancing the ability and achievement of all students as readers and writers in English has caused an increase in focus on English language learners. Since the mid-1990s language acquisition research as well as state and federal education mandates regarding adequate yearly progress of English language learners have come to the forefront, most recently in the U.S. federal No Child Left Behind legislation of 2001 (107th Congress, 2001). Incorporating consideration of what is already believed about how ELLs learn within the zone of proximal development and with lowered affective filters, the body of empirical research on language acquisition is expanding. A great deal of what currently exists as a research base for the design of English language teaching and acquisition and for the design of teaching ELL students in the academic domains, however, consists of practitioner accounts of classroom experiences. Much remains to be empirically 40 addressed, especially with regard to lowering the affective filters of English language learners in the situations in the academic domains. Sheltered and Scaffolded Instruction in Academic Domains Sheltered and scaffolded instruction have become areas of growing research in second language acquisition. Bringing comprehensible input to the classroom has become a focus for many new and experienced educators of ELLs. Several qualitative accounts of sheltering and scaffolding instruction have emerged as the result of research by and about mainstream classroom teachers and their students (Echevarria, Vogt, & Short, D, 2004;Gibbons, 2002; Valdes, 2001). The following accounts suggest that scaffolding, when used to make content comprehensible, may lower student inhibitions by making the curriculum accessible to students. In her practitioner-friendly volume, Scaffolding Language, Scaffolding Learning (2002), Gibbons relates specific accounts of English language learners in K-12 content- area classrooms. Gibbons prefaces each detailed account of an ELL?s language acquisition with classroom context as well as a lesson preview, thus preparing the reader for the observation of an ELL student and analysis to follow. Gibbons uses multiple cases in her consideration of how each of the communicative modes of reading, writing, speaking, and listening are addressed, giving the reader an opportunity to see how scaffolding is and may be applied in science, social studies, math, and language arts. After exploring each observation Gibbons contextualizes each case explaining the role and interaction of both the students and teacher. Following the description is Gibbons?s analysis of what activities did and did not scaffold learning in the academic domains and L2 acquisition and how scaffolding was used, as well as how it could have been used 41 more effectively in terms of student output. The specific accounts along with analyses and suggestions for scaffolding language provide a model for the design of classroom teaching, demonstrating what may be done to make academic domains accessible to English language learners. Echevarria, Vogt, and Short take a rigorous approach to their multiple action research studies reported in Making Content Comprehensible for English Language Learners: The SIOP Model (2004). Asserting that ?teacher professional growth can best be fostered through sustained collaborative inquiry between teachers and researchers,? Echevarria and her colleagues conducted extensive professional development inquiring into how ELLs and teachers experienced accommodations for ELLs in the language arts, science, social studies, and math classroom (Short & Echevarria, 1999, 1). The researchers, through extensive observations and videotape analysis, considered how ELLs, teachers, and L1 speakers of English interacted in these content-area classroom. The teachers and researchers regrouped to develop and implement a guide by which the content teachers began to scaffold their instruction for English language learners. Having used the protocol for a school term, the participating teachers along with Echevarria, Vogt, and Short reconvened to revise the guide. Again the protocol was implemented and its effects were observed by the research team. After two years of observations and revisions, the resulting publication is thick with description about not only patterns observed and modifications to the protocol, but also specific cases of students within the research project. Their research documents that as peer-teacher collaborators, teams of teachers can help monitor and lead to the advancement of their fellow teachers in 42 improving the quality of education for ELLs (Echevarria, Vogt, & Short, D, 2004; Gibbons, 2002). Freeman and Freeman explore an action research approach to working with ELLs in Teaching Reading and Writing in Spanish and English (2006), offering thick descriptions, curricular ideas, and implications for working with ELLs in the mainstream classroom. As guest educators in the classrooms of mainstream teachers, Freeman and Freeman studied various techniques for working with native speakers of Spanish in a predominantly English language environment. Employing what they have termed the gradual release of responsibility model (157) of writing, the two demonstrate how second language learners become more independent within their zones of proximal development. They detail a similar account of the gradual release of responsibility model when teaching reading in the target language (132). These accounts, complete with student work samples, constitute research that is representative of the constructivist approach to education in that students drive progress based on their individual activities rather than on lessons that have been prepared with a particular standardized product as their intent. Using these studies as a guide for classroom implementation, in collaboration with one another, mainstream K-12 content teachers may develop ways to design and shelter both the content within a course and the sequences in which curriculum is offered, in order to make curriculum content accessible for all levels of ELLs. Other study results, combining teacher stories and student educational biographies, offer practitioner advice and classroom vignettes for using sheltered instruction in a coteaching environment, citing what have been benefits of these methods, such as access for all students?not only ELLs?to content and increased student response during class 43 (Barbieri, 2002; Bernache, Galinat, & Jiminez, 2005; Reid, 1993). Using as their foci students with whom they have worked, still other practitioners in the K-12 setting take a reflexive approach to their personal experiences, recommending ways (e.g., classroom activities that incorporate art, drama, and L1 parallel translations) to serve students with diverse needs, citing that such pedagogical applications have won the favor of reluctant classroom teachers and administrators (Cary 2000; Fay, 2004). Finally, specific to K-12 content-based instruction are accounts of activities targeting a learner?s zone of proximal development. These ideas (incorporating classroom drama, art, bilingual texts to scaffold content) suggest that planning not only objectives but also scaffolding may be essential to advancing English fluency and literacy (Gordon, 2005; Olshansky, 1997; Valdes, 2003). Learning Centers as Sites of Peer Interaction While the predominantly behaviorist classroom setting where students are primarily receptors of information and teachers are disseminators of information may offer some access to interaction in a primarily target language environment, recent studies suggest that ELL students regardless of grade level seem to exhibit high levels of performance when they interact with peers who speak the target language. Analysis of student products (e.g., writings, artistic renderings, media presentations) as well as teacher accounts of mainstream and ESOL classrooms suggests that across K-12 classrooms lowering of student inhibitions can result in intellectual and emotional engagement in academic tasks as the result of using academic language in peer learning groups. (Bunch, Valdes, Lotan, & Cohen, 2005; Kaufman, 2005; Kendall, 2005). For English language learners, increased time spent interacting with peers to accomplish academic tasks may help lower their inhibitions and so enhance access to the 44 target language in the classroom environment (Holmes & Moulton, 2001; Freeman & Freeman, 2003; Schecter & Cummins, 2003). The use of learning centers may be one way to facilitate such interaction. Learning centers remove the teacher as the focal point for instructional delivery and when designed to delegate authority to students effectively put students in charge of executing their own problem-solving and consequent learning (Freeman & Freeman, 2003; Heard, 1999; Herell & Jordan, 2004). Poetry and English Language Learners There seem to exist few practitioner accounts of poetry use with English language learners in either ESOL or mainstream classrooms. Empirical research in this area seems more limited. While several case study and ethnographic accounts of English language learners in mainstream, bilingual, and ESOL classrooms make mention of poetry use (Barbieri, 2002; Freeman & Freeman, 2006; Holmes & Moulton, 2001), limited analysis exists of what propositions may guide poetry teaching toward desired outcomes. Among the empirical studies that have been conducted are case studies of teachers introducing literature to students through short or bilingual poems (Barbieri, 2002; Fay & Whaley, 2004; Freeman & Freeman, 2006). In ?change my life forever?: Giving Voice to English Language-Learners, Barbieri first observes poetry writing in the daily notebooks of high school ELLs whose L1 is Chinese. Interested in student spontaneity, Barbieri invited the students to further explore poetry both as a means to learning English and to allow them to examine their surroundings. Providing the students with copies of short, contemporary poems, Barbieri invites the students to read the poems aloud with her, so that everyone could hear the poems in different voices. Students then made drawings and paintings of ?what they saw 45 in their minds? eye? (Barbieri, 2002, 120). Barbieri then encouraged the students to write about the poetry in their journals. Students wrote about their feelings concerning the poetry. They copied their favorite lines from poems for later reflection and illustration. Using published source texts as a model, students then wrote their own poems, which they shared with fellow classmates in a celebration at the end of the unit. Barbieri evaluates the poetry unit explaining, ?The poems these young people read and wrote had certainly helped them to recall . . . [in the words of Camus] ?images great or small, in whose presence (their) heart(s) first opened?? (Barbieri, 2002, 138). In Teaching Reading and Writing in Spanish and English in Bilingual and Dual Language Classrooms, Freeman and Freeman relate their observations of a dual language classroom teacher and his work with poetry in preparation for an upcoming poetry festival. Through first Spanish language poetry and later those same poems in side by side Spanish and English translations, the students react to the poems through illustration and journaling both individually and as a whole class. The teacher and class then decide how they might best study poetry, determining that they prefer to study authors along with their poems. They also decide to make generalizations about poems both individually and as a class, and then compare those ideas with authors? stated and apparent intents when writing the poems. The brief vignette suggests that among ELLs, poetry may be introduced through dual languages and may be studied as well as responded to by individuals and as a group (Freeman & Freeman, 2006). In what is primarily a text full of step-by-step lesson plans, Writing Simple Poems: Pattern Poetry for Language Acquisition, Holmes and Moulton claim success in an overview of their experience in working with English language learners. Though the 46 text does not provide data concerning explicit classroom implementation and subsequent student products, Holmes and Moulton report having seen success with these activities in their own ELL classrooms (Holmes & Moulton, 2001). Fay and Whaley mention the rereading of poetry as one of several activities to promote deeper understanding of source texts in the target language and increased fluency among ELLs (Fay & Whaley, 2004). While the sentiment seems to fit within their larger text, Becoming One Community: Reading and Writing with English Language Learners, in which it is published, the idea receives only a paragraph of explanation. Fay and Whaley recommend that a poem be read multiple times and on more than one day, inviting students to speak a response after each reading, thus promoting oral fluency. There also exist a few accounts of aesthetic responses to poetry such as collage and illustration (Schecter & Cummins, 2003; Starz, 1995; Suranna, 1998). In their short ethnographic volume, Multilingual Education in Practice: Using Diversity as a Resource, Schecter and Cummins mention student authorship of dual-language books. The description offers limited details about the development and use of the books, but the team explains that the books are written and illustrated by the students in both English and in the students? primary languages, using published source texts as examples (Schecter & Cummings, 2003). In her work with arts based literacy Olshansky (1995) recounts how arts-based experiences seem to promote literacy learning citing, ?Image- making has repeatedly proven itself to be an invitation into literacy learning that few children can refuse.? Starz?s ?Communicating through Poetry in an ESL Classroom? describes poetry use in the author?s own classroom. While this practitioner account offers suggestions for 47 using particular poems to teach various elements or types of poetry and recommends the use of drawing and painting, the article does not include specific student products nor does it provide a description of the process for implementing the ideas in the classroom (Starz, 1995). In ?Utilizing Krashen?s Monitor Model in the Integration of the Arts in Second Language Acquisition,? Suranna suggests that, ?. . . when students are presented with enjoyable learning situations, they are less likely to ?filter? what and how they attempt to communicate? (Suranna, 1998, 1). This article considers the hypotheses that contribute to Krashen?s Monitor Model and proposes specific activities and strategies for applying Krashen?s hypotheses in the classroom. Suranna suggests that the use of dance, collage, video making, puppetry, drawing, and painting may all assist in the lowering of students? affective filters. While Suranna asserts that these artistic activities are consistent with Krashen?s Monitor Model, this article does not include empirical data (Suranna, 1998). Svedson?s practitioner article, ?Season it With Haiku,? offers ideas for implementing haiku into the curriculum, suggesting that even students with very limited English proficiency may respond to and write haiku (Svedson, 2002). Unfortunately this article lacks specific accounts of the author?s experience with poetry and English language learners. In her recommendation for ?Creating Drama with Poetry,? Gasparro outlines the role of the teacher as facilitator, suggesting that students have more responsibility when allowed to choose the manner in which they learn. Citing specific poems she has used in her own classroom, Gasprarro explains that she chooses poems that suggest bodily movement or particular elements of language and grammar. While her short article does 48 not reveal particular instances of student response to poetry, her experience as a teacher leads her to suggest that when, ?Learners use the target language for specific purposes, language is more easily internalized and, therefore, language is remembered? (Gasparro, 1994, 2) Implications from Literature The literature over the past several decades regarding language learning and acquisition has several implications. Many theorists believe and practitioners suggest that comprehensible input is less likely to inhibit learners, therefore lowering anxieties and allowing for input and consequent development. Such development takes place within the learner?s zone of proximal development through scaffolded language and scaffolded learning experiences, as well as through allowance of time for learners to consider their prior knowledge as it relates to the new input. A constructivist approach to the classroom setting may allow for such experiences as well as for transactions between learners and texts in recognition of the prior lived through experiences and life knowledge of learners. Interest in advancing the language learning and acquisition as well as the content knowledge of a growing population of English language learners has led to a need for inquiring more systematically into ways to accommodate diverse learners. 49 III. METHOD Introduction In this case study, I examined what transpired when in a junior high school setting across six sessions on consecutive Saturdays in January, February, and March 2009, I implemented the poetry center activities I designed as an ESOL teacher researcher with ten years of language acquisition teaching experience. Ten ELLs from grades 8 and 9 who have different L1 backgrounds and who vary in fluency from non-English speaking to near-native English fluency participated in the study. The activities were developed based on my argument that transactions with particular poetry activities structured through centers will result in the lessening of students? inhibitions, thus providing access to the target language in the learner?s environment and consequent language acquisition in academic domains. Study Frame Research in the area of K-12 language acquisition often takes the form of naturalistic inquiry, thus allowing the researcher to ?focus on capturing program processes, documenting variations, and exploring important individual differences between various participants? experiences and outcomes? (Patton, 1987, 14). This research employed a case study approach based in naturalistic inquiry. Stake (1998) points out that a case study ?. . . is not undertaken primarily because the case represents other cases or because it illustrates a particular trait or problem, but because, in all its 50 particularity and ordinariness, the case itself is of interest? (88). Of interest to me was what happened in terms of lowering inhibitions of English language learners when poetry centers were introduced in a constructivist English language arts classroom setting. While I plan to do a phenomenological study framed by this same issue in the future, time and resources did not permit me to consider the same research in more than one venue or time frame. The constructivist approach (Piaget, 1937) taken in this research is reflective of the transactional English language arts classroom environment characterized by Rosenblatt. When Rosenblatt explains that ?reading is a transaction, a two-way process, involving a reader and a text at a particular time under particular circumstances? (Rosenblatt, 2005, 73), she goes on to explain that she is using the term transaction in the way intended by John Dewey: ?. . . to emphasize the contribution of both reader and text,? for the textual meaning is not readymade but rather comes into being during the transaction between the reader and the text (Rosenblatt, 2005, 73; Rosenblatt, 2005, 7). Such an approach lends itself to case study research in that the goals of both transactional learning and this particular form of naturalistic inquiry are to consider particulars of the individual participants and the unique perspectives they bring to the learning context. Eisner (1985) characterizes the role of the researcher in such a context by stating, ?The researcher is a teacher using at least two pedagogical methods. Teaching didactically, the researcher teaches what he or she has learned. Arranging for what educationists call discovery learning, the researcher provides material for readers to learn, on their own, things the teacher does not know as well as those he or she does know? (Eisner, 94). 51 Pilot Study and Teacher-as-Researcher Observations The design of the poetry centers and questions guiding this research stemmed from a pilot study conducted while I was a middle grades (grades 6 through 9) sheltered instruction (Freeman & Freeman, 1988) English language arts teacher. Through my pilot study I tested activities that employed language acquisition strategies such as use of cloze passages in student response, side-by-side L1 and L2 translations of source texts, and reactions to L2 source texts through L2 written response and graphic representation (see Appendix A for sample note pages from the pilot study). As a result of the pilot study I chose to develop, for use during spring semester 2008 in my sheltered instruction language arts classroom, a poetry curriculum based more closely on the tenets of language acquisition. I used Krashen?s natural order hypothesis as a guide (Krashen, 1982). I considered the pace at which language is generally acquired, to develop activities that would help lower students? affective filters (Krashen, 1982). The activities (see Appendix B for the activity plans) I implemented were developed based on the theory that transactions during particular poetry activities structured through centers will result in the lowering of the students? affective filters, thus accommodating language learning and acquisition. These poetry activities introduced students to various aspects of poetry through aesthetic experience of texts, while specifically promoting language learning and acquisition through reading, listening, creating, and responding through writing and dramatic representation, therefore using writing and speaking skills and interacting with other students within a small group situation. The activities aligned with WIDA (2007) and NCTE standards (1996) in that they promoted the modes of communication as 52 (reading, writing, speaking, and listening) which are highlighted as foci of those guidelines. Setting The study took place January, February, and March 2009 on Saturday mornings from 9:00-11:00 in a classroom set aside for this study on the campus of Plainsview Junior High School. Plainsview Junior High School, housing students in grades 8 and 9, is one of ten public schools in the Plainsview City School System. The ten schools that make up the system serve 5,973 students, 185 of whom have been designated as nonfluent speakers of English. Forty-two different native languages are spoken in the homes of Plainsview City Schools students. The system employs four fulltime ELL teachers, one of whom works solely at the high school. Plainsview Junior High School shares an ELL teacher with two other schools: Plainsview Middle School and The Plainsview Early Education Center. The other two ELL teachers serve the seven elementary schools in the Plainsview system. The southeastern state in which the Plainsview City School System is situated reported an ELL student population of 19,508 in grades K-12 at the start of the 2008-2009 school year. Plainsview Junior High School employs 67 fulltime, on campus certified and other educators. Materials The ten study participants and I were present during the study. The poetry center activities invited participants to respond to poetry in a variety of ways. Participant responses included production of graphics (collage, painting, drawing); multimedia presentations (Power Point, video, audio); written responses; and dramatizations. Art materials, theatrical supplies (props, costumes, makeup), and computer technology (e.g., 53 laptops, flash drives) were available to the participants. See Appendix B for complete activity plans. Audio and video equipment were employed for data collection purposes. All the needed audiovisual equipment was secured from the digital resource lab at a university in the southern United States. The specific data collection procedures I employed are described later in this section. Each poetry center had its own place in the room and remained in that position until the end of the study. There were separate areas of the room for common art supplies that might be used with any center. There was also a gluing and cutting station where glue sticks, hot glue guns, and scissors were kept. Participant desks were arranged in an inward facing circle in the middle of the room. Researcher Role and Bias When collecting data for a qualitative study, the researcher?s role may range from full participation to nonparticipatory spectator (Merriam, 1998). In this case study I was an ?observer as participant? (Merriam, 1998, 101). Adler and Adler (1994) stress the importance of ?establishing an insider?s identity,? whether as observer or participant, that does not require or lend itself to participation in core group activities (380). A major concern in qualitative research is how the researcher impacts or affects the participants in the study (Merriam, 1998). Since one of the tenets of this research was to allow for participant-text transaction within a constructivist setting, it was important for me to focus on observation and limit participation. While I offered affirmation for participants, I restricted my directions concerning how to do a thing or what to do, encouraging participants to make choices without aid from me. Though I was formerly 54 the English language arts and ESOL classroom teacher of one of the ten participating students, I do not now, nor will I in the future, have an academic relationship with the participants. Therefore their participation in the research will not have an impact on any formal academic measures or standings. The participants included both students with whom I have had former acquaintance through my former employment in Plainsview City Schools (one of whom I had taught), and students with whom I had not had prior contact. In order to minimize bias in the study I collected and reflected on data in a variety of ways. In order to address concerns of researcher subjectivity and perspective for the purposes of reliability and credibility (Merriam,1998; Patton, 1987) I offer my qualifications and experience along with the perspective I bring to this study. I began working with ELLs in 1996 and have since taught ELLs at all fluency levels and from primary grades through adulthood. Most recently I taught a sheltered instruction (Freeman, & Freeman, 1988) language arts class for ELLs in grades 7 and 9, and I served as an English language arts immersion teacher (Echevarria, Vogt, & Short, 2008) serving ELLs in grades 6 and 8. Returning to the content-area classroom helped me better understand the challenges faced by mainstream classroom teachers. I had taught in the mainstream classroom prior to the implementation of the No Child Left Behind legislation, and I recognized that some approaches to and pressures of meeting academic goals had changed. Working alongside classroom teachers in the inclusion setting helped both me and the mainstream teachers better understand what types of accommodations may be needed and how to make those accommodations for ELLs. 55 These two environments inspired and allowed for the pilot study that became the basis of this research. Data Collection Procedures Multiple data sources (Yin, 2003) were used to provide a thorough picture of the resulting transactions and products. These multiple sources (see Table 1) assisted in achieving structural corroboration (Eisner, 1998), or ?the confluence of multiple sources of evidence or the recurrence of instances that support a conclusion? (55). These sources include as primary documents field notes taken during participant observations, memoing (Corbin, 1990) of ideas generated throughout the entire research process, audiotaping of individual participants and participants working at the poetry centers and videotaping of individual participant and whole classroom interactions, as well as reflective participant interviews and participant products both tangible (poems, collages, puppets), and intangible (performances). 56 Table 1 Types of data collected Field Notes and Memoing Following Eisner?s advice, ?. . . that note-taking and, at times, tape recordings are important tools in conducting qualitative research,? (and later he calls these ?crucial? tools), I scripted, with pencil, extensive notes (Eisner, 1998, 188). I reflected on the day?s notes as soon as participant?s had left the school for the day. By taking another look at the notes I was able to fill in additional observations and draw queries from what I Transcriptions Transcripts from audio tapes of participant reactions individually and interactions within groups. Transcripts of video tapes of participant reactions individually and interactions within groups. Transcripts of audio tapes of my reactions to observations and interactions with participants. Recordings Audio tapes of participant reactions individually and interactions within groups. Video tapes of participant reactions individually and interactions within groups. Audio tapes of my reactions to observations and interactions with participants. Notes Field notes of my observations of participants. Memos of my reactions to observations and my thought process throughout my research. Participant Feedback Participant feedback from interviews. Participants self reports of ACCESS test fluency results. Physical artifacts and products of the participants? work in the forms of various responses to the poetry (e.g., written response, performance response, graphic response) 57 had observed. I used a black pen to indicate my additions and reflections. Reflecting on those notes gave me an opportunity to more thoughtfully consider what I had observed on the surface. This reflection on the same day as the initial note taking was an opportunity to begin fashioning an understanding of what had taken place with participants while their comments and observable nonverbal responses had been recently recorded. Each morning I took a reflexive look at the previous day?s notes and activities (Creswell, 2007), in that I objectively considered ?biases, values, and experiences? that I brought to the study (243). This reflexive questioning was helpful in how I approached the upcoming observations. These I wrote in red pen, distinguishing them from the other notes. Here I present them, unedited, as they appear in my notebook. The plain text represents my initial notes made during the observation, italics note my reflections made later that same day, and underlining indicates the reflexive notes and observations made the following morning. I noted, Robert is walking around looking at what other participants are doing. He doesn?t seem to be bothering them?they don?t seem bothered by him. Just because they do not seem outwardly annoyed does not mean he is not actually bothering them. On the other hand, they may actually enjoy some aspect of his curiosity. He picks up items from each center, seeming to consider each item before placing them back into their original areas. Robert might be trying to decide what to do or he may be confused about what he should be doing. It seemed that both might have been true. Looking back I may have mistaken creativity for confusion. Nonetheless, creativity came from Robert yesterday as well as voice in a poem he authored. Don?t be too quick to mistake creativity for confusion and vice versa. 58 Don?t look too hard for creativity wishing for it to exist, but don?t ignore it when it comes in forms that may be unfamiliar to you. William and Chris are spending a great deal of time at the puppet materials table. They seem to be negotiating which hair to put on their two puppets. I like to see this kind of interaction between participants. They were also looking through a bilingual text to choose a poem to fit the puppets or puppets to fit a poem. One question this raises is whether the participants truly ?transacted? with the text in this situation. Another question is whether the transaction matters as long as inhibitions were lowered. They choose a poem about French fries. The two move their materials to their desks and continue to talk in Spanish about which puppet should read the English translation and which puppet should read the original. Chris would seem to be the natural choice for reading the Spanish since he is not yet orally fluent in English. Since the first day Chris has attempted to not only communicate in English on paper, but also to communicate with other participants. I should take care not to assume I know how participants would prefer to communicate. The reflexive notes helped me better understand the kinds of interactions that took place among participants. Reflexivity allowed me to observe and monitor my own observations in order to consider how the initial observations and reflective notes might be biased. Through reflexive follow-up I observed that student responses, both verbal and nonverbal, showed receptivity to the activities and seemed to promote interaction between students and further transactions with texts. 59 Auditaping and Videotaping Audiotaping and videotaping the sessions helped ensure that I had not missed student commentary, and it helped me gain insight on the quality of my lesson delivery and on my consistency in my intended stance of observer as participant. To capture the oral responses of participants, digital MP3 audio recorders were placed throughout the room in the learning centers, student work areas, and material centers. I also wore a recorder so that my responses to and exchanges with participants might be analyzed. Since this research closely examined transactions and interactions between and among participants and source texts, videotaping allowed for careful consideration of the transactions. Since several groups of participants were active simultaneously, videotaping assisted me in observing more transactions and other participant reactions than I might have been able to observe with only my eyes. On the Mondays following each of the Saturday sessions I viewed and listened to the recordings. By Tuesday following each of the sessions I had transcribed the video and audio recordings. I then used the memos and reflective and reflexive notes I had taken, along with photographs of participant products, to reconstruct the session. Viewing all the data sources in this way helped me reconstruct not only the general daily events but also specifics of student interactions and transactions. Participant Products and Feedback I collected and analyzed writings, graphics and visuals, multimedia responses, and dramatic responses, considering the transactions that had taken place between participant and text. During the two hours following the classroom portion of the study on the final day, I interviewed the participants individually using semistructured interview questions. 60 For questions and transcriptions of answers to the questions see Appendix N. Semistructured questions allowed me to ask follow-up questions as appropriate during the interview. The participants were also invited to conduct member checks throughout the study, reviewing portions of the field notes to offer clarification and verification (Kvale, 1996) as well as expansion upon the field note summaries. The participants corroborated that the field notes accurately depicted the situations. Some of them offered opinions about what they were doing or thinking during the time captured by the field notes. In the aforementioned field notes I indicated my observation that, William and Chris are spending a great deal of time at the puppet materials table. They seem to be negotiating which hair to put on their two puppets. I like to see this kind of interaction between participants. They were also looking through a bilingual text to choose a poem to fit the puppets or puppets to fit a poem. After reading this William noted, We didn?t know where to start in puppets or in the book. We think we know we can do it both together. We think it may be too hard, so we make puppets we like first, but then we find a poem for the puppets. That?s fun?finding what poem fits what some puppets looks like. Notes made and recordings transcribed after the member checks were also used in overall data analysis. Data Analysis Software QSR-N6, a software package for qualitative data analysis, was initially used to help manage and organize the information gathered from the audio and video recorded 61 sessions, from the individual participant interviews, from my memos and field notes, and from the participant work samples. I uploaded my documents and began trying to code for themes in the data. Analyzing for multiple themes within the same data set was diffcult with the software package I was using. Hand Coding Since the data collected involved myriad responses, many of which could be coded multiple ways, I became more comfortable with coding the data by hand, using various colors of Post-It Note flags and highlighters to code by response category. A priori codes used for preliminary coding may be found in Table 2. The a priori codes for this study were derived from categories created by Bogdan and Biklen (1992). These codes assisted in early consideration of the transactions and interactions taking place among study participants, in that they allowed me to categorize in more than one way the data I had collected, helping me think about how the data might be viewed in different ways depending upon a considered theme. A sample of the coding of my notes can be found in Appendix E. 62 Table 2 A priori Codes Code Description Setting/Context General information on surroundings that contextualizes the study Definition of the situation How people understand, define, or perceive the setting or the topics on which the study bears Perspectives Ways of thinking about setting shared by informants Thinking about people and objects Understandings of each other, of outsiders, of objects in their world Process Sequence of events, flow, transitions, and turning points, changes over time Activities Regularly occurring kinds of behavior Events Specific activities, ones occurring infrequently Strategies Ways of accomplishing things; people?s tactics, methods, techniques for meeting their needs Relationships and social structure Unofficially defined patterns such as cliques, coalitions, romances, friendships, enemies Methods Problems, joys, dilemmas of the research process? often in relation to comments by observers 63 Strategic Framework The strategic framework for the centers is an abstraction of the format of the Poetry Study Centers described by Georgia Heard (1999) in Awakening the Heart: Exploring Poetry in Elementary and Middle School. Each of Heard?s ten designs for a poetry center is for a group of three to five students to ?explore one aspect of poetry . . . showing them they can take charge of their own learning? (Heard, 1999, 7). Heard?s ten designs for poetry centers all offer advice for the types of materials and source texts that may be used in poetry centers. Heard?s advice to those wanting to use poetry centers is to tailor design of these centers for the uniqueness of a given situation. Much of Heard?s organizational advice was used in the development of this research. In this study, however, the participants moved through six poetry centers designed to scaffold transactions with short source texts I selected. In addition to activities recommended by Heard for use in poetry centers, I also included activities suggested by Claggett, Reid, and Vinz (1996) in Recasting the Text, as well as other activities for language acquisition such as use of cloze passages in participant response, side-by-side L1 and L2 translations of source texts, and reactions to L2 source texts through L2 written response and graphic and dramatic representation. Conceptual Framework Conceptual frameworks explain the key elements of a study and the way in which the elements interrelate (Miles & Huberman, 1994). According to Miles and Huberman (1994), the conceptual framework assists the researcher in focusing on how various factors play a part within the bounded system the researcher has decided to study (19). The researcher reshapes the study as data are collected and analyzed, and the conceptual 64 framework is reframed and revised. For the purposes of this research, I began by creating a tentative, basic conceptual framework. As the study took shape and the elements of my analysis became more fixed, I continued to revise the framework (See Appendix C for all five versions). In each version my research approach, materials, time frame, and participants became more specific. In the first version I focused on curriculum, concerning myself with source texts and mandated state and federal curriculum standards. I realized upon reflection that while implementation of a predominantly constructivist English language arts, oral language, literature, and writing curriculum is an important facet of the research, it is the participants and their transactions that are of most interest to me. The second version of my conceptual framework reflects this focus on participants, and sketching it helped me better understand the interactions of the components (e.g., participants? transactions with texts rather than texts overshadowing participants) of this project. Creating the third conceptual framework allowed me to consider the potential importance of participant interactions with fellow classmates, at which point I looked to Rosenblatt and Vygotsky for guidance about how participants may transact with texts collaboratively. I created version four of the conceptual framework to help visualize the physical layout of the poetry centers and their articulation with the communicative needs of English language learners in the four modes of communication specified in the WIDA standards for ELLs. The most current version of the framework, version five, reflects the methods outlined in this section. It suggests my limited role under a constructivist framework. Version five of the conceptual framework also illustrates that the transactions between ELLs and poetry centers are lightly articulated with the WIDA standards and federal curriculum standards. I made this change simplifying the 65 articulation of the design of the centers with the WIDA and federal curriculum standards when I realized that I was forcing the activities into an unnecessary mold by following the sample progress indicators and activities suggestions outlined in the standards guides. The standards have been developed to inform high quality instruction. Crafting the activities first and then placing them among the standards seemed a way to better align the design of the centers with the aesthetic nature of poetry. I also placed in version five the basic idea behind each center, as well as the tools for data collection. Finally, version five specifies the lowering of participants? affective filters?participant inhibitions regarding target language use?and the temporal and physical framework for the research. In the final version I planned out the timeline for research as well as the activities for specific poetry centers and where they fit into the timeline. I also specified the materials needed, the physical location of the research, the specifics of the ELLs to be invited for study participation, and representation of how the education standards fit into a constructivist outline that overarched the entire study. Demonstrating Credibility Credibility (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) and validity (Schwandt, 2007) may be demonstrated through assurances that the research findings accurately represent the phenomena to which they refer, that they are backed by evidence, and that there are either no grounds for doubting the research or there is strong evidence in favor of the findings, which becomes a testament to the fallibility of the research. Lending to the credibility of this particular study is my prolonged exposure to the participants? culture, having been involved with English language learners for over a decade, and the culture of the setting, having been a classroom teacher for the past ten years. Also lending credibility to the 66 study is the prolonged exposure to the phenomenon (the use of poetry centers to lower affective filters in a study that took place over six weeks), and the use of triangulation as in the aforementioned section addressing multiple data sources. Comparing the coding of student products both tangible and oral, member checks, field notes and interrater checks, suggested that assumptions made about one data source were corroborated by the other data sources. Having had the experience from my pilot study and this case study, I concede that naturalistic generalizations (Creswell, 2007) exist?that people may learn from this case or may apply its tenets to other studies. I believe facets of this study are replicable over time and using similar, standards-based poetry activities. While the outcomes of case studies may differ greatly, the poetry center activities may be used with another similar group of ELLs, following the same parameters that have been set forth here. These findings indicate transferability (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) should hold true at a different time (diachronically) and under different methods aimed at lowering the affective filter (synchronically) (Schwandt, 2007) . In some cases, contextualizations that reflect only these particulars may be useful to the scope of the project, and therefore the researcher should be prepared to defend the decision to conduct a naturalistic study with limited generalizability (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). To aid in insurance of validity, researchers often use interrater checks (Henry, 2007), making sure that more than one person can collect the same information from a data set. Interrater checks in the pilot study demonstrated that my findings indicated a low level of bias. For this study Dr. Laureen Fregeau, ESOL expert and associate professor at the University of South Alabama, served as my interrater. She reviewed 67 transcriptions from the first day using my coding guide to determine whether my coding indicated a low level of bias and represented the characteristics claimed in the analysis (see Appendix E for coding sample). After she had coded portions of the data I compared her coding to my own. With her analysis I was able to consider whether the categories into which I was characterizing data from the transcripts (verbal responses, nonverbal responses, student products, observer comments), might be categorized in a different way. Our discussion following the comparison of our coding led to development of more specific codes (see Appendix P) that were not only frequent in my data but also representative of the areas of research addressed in the study. Using the emergent codes I analyzed ways in which the data could be viewed, using the comprehensive view of that data to develop the results (Chapter 4) and the discussion and conclusions (Chapter 5). I had expected to find that the data was indicative of transactions between participants and texts and interactions among participants. What I had not expected to find were writerly moves (editing, peer review, practicing, requests for correction, revision) and improvisational performances following performances planned by participants. Participants Participants were chosen through purposeful sampling (Miles & Huberman, 1994) based on grade level, nonnative English L1, and English language fluency. The population of English language learners at Plainsview Junior High School was chosen based on its availability to me as a former teacher at the school. Of 47 potential participants (the number of ELLs in the school) who were invited with recruitment letters, 10 chose to participate. The data in Table 3 was collected to determine the 68 heterogeneity of the group. The participants were ELLs in grades 8 and 9 attending Plainsview Junior High School, the single junior high school in a university town of around 52,000 people (U.S. Census Bureau, 2006) in the southeastern United States. The participants came from four different cultural and L1 backgrounds, including Korean, Spanish, French, and German and range in fluency from limited to former limited English proficient as self-reported based on the spring 2008 results from the ACCESS for ELLs English language fluency test (the NCLB-compliant test used to help determine ELL fluency in reading, writing, speaking, and listening in academic domains) and corresponding federal fluency designations (see Table 4). The participants comprised both individuals with whom I had former acquaintance (one of whom I had taught) through my former employment in Plainsview City Schools and individuals with whom I had no prior contact. The participants and their families signed an informed student assent and informed parental consent form translated into their native languages (see Appendix D) prior to participation in the study. They were also provided with copies, in both English and their L1s, of the student assent and parental consent forms, translated by native speakers of the languages who were compensated at a rate commensurate with their usual rate for performing such a task. 69 Table 3 Participant Characteristics L1 Time in U.S. at Start of Study English Fluency Level Based on ACCESS German 1.5 years FLEP 1 German 1 year LEP 1 German 6 months LEP 1 Korean 1 month LEP 1 Korean 5 months LEP 1 Korean 1 month LEP 1 Korean 11 months LEP 1 Spanish 7 years LEP 3 Spanish 7 months LEP 1 French 2 years LEP 1 Table 4 Stages of Language Development Stage of Development Pre-production stage (Silent/Receptive Period) (10 hours ? 6 months) Early Production Stage (an additional 6 months) Speech Emergence Stage (an additional year) Intermediate Language Proficiency Stage (an additional year) Advanced Language Proficiency Stage (5-7 years) Corresponding State/Federal Classification NEP, (1-2 yrs.) Non English Proficient ENTERING LEP, (1-2 yrs.) Limited English Proficient BEGINNING LEP, (3 yrs.) Limited English Proficient DEVELOPING LEP, (3-4 yrs. ) Limited English Proficient EXPANDING FLEP, (5-6 yrs.) Fluent English Proficient BRIDGING Characteristics & Expectations Learner responds to pictorial or graphic representations of academic domain language; produces language in words or chunks Learner uses general academic domain language; produces short phrases or sentences; oral and written communication; some errors that may impede understanding Learner uses general and specific academic domain language; produces written paragraphs; oral and written communication; some errors that may impede understanding Learner uses specific and technical academic domain language; produces linguistically complex writing; oral and written communication; errors that do not impede understanding. Learner uses the technical language of the academic domain; produces fluent, fluid oral and written communication comparable to that of English proficient peers. Note. From English language proficiency standards and resource guide: Prekindergarten though grade twelve. Madison, WI: The Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System, WIDA Consortium, 2007; No child left behind act of 2001. Public Law 107-110. 107th Congress, 2001; & Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press. 70 Following is background information on each participant including current grade level, L1, level of English language fluency according to the ACCESS for ELLs, length of time in the United States, and other biographical information. Figure 9. Robert?s demographic relevant to this case study. Robert Robert is a 9th grade student originally from Senegal (see Figure 9). While his primary language is Woloff, the family and community into which he was born also speaks French. On the most recent ACCESS test prior to this study, Robert?s fluency level was limited. Robert and his younger brother Jeffrey joined their father in the United States two years ago. Robert?s older sister and two older brothers had moved to the United States previously. His mother stayed in Senegal to care for her parents. Robert has a sister and a brother who are younger than Jeffrey. When they reach kindergarten age they will join Robert?s father and other family members in the United States. During his first year in the United States, Robert had difficulties with both academics and formal education settings. He recalls, ?In Senegal we study out of the buildings. We never sit in the chairs until we in big people school. We never read something until we in big people school. We eat with hands, sometime don?t wear shoes and shirts. It was so hard here to start. I wanted to go back to Ma in my country.? 71 Because the formality of school in the United States was such a great adjustment for Robert, some teachers grew discouraged; it was difficult to address both his academic and his sociocultural needs. At the end of his first academic year, Robert started illustrating his homework. If he knew the answer to something but was unable to write it, he would illustrate his response. When possible, he preferred to attempt to vocalize his responses. While Robert characterized himself as a ?fluent English speaker,? the fluency test score report he provided indicated that he was at an intermediate stage of spoken English fluency. Figure 10. Matthew?s demographic relevant to this case study. Matthew Matthew is a 9th grade student whose primary language is Korean (see Figure 10). The ACCESS for ELLs screener indicated Matthew?s fluency as begining. Matthew?s family had been in the United States for less than five months at the start of the study. Matthew?s father, who had been in the United States for several months while opening an auto supply manufacturing plant, had temporarily relocated the family to be closer to him. Matthew initially indicated that he did not read, write, or speak English. He said, ?I want not go English tutor. I want go math tutor. I know no English but here 72 five months.? Matthew?s explanation reflects that his supplemental tutoring in Korea was in mathematics and not in English. Figure 11. John?s demographic relevant to this case study. John John is a 9th grade student whose L1 is Korean (see Figure 11). Last spring?s ACCESS for ELLs data indicated that John was at beginning fluency level. John had arrived in the United States in January of the previous school year. His family had lived for the remainder of the past school year in a nearby community. Desiring to be part of an already developed Korean community, the family moved to Plainsview. John started Plainsview Junior High School at the start of the academic year of the study. John self reported, ?I like to write, but I don?t know poetry. I like to read Korean poetry some.? John also indicated, ?I do good in Korean school. People say some I am so smart.? 73 Figure 12. Carrie?s demographic relevant to this case study. Carrie Carrie is in 8th grade (see Figure 12). Her L1 is Korean. On the ACCESS for ELLs screener Carrie?s fluency level was intermediate for English fluency. She enrolled at Plainsview Junior High School on the first school day following winter break. The previous school year, when her parents had decided to move to the United States, they had hired an English tutor. The tutor focused primarily on reading and writing in English, but Carrie explained, ?We don?t speak much English. Tutor she speak Korean so we speak Korean.? Carrie stated that she liked music and loved to play the flute. She said, ?Maybe some poetry like some music. It sound little like music.? Figure 13. William?s demographic relevant to this case study. 74 William William, a 9th grade student, speaks Spanish as his L1 (see Figure 13). The ACCESS for ELLs indicates that William?s fluency level is an intermediate speaker of English. William has been in the United States for seven years. His family moved a lot when they first arrived seven years ago, but he explained that his mother eventually chose to stay in one place so her children could experience the stability of one school system. William is one of four children. He has an older sister who is in her sophomore year in college. He has a younger brother who is three years old, and he has a twin sister. William?s twin sister was inducted into the National Junior Honor Society this past year. Since the family frequently moved during his early school career there are scant records of William?s ESL instruction. The family has been in the Plainsview School System for the past three years, during which time William has shown little increase in English fluency. According to William, ?My sister is so smart. She write, read, talk so good. She going to college en Estados Unidos. My mom wants to send me back to Mexico for college.? William got into some minor behavioral trouble when he first arrived in the Plainsview School System. During the academic year of this study he has shown improvement in behavior and grades. He explains, ?My papa said if I come to this poetry you doing I don?t have to do some construction on Saturday morning until we finish.? 75 Figure 14. Nicole?s demographic relevant to this case study. Nicole Nicole, a 9th grade student with German as her L1, tested fluent on last year?s ACCESS for ELLs (see Figure 14). Nicole?s family moved to the United States when her father?s company built an assembly plant in Plainsview. For the first few days after arriving, Nicole missed Germany and, in her words, ?. . . wanted to go back home so bad.? After a few weeks Nicole had befriended several Korean girls who had come to the United States earlier in the school year. After a few months Nicole organized ELL students into welcome teams to help with hospitality toward ELLs new to the school system. Nicole explained, ?I remember how lonely I was feeling. I think that people don?t need to feel so lonely if someone can help them.? After only one year, Nicole tested fluent in her English proficiency. Figure 15. Laura?s demographic relevant to this case study. 76 Laura Laura is a 9th grade student whose L1 is German (see Figure 15). Last spring?s ACCESS for ELLs test indicated that Laura was an intermediate speaker of English. Laura arrived in the United States one year prior to the start of the study. Her older brother stayed in Germany to attend college. Laura expressed concern about grades, cheerleading, and friendships in the United States. Her family offered a strong support system for her during her transition. Though she was hesitant, Laura decided to play soccer. Playing on an athletic team allowed her to interact with peers while using conversational English. While she was hesitant to join the study, Laura wanted to spend time with her peers. Laura informed me on the first day of the study, ?I hate poetry. I hate reading it. I hate writing it. I think I probably hate hearing it. I want to be here with my friends, and I want to help you.? Figure 16. Jennifer?s demographic relevant to this case study. Jennifer Jennifer is an 8th grade student whose primary language is Korean. Last year?s ACCESS for ELLs indicated that Jennifer is an intermediate speaker of English (see Figure 16). Jennifer?s family arrived in the United States in January of the school year prior to the study. Because they wanted to travel for a while upon their arrival, Jennifer 77 and her brother did not enroll until late March. Jennifer chose to remain very private, even among other Korean peers, seldom speaking and rarely making eye contact. During the summer Jennifer had an English language tutor. She admits, ?School is a little hard, but not too bad. I like to write in Korea, so I think I like to write poetry here at school too.? Figure 17. Angie?s demographic relevant to this case study. Angie Angie, a 9th grade student, speaks German as her L1 (see Figure 17). Last year?s ACCESS for ELLs fluency test indicated that Angie was an intermediate speaker of English. Angie had come to the United States in January, one year prior to the study Like some other study participants, Angie?s father relocated with an auto parts supplier. Angie boasted, ?I have read all of Harry Potter and all of Twilight in German and in English. I am a great reader.? She also admitted, ?Always I wanted to do poetry better. I think I write in Germany real good, so I want to do good in English too.? 78 Figure 18. Chris?s demographic relevant to this case study. Chris Chris, an 8th grade student whose L1 is Spanish, is a beginning speaker of English according to the ACCESS for ELLs fluency test (see Figure 18). Chris arrived in the United States a couple months prior to the start of the school year. He lives in an apartment with his mother, father, infant sister, and older sister. Chris expressed an eager interest in poetry from the moment he entered the study. He admitted that he loved reading poetry in Mexico and that he loved to write about love. Chris communicates primarily in Spanish. He speaks Spanish to other participants whether they speak Spanish or not. Chris carries himself with a confident air, making eye contact and attempting every task put before him. The transcript Chris brought with him indicated that he had done well in his previous academic work in Mexico, with the exception of his English classes in which he received an ?unsatisfactory? mark during the previous academic year. Limitations Due to the nature of naturalistic research, there exist certain limitations to generalizability. Since case study research considers a particular case and therefore is specific to setting and time, it is difficult to generalize to a wider population. This study was conducted in a school system where I formerly taught English as a second language. 79 Inquiries were made into conducting the research in venues to which I have no connection. At this time of this study access to students in those settings was limited due to lack of transportation after school and obstacles to supplemental instruction opportunities. While this study could not be conducted in those venues, an opportunity has presented itself for me to provide future assistance to these areas of need, perhaps by way of funded grants that would make possible supplemental opportunities for English language learners in such communities. 80 CHAPTER IV RESULTS Overview The results of the study indicated that transactions with particular poetry activities structured through centers seemed to result in the lessening of participants? inhibitions, lowering their affective filters, thus accommodating access to the target language in the learner?s environment and consequent target language acquisition. Context Charts and Observations Observations from the qualitative case study are reported through expanded discussion throughout the chapter as well as through context charts that situate both the particular setting and the participants within the study. For an overview of daily activities listed by participant refer to Appendix O. Recruitment One week prior to the start of the study I visited Plainsview Junior High School to meet with the English language learners. Each of 47 English language learners was given copies of the IRB letter in both English and his or her native language. Participants were encouraged to return the signed documents to me on the following Saturday if they chose to participate. They were asked to refrain from returning the forms to their classroom teachers; this was stated to reinforce the point that their grades would not be impacted in any way based on their decision to participate or to refrain from participation in the study. 81 The remainder of this chapter discusses what transpired during the study. Data Analysis I took memos during the Saturday morning sessions. After the participants had left I read through my memos to fill in information I had written in abbreviated form and to reflect on the experience. I felt that it was important to reflect as soon as possible following the session to diminish the amount of information I might have forgotten had I waited longer. On the following day I read through all of my notes again. On this second rereading I tried to maintain a reflexive, objective approach, considering why I had made some of my initial observations and whether any of the observations seemed biased. During the sessions I also collected video and audio recordings. On the Monday following the session I converted my recordings to digital files, which I transcribed. I also uploaded the memos and transcriptions into QSR-N6 to assist with coding. Using the initial codes recommended by Bogdan and Biklen (See Table 2) I began to code units of information. I found the process difficult, for while the software helped me organize the information thematically, it did not allow me to consider the myriad of participant responses. I used the codes and coded units (see Appendix E) for my interrater check with Dr. Fregeau. While the units proved useful to us for beginning to discuss how I might organize collected data, the use of the qualitative software seemed a hindrance considering the number of participants and wide range of responses. In fact, trying to fit the responses into narrow categories seemed contrived. For the remaining five days I followed the same process of memoing during the sessions, reflective memoing immediately following the sessions, and reflexive consideration the following day. I also transferred recordings to digital media on the 82 Monday following each Saturday session, transcribing them immediately afterward. Following the second session I began coding with Post-It notes and highlighters, using particular colors to code for particular themes. New categories for coding emerged. See Appendix P for a list of the codes used in the data analysis in this chapter. In order to provide for the reader a sense of the environment of the study and transactions and interactions that took place, the remainder of this chapter is presented chronologically. Chapter five provides an analysis of the information here, organized by research question and participant profile. Day One Participants were asked to arrive at 9:00 a.m. on the first day of the study. The ten participants had all arrived by 9:15. As participants entered the room I greeted them, introduced myself to them individually, and invited them to choose a desk in which to sit within the study area (see Figure 19). Figure 19. Photograph of participant work area. After a few minutes of casual conversation, I addressed the group as a whole inquiring about whether they would be able to attend each week of the study. Having received affirmative nods from all participants I proceeded to completion of demographic 83 information, including name, primary language, grade level, and fluency level. Participants were informed that completion of any and all information was optional. I explained the one page information sheet saying, On this page I want you to tell me about yourself. I want you to tell me your name, but I will never use it on anything I write about you. On the next line I want you to tell me your first language. After that, please tell me your grade level. Then I want you to tell me how long you have been in the United States. When you get to the bottom I want you to look at the box. Inside the box it says, I consider myself a, and then you have three choices. Remember when I met with you last week, I asked you to find our your fluency scores from the ACCESS test? Raise your hand if you know what I am talking about. Well, I want you to let me know your fluency score if you know it and if you want to share it. If you don?t know it, or if you know what it means, you can choose one of the three choices in the box. The first choice is beginning speaker of English. The second choice is intermediate speaker of English. The third choice is fluent speaker of English. If you tested fluent on the ACCESS test, I want you to mark the third choice. As participants began completion of the form I canvassed the room, checking for understanding. One participant, Chris, had a difficult time understanding the form in English. I explained each part to him in Spanish, after which he quickly completed the form. All ten participants chose to complete the form. One participant had forgotten to look at her ACCESS score report, but she told me she would bring it the following week, and she did so. 84 Having completed the demographic form, I then invited the participants to complete another form. This form was a self-perception questionnaire concerning fluency in the four domains of communication (reading, writing, speaking, and listening) in English and in the native language of the participant. I explained it to them saying, ?Now I have another form for you. Your name will not be on this form. I want you to tell me a little about your reading and writing and speaking and listening in English and in your language.? Participants reviewed the forms. Again, all ten participants completed the form, and again, the only participant who seemed to have some difficulty understanding was Chris. I explained the form to him in Spanish as I had done with the previous form. The resulting information gave me an indication about participant self perception and provided me a context from which to consider participant products in terms of lowering participant affective filters. The following three tables indicate participant self perceptions. See chapter five for a full discussion of participant responses. Table 5 represents participant self perceptions concerning English fluency in the four communicative domains (reading, writing, speaking, and listening). Table 6 represents participant self perceptions concerning primary language fluency in the four communicative domains (reading, writing, speaking, and listening). Table 7 indicates participant overall self perception concerning English fluency. 85 Table 5 Participant English Fluency 86 Table 6 Participant Primary Language Fluency 87 Table 7 Participant English Fluency Perception To ensure anonymity of participant responses, names and primary languages were not indicated on participant self perception surveys. My primary purpose for administering the surveys was to gain an informal understanding of participant self perception in both primary languages and in English at the start of the study. In the area of English fluency some participants admitted that each communicative domain (reading, writing, speaking, and listening) was difficult for them, while about half of the participants indicated that each domain was neither easy nor difficult. In reading, speaking, and listening, all ten participants indicated ease in their primary languages. While seven participants indicated ease in writing in their primary languages, two participants indicated that it was only a little easy, and one participant indicated that writing was a little difficult. Three of the participants identified themselves 88 at the beginning level of English fluency. Three participants also identified themselves as being intermediate in English fluency. Four of the participants saw themselves as fluent speakers of English. While it seems outside the scope of this study, a closer look at participant self perceptions in light of the data collected might indicate correlations between self perception and language learning. After participants completed the forms we began to discuss the study. I said, Are you ready to start? We are going to do some activities with poetry. I love poetry. I know that not everyone does, but I think that because you can find poetry in every language it?s one of those things that appeal to a lot of people. Poetry is short sometimes, so it?s easy to read quickly. We learn some poems when we are children and we remember them forever. I am going to share with you one of my favorite poems. It was written by Roque Dalton who wrote it in Spanish, and it was translated into English. Now I am going to read it to you in English, but would one of you like to read it for us in Spanish, in its original language? Gesturing to the bilingual poster displayed in the front of the classroom (see Figure 20), I invited participants to read the poem. Chris eagerly volunteered, ?ah, me, me.? I invited him to come to the front of the room. ?I need come there. Oh?o kay,? he replied. Chris began reading the poem aloud, stopping after the first verse to comment, ?Es a beauty poesia,? and then finishing the poem. 89 Figure 20. Photograph of bilingual Spanish-English poster of ?Como Tu`.? After the group clapped for him, I gave each of them a copy of the poem. I then read the poem aloud, explaining that I had chosen the poem because it expresses my belief that poetry is for everyone, to which Chris replied, ?Like pan, like bread?? His comment, in reference to a line in the poem, started a group discussion about how poetry may be read and used for different purposes. Following the discussion I explained what we would be doing over the course of the upcoming five Saturdays, emphasizing that participants were welcome to do any of the poetry centers they wanted to do without feeling pressure to do any of them that they did not wish to do, to which Robert replied, ?Can you help us decide?? Participants then began discussing what they would do in the centers and whether they wanted help. I thought I might allay some of the concern by discussing the general premise of the poetry centers, so I said, ?Let me tell you why I call each of these areas of the room poetry centers. Does anyone have an idea why I call them poetry centers?? This generated the following discussion. Robert: Cause they centers where we do something poetry. Susan: That?s exactly right. 90 Nicole: And they are centers where there are something to do that is something different in every center. Susan: You guys are both right. Each center is different from each other center, and at each center you will do an activity related to or about poetry. It will be different from the activity you do in another center. After explaining each poetry center I prepared participants for our community building activity. We discussed the meaning of community and how we could be considered a community in the study (see Appendix G for transcript excerpt regarding community). Following the community discussion I explained the poetry quilt community building activity (See Appendix H). Participants were given scaffolds for haiku, tanka, and lantern poems (See Appendix I). We discussed the three forms of poetry. After the brief discussion participants began thinking of ideas for describing themselves using one of the poetic forms. As participants composed the poems I walked around the room checking for understanding and fielding questions. As they completed their poems, participants visited the art center to choose an 8 x 8 paper quilt piece and any decorative materials they wanted to use in creating their pieces of the community quilt. While they socialized briefly while attaining art supplies, participants returned to their desks to design their quilt squares. Upon finishing their pieces, the participants presented their quilt squares before placing them on the quilt frame. Robert, who had finished earlier than the other participants, had explored the poetry centers and in the prop box had found various items with which he fashioned a Darth Vader costume. When he shared his poem (see Figure 21) he asked, ?Can I read as Vader?? Robert read his lantern poem in costume and in character, imitating the voice 91 and stilted breathing of Darth Vader and announcing, ?I am your father, so listen to my poem.? Robert read, Art Panting Draw Doodle Write, Sculpt, Create Live Figure 21. Photograph of Robert?s lantern quilt piece. The group erupted into applause and supportive laughter at his performance. Robert returned to his seat. Angie high-fived him as she passed him on her way to the front of the room. Following Robert?s poem Angie shared her soccer lantern (see Figure 22), which she explained to the group was written because she likes to play soccer and practices, in her words, ?all the time when nothing else is happening in the day.? She read, Soccer Action Powerful 92 Fun, Artistic 15 Soccer Fun Girls-power 15 Angie concluded her poem with a kick and a head butt to simulate playing soccer. The group laughed and clapped as Angie returned to her desk. Figure 22. Photograph of Angie?s lantern quilt piece. Nicole followed with a haiku about handball (See Figure 23), explaining that she had played before she moved to the United States and had just started playing again recently. She read, I like to play sports My favorite sport is handball Try it You?ll love it 93 ?I will try it with you,? Robert replied. Chris asked, ?What is?? Nicole held up her hands to simulate playing handball. Chris nodded that he understood. Figure 23. Photograph of Nicole?s haiku quilt piece. Next Laura presented her gumball lantern (see Figure 24), adding the word ?yum? at the end with a punch of her fist. Laura read, Gum Chewy fine design tasty yummy Ball Robert cheered, ?Woo hoo that?s great!? The group laughed. 94 Figure 24. Photograph of Laura?s lantern quilt piece. Chris, who authored a lantern poem about music (see Figure 25), insisted that William accompany him to the font of the room, even though they were not performing the same poem or at the same time. First Chris read his poem, My Music Reggaton Deporte Mariana Cantar Musica Figure 25. Photograph of Chris?s lantern quilt piece. 95 The group clapped for Chris. William then shared his piece about soccer. He read a poem from a piece of paper saying, Don?t like the soccer Mi padre thinks I should play I would rather sleep When he read the line about wanting to sleep instead of playing soccer, the group cheered. He then shared his quilt square about school and the Mexican flag (see Figure 26), explaining that he had been to school in both Mexico and the United States. His quilt piece was designed to represent the colors of the Mexican flag, and it had the words ?school? and ?escuela? to represent the word in both English and Spanish. The group applauded, and Robert repeated, ?school, escuela, school, escuela.? Figure 26. Photograph of William?s lantern quilt piece. Jennifer then shared her lantern about fingernails (see Figure 27). She read quietly, Nail White Long 96 Favorite Birthday present Claw John questioned, ?What is claw?? Jennifer explained, ?You know, like cat?? as she held up her hand to show her nails. John nodded that he understood. Figure 27. Photograph of Jennifer?s lantern quilt piece. Carrie shared a lantern about playing the flute and being in the band (see Figure 28), reading, Flute Band Trip Disney World Flue Challenging Note 97 Figure 28. Photograph of Carrie?s lantern quilt piece. Robert reacted, ?That is so cool. I like the colors.? The group murmured in agreement. Laura said, ?That is just so neat. I wish I was arty like you.? Matthew presented next, expressing in haiku form his inability to play soccer (see Figure 29). He read, I like to play soccer But I don?t have a soccer ball So I can?t play soccer ?You can borrow mine,? Angie quickly replied. The group clapped as Matthew returned to his desk, nodding to Angie as he passed her. 98 Figure 29. Photograph of Matthew?s haiku quilt piece. John wrote a haiku about his golf ability (see Figure 30). He explained to the group, ?I should be good in golf. I take some lesson, but I am no.? John read, I like to play golf. It is my favorite sport. But I can?t play well. Figure 30. Photograph of John?s haiku quilt piece. Robert questioned, ?Can you show me how to golf? Is it easy?? John replied, ?I really no good. I can show you on Monday.? 99 Participants placed their pieces on the quilt frame (see Figure 31) with hot glue, which we then took to the hallway to display for the students in the school to see throughout the several weeks of the study. Participants commented that time had passed quickly as we began to put away materials. Robert was particularly interested in the puppets and costumes from the Act! Dance! Read! and wanted reassurance that I would bring material for puppets on the upcoming Saturday. Chris echoed his request. I dismissed the participants reassuring them that all materials that they had seen would be available each week. Figure 31. Photograph of the community quilt. 100 Day Two On the second day of the study eight of the ten participants arrived early, and by 9:00 they had all arrived. As they came into the room the participants headed for the poetry centers and began to explore the materials in each center. Robert seemed drawn to a monkey puppet which he quickly claimed. Matthew and John, who arrived early together, also seemed interested in the puppet materials in the Act! Dance! Read! center. The two had a conversation in Korean as they picked up each type of puppet body (paper bag, sock, paper plate, paint stirrer), and then agreed to make paint stirrer puppets. I realized at that point that the participants seemed to need no specific instruction from me; they seemed to know what they wanted to do for the day?s activities. Laura, Angie, and Nicole arrived next. The three noticed that the Act! Dance! Read! center was busy, and chose to explore the Where Does Poetry Hide? center. They would later explore other centers before settling on what they wanted to do for the day. When Jennifer and Carrie arrived they chose to get materials from the ?Fire and Ice? and ?Burning Trash? center to take back the desks in which they sat the previous week. William and Chris joined the other male participants at the Act! Dance! Read! center. The participants worked busily in each center, examining materials, making choices, and then returning to their chosen desks with materials. Angie, looking at the materials Robert had gathered into his arms, asked, ?If I want some sparkle stuff for what I make, can I use some?? Robert nodded in the affirmative. William inquired of Chris, ?If we do this poem you can read Spanish. Is that good for you?? Chris, who had chosen a poem and was working on a puppet to use in reading the poem responded, ?I think I like this one, and I like read you.? Robert continued to walk about the room, his arms 101 full of materials for making puppets. He spread his materials on the floor in a back corner of the room. Upon completion of his first puppet creation, Robert got the attention of the other participants to announce the existence of his sock puppet which he designated, ?a rock star snake.? He had chosen to simulate conversation between the new puppet and the monkey puppet (see Figure 32) using the poem ?This is just to say? as dialogue. Robert went into the hallway to practice reading the poem. Figure 32. Picture of Robert with his ?rock star snake? puppet and monkey puppet. Angie decided that she, too, would like to make puppets to read a selection she had chosen, ?Fire and Ice.? She made two sock puppets (see Figure 33) which she later explained were intended to represent a ?proper British man? and a ?redneck girl.? Angie then decided that she ?like the poem so much, I want to do a fan dance and read it.? From the costume box she selected a silk Mardi Gras gown and two Japanese folding fans. Using some random household objects (shower curtain hooks, clothespins, yarn) she fashioned a necklace and hair tie set. She spent a few minutes memorizing ?Fire and Ice,? and then performed in front of the group, making bold sweeps with the fans as she moved her body in lunges, changing position with the reading of each line. 102 Figure 33. Angie?s ?proper British man? and ?redneck girl? puppets. William and Chris were looking through the Odes to Common Things collection of bilingual Spanish-English poems by Pablo Neruda. At first they had decided to perform ?Papas Fritatas.? William was going to read the English version while Chris read the Spanish version. The two practiced for a while in the corner of the room. Then Chris came to me and asked, ?Maestra, we can puppet for read poesia?? Chris and William had decided to make puppets, a decision William would later explain was, ?to have some people reading the poems that look like the people who are talking about French fries. At the end of the hour William and Chris used their puppets (see Figures 34 & 35) to read both the Spanish and English versions of ?Papas Fritatas.? Participants applauded after each performance. Nicole commented, ?I think that really is what the man who says that will looks like.? Chris replied, ?Thanks for you.? 103 Figure 34. Photograph of Chris?s Spanish-speaking puppet. Figure 35. Photograph of William?s English-speaking puppet. Nicole chose to read ?Farewell, My Love? (Steinemann, 2008). Nicole at first wanted to read it in costume, but she then decided to join the other participants in making a puppet. Her sock puppet was adorned with a Hawaiian lei and gold netting which she described as a toupee (see Figure 36). 104 Figure 36. Photograph of Nicole?s bilingual German-English puppet with poem. After creating the puppet, Nicole asked, ?Do you have any really nice poems?? Not being certain what she meant, I asked for clarification. ?You know,? she said, ?something that is a real poem, like something like Shakespeare in an old high language.? Before I could respond she looked at the puppet she had already made, determined that he reminded her of Leonardo DiCaprio in the Baz Luhrman version of Shakespeare?s Romeo and Juliet (because, she explained like her puppet, DiCaprio wore a Hawaiian shirt in the film) and decided to find something poetic in the play to have her puppet read. By the time participants were ready to present their work, she had created another puppet to represent Juliet so that the two puppets (see Figure 37) could perform the balcony scene from the play. Participants seemed pleased with the familiarity of the reading and tried to speak along with her. 105 Figure 37. Photograph of Nicole?s Romeo & Juliet puppets. John told me he thought the puppet he had made from the paint stirrer sticks looked like Jesus Christ on the cross. He made a Jesus puppet (see Figure 38) and then found an English translation of a Korean poem about a cricket. He explained that, ?Jesus is nature.? John quickly made the puppet, and then he practiced reading the poem for an hour prior to performing it. At the end of the period he also used the Jesus puppet to read ?Fire and Ice,? explaining that he thought Robert Frost wrote the poem, ?about end of all world [therefore] Jesus should read it.? A couple of participants nodded and seemed to indicate that they agreed with his analysis. Jennifer said, ?I think that a little bit. I think it sounds like a church something.? 106 Figure 38. Photograph of John?s Jesus puppet. Jennifer wanted to recast ?Fire and Ice.? She asked whether she could try it, ?with not help from the paper like ?This is just to say?,? which I interpreted to mean that she wanted to do it without the help of a scaffold. She worked on the poem for the entire time, and then she read it at the end of class. She asked permission to read from her desk, which I allowed. Jennifer read it one time very quickly, and it was difficult to discern the individual words. She then said, ?That was practice. Now for real.? Jennifer read the poem slowly, enunciating words as she read. She kept her head bowed before, during, and after the reading. Some say the world will end in fire, Some say in flood. From what I?ve read in the Bible. I hold with those who favor fire. But if it had to perish twice, I think I know enough of God To say that for destruction I can?t say, he would decide. 107 ?That is like a little what I think about the poem,? John admitted. ?I think that sounds smart,? Nicole offered. ?Thank you,? Jennifer replied. Carrie started writing a story in response to ?Fire and Ice.? She spent the entire period working on the story and then gave it to me as she was leaving. She wanted me to read it before she performed it for the group, and she said she would come next week ready to read if I thought it was good enough. Matthew chose to recast ?This is just to say? (see Appendix J for scaffold template). He worked on it for most of the two hour period. He then began making a puppet to read his new version of the William Carlos Williams poem. Matthew did not get an opportunity to practice with his puppet, so he chose to wait until the following week to present his poem and puppet. Laura chose to recast ?This is just to say.? She complained a bit, ?I really don?t like poetry, you know, so I am going to write about something being not a good thing, maybe somebody being a little bad. I think that?s like me.? She also made a puppet to accompany the poem. When she presented her recast about a stolen umbrella, the other participants laughed and clapped. William gave Laura a high-five. Laura read, I have stoled the umbrela that was on your desk and which you were probly 108 going to need today Forgive me I nedded it to Make wings for my puppet The group erupted into laughter and applause. Laura took a deep bow. As participants helped clean the room they made plans for next week. Robert talked about new ideas for puppet conversations. Laura noted, ?I think I can do a little more poetry next week.? Nicole asked permission to bring some background music, to which I consented. Chris asked to borrow the Pablo Neruda book to read with his cousin who was visiting. Day Three Carrie was the first to arrive on the third day. She told me she had wanted to talk to me about her ?Fire and Ice? story before anyone else got there. After I confirmed with her that it was a great story, she asked whether she should wear a costume when she read it, to which I replied, ?I think if you had an idea that a costume would help you share your story, then you should act on that idea.? Carrie seemed pleased with my response and started pulling items from the prop box. Carrie practiced for most of the period on day 3, and during share time at the end she performed her act. She started by reading ?Fire and Ice.? She then proceeded with her story that, One there were a dragon who say if someone does not bring him a most beautiful girl. He will burn world with his fire breath. Every villager is scared, but no body want to gibe away they daughter. 109 One day farmer has idea. He think he can pray the rain the god and it rain a lot. Then it did. It rain a lot. Then he think I can pray the god the cold. Then he did. Then the rain is ice. The dragon is very cold. He can not now breath the fire. Too many year later some say the dragon will be not cold some day. He will breath the fire if no beautiful girl is wait for him. But some say before that happin the world get too so cold. They say that may be better then fire. Carrie had wrapped herself in a piece of blue cloth. On top of the blue cloth she had wrapped herself in a piece of red cloth. As a top layer she had wrapped herself in a different piece of blue cloth. As she told the story she removed layers of cloth to reveal the next color at the appropriate times?blue for rain and red for fire. The group applauded. Robert began a standing ovation for Carrie. She looked as though she were about to cry and sat down quickly. Jennifer squeezed her hand, and Carrie looked up and smiled first at Jennifer, then at me. Laura brought a German love poem, ?because today is Valentine?s Day,? she explained. She had used an art technique to ?marbleize? a piece of paper, upon which she had written the poem. Upon entering the room she headed for the puppet materials. When it was time to share at the end of class, Laura presented her family of puppets. One puppet (see Figure 39) she called her ?rasta puppet.? She used the puppet to perform the German love poem which she had memorized. Robert exclaimed, ?Wow! How you memory like that?? Jennifer responded, ?I thought you don?t like poems much.? Laura replied, ?I don?t like, but it seems like a game to try to remember all the words, and I 110 think because today is Sweetheart Day I can do it.? Laura then gave the poem and puppet to Angie as a Valentine?s present. Laura explained that she would be saving the other puppets for something else later. Figure 39. Photograph of Laura?s ?rasta? puppet. Nicole also wanted to write something with what she described as a ?love theme, sort of.? She had already planned to recast ?This is just to say,? but she wasn?t sure what she wanted to do with the poem. After reading the examples of other variations on the poem, Nicole looked to the Internet for inspiration. She typed ?lost love? into the Google browser and received as feedback pictures of death and crying. Inspired by the images Nicole wrote, ?This is just to lie.? She read, ?This is just to lie? I have loved the boy who was in the war and who 111 was probably saving himself for me Forgive me The boys who stayed behind are so sweet And I am so cold. ?That?s like the other poem, but not much,? was Robert?s quick reply. Angie asked to read the poem for herself so that she could understand better. Nicole was grinning proudly. William commented, ?I think you understand English very nice. This seems like clever.? Angie started to make a poem with sayings from some of the conversation hearts that I and others had brought in for Valentine?s Day, but she seemed frustrated and threw away the work she had done. ?I think I can?t write a love poem to a guy,? was her explanation, ?I want to make a big, big collage about guys now.? When she finished her collage she had included in it pictures of both males and food. Angie stood before the class and held the collage in front of her. William asked, ?How is this a poetry?? To which Angie replied, ?Because music is poetry and I am going to play a music for you now that goes with this collage I made.? She then started playing ?Single Ladies? by Beyonce Knowles on her laptop. She held the collage in front of her and every time the lyrics said, ?So put your hands up,? Angie held the poster high above her head. William smiled but shook his head in confusion. Chris encouraged her with, ?I like it the song. I think I see.? He said something quietly to William who then said aloud, ?Oh, I see. The 112 song is about some people they don?t have some boyfriend, and they say they don?t need some boyfriend as long as they have food.? Angie replied, ?Yeah. No. I don?t. . . something like that. I was just trying to say if some boy doesn?t like me there are some other boys and good things to love like good food.? The group laughed. Jennifer chose to explore, ?Where Does Poetry Hide?? and made a photo album to go with each line of her newly created poem, using each line as a caption. Cutting pictures from magazines and pasting them into a photo album she created, Jennifer used the following lines as captions. In history poetry hides. In all the dead people. In all the wars. In time. In the future poetry hides. In the unborn. In dreams. In time. She quietly read the poem to the class as she turned the pages of her album. Chris commented, ?I think es sad. Yes?? Jennifer replied, ?It is sad and happy because the dreams and time are can be happy.? She passed the album around the group for all to see. Chris used foam conversation hearts with English translation, and the candy conversation hearts with Spanish translation to create a Valentine card for the group (see Figure 40). Chris and I had a discussion about the English word pal, for he had not heard 113 it before, and it was not in his English-Spanish translation dictionary. He decided that he liked the word and used it throughout the remaining days of the study. He read aloud, Para ti, hola, amor, que tal, Linda Como estas? Muy bien. Espero Y vamos A estar en paz Ok Me desrida. Adios. I love you. Te amo. My pal. Kiss me. I love you. Por favor. Ama Me. My Pal. Txt me. The group applauded, and Robert commented that the colors Chris used were, ?so very beautiful, and ?I like hearing the English and Spanish.?Chris came back to the room after the others had left for the day and asked whether he could take the Valentine to give to his mother. Figure 40. Photograph of Chris?s Valentine poem made from conversation heart candies. 114 William said to Laura, ?Don?t you think poetry hide is a love poem.? ?I don?t know what you mean,? she replied. ?Never mind, I show you,? he said. William spent most of the third session staring at a piece of paper. He closed his eyes occasionally, and I assumed he was sleeping until he looked up and started writing. He told me he wanted to make a beautiful poem so he could give it to his mother for Valentine?s Day when he got home. William?s poem said, I don thing poetry hide. I hear it en mi sister laug I see it en mi madre smil I hear it en mi papas voiz I feel it en mi novias kiss. I don thing it hide. Upon hearing William read it for the class Laura said, ?Oh. Oh yeah. I guess it does sound like love.? ?Do you think I give to mi madre?? William asked. ?Yes. She will put it on the wall I think,? was Laura?s reply. ?I think it good pal. Muy bien,? was the reply Chris offered. Robert told me that since some other people were working on ?Where Does Poetry Hide?? he would like to work on it too. He said, ?It was too hard until some others do it.? He worked for the whole period and even stayed for a few minutes later to finish. He asked whether he could read it to me and said that he didn?t have time to make a puppet or a costume, so he didn?t want to read it in front of the whole group. He read the poem for me. Poetry hides in the box of customes. 115 Masks is poetry. Dresses is poetry. Poetry hides in pupits. Some pupits makes you hapy like some poetry. Some pupits makes you sad like some poetry. Some pupits makes you scared like some poetry. Poetry hides in books. Some books is poetry. Some books is mystrie, but is also poetry. Some books is love, but is also poetry like Roemo and Julit. Poetry hides in frinds. Some friends is funny like funny poetry. Some friends is sad like sad poetry. Poetry hides in food. Some foods makes you happy like poetry. Some foods taste funny like poetry when you don?t really know the poetry. Poetry hides in my pillow. Becuse when I driem at nite I know about mystrie in poetry. Though he seemed to tire from reading aloud, he spoke with energy. I told him that I thought the other participants would like to hear the poem. He said he would think about reading it next week. Matthew and John decided to make Power Point presentations for some of their selections. Matthew chose ?Fire and Ice? for his presentation (see Appendix K). John thought ?Burning Trash? was funny, so he chose it for his presentation (see Appendix L). 116 The two spent all of the third period working on their presentations, saved them on jump drives, and completed them before returning the following Saturday. Day Four Matthew arrived early and asked if he could go ahead and start. He wanted to share his Power Point with me before sharing it with the class. After we reviewed the presentation he wandered around the room looking at the poetry centers and finally stopping at ?Where Does Poetry Hide?? ?I can make a picture here?? he asked. Matthew sat with his back against a desk, facing the wall. When Robert came in he inquired about what Matthew was doing. Matthew replied, ?I can think at the blank wall.? Robert sat down to try staring at the wall, but soon he got up again. At the end of class Matthew had drawn both a mushroom and a vase. He told me he wanted to wait until next Saturday to present them because, ?I know poetry hide in this (pointing to vase) and this (pointing to mushroom) but I no know how explain today.? At the end of class Matthew connected his laptop to the overhead projection system and presented his ?Fire and Ice? Power Point presentation. He didn?t say a word. He just started the presentation and paused at each slide to allow the group to read each line and see the pictures. ?I like the definitions. I need those,? Angie commented. ?Me too,? said Robert, ?can we see again?? Matthew once again showed the presentation. Afterward Carrie clapped and asked something in Korean. She then looked at me and said, ?Oh, sorry. I asked for me for a copy. I like it. I want to keep it.? John had continued to work on his presentation during the period, and at the end of the session he also shared his Power Point. John had chosen to represent, ?Burning Trash? by John Updike. He stopped at each slide in the presentation, reading the line 117 aloud and describing the picture he had chosen and why he had chosen it. As with Matthew?s presentation, Robert asked, ?Can we see again?? John showed the presentation again, this time reading the lines but not describing the pictures. Carrie said, in English this time, ?I want your trash too.? Half the group laughed at this, as did Carrie after Jennifer explained what she had said. John, red-faced, nodded in agreement. During the period Robert revisited his rock star snake puppet and the monkey puppet. He told me he wanted to do something like Shakespeare with the puppets, but he didn?t want to tell me exactly what; he wanted it to be a surprise. When it was time to present he addressed the group, ?Now, if you will, please join I in the hall and take a sit around the stage.? The group went into the hallway and sat in front of the puppet stage. Robert stood in front of the stage and said, ?You will see now some plays with three acts. Please watch everything. Do not go to bathroom after one act. You will miss a show.? Members of the group giggled and mumbled among themselves. Robert got behind the puppet stage. Soon the ?rock star snake? puppet emerged, and he said, Robert: This is act I. I made a rock star or a type of snake We?ll just call it both Now he?s gonna go get his friend, The monkey. Robert: This is act II. Snake: Hello, old Friend. 118 Monkey: Hi. Snake: I?m a snake You?re a monkey, and I know how to do hair. Monkey: Can you do mine? Snake: I would love to, old friend. Monkey: Then we can do a show together. Snake: Sounds good. Robert: This is Act III. Snake: I have eaten the plums that were in the icebox and which you were probably saving for breakfast Forgive me they were delicious so sweet and so cold (snake makes sniffling sound) 119 Monkey: Apology accepted. (The monkey puppet and the snake puppet embrace. Robert returned to the front of the stage and took a deep bow as the group clapped and cheered. He then returned to the back of the stage and sent the money and snake puppets back out to take a bow. Following that he returned and bowed again saying, ?Thank you. You have been a lovey lovey audience.? Carrie and Jennifer decided to work together for this period. They had browsed the poetry books in previous weeks, and both had shown interest in Joyful Noise: Poems for Two Voices by Paul Fleischman. They decided to try their own version of dual voice poetry. Jennifer and Carrie worked in the hallway so they could say the words aloud as they wrote them. When it was time to share at the end of the period, both girls jumped up from their desks and stood before the class. They read together, Brother Brother Bother Bother Brother Loud Proud Lazy Crazy Crazy Lazy ?Mom !? ?Mom !? ?Stop it!? ?Stop it!? ?Mom !? ?Mom !? 120 ?Stop him!? ?Stop him!? Brother Bother Bother Brother Brother Brother ?Read it again. I like that sound. Read it again,? was Robert?s reaction. The other participants just sat and stared. Jennifer and Carrie said, ?One, two, three. . .? and read the poem again. This time the group clapped. William wanted to look at the words. He convinced Chris to read it with him, so the two of them performed the piece. Jennifer and Carrie appeared thrilled, grinning and jumping up and down in place. ?Maestra, I have good poem today. I can read it?? asked Chris. I nodded in the affirmative. Chris announced, ?This is my poetry hiding poem.? La poesia es en los libros y en mi corazon. Pero en Estados Unidos poetry es in books y en mi heart. No es diferentes. It is not different. ?I am not sure what you said, but it sound like it?s very nice,? Nicole exclaimed. William said, ?Wow, mi amigo, I don?t know you are a poet.? The group laughed. William had made a ?Fire and Ice? puppet. He explained that the blue and red hair on the puppet represented the colors of fire and ice. He then rewrote the poem, ?so everyone can know it, because some words are hard.? Some pepil say the world will end in fire, Some pepil say it will end in cold ice. From what I know of love I thig like pepil who like fire. But if the world end two times, but I don know how it can, 121 I think I know enough about hate To say that to end or kil somthig cold Is also great And would also work okay. John commented, ?I think I understand more better now about it.? Matthew nodded in agreement. ?My pal, that is so good,? agreed Chris. ?Okay guys. I?m little bit nervous. This was a little hard to do, but I think I like it. I hope you do too,? explained Angie. ?This is a villanelle, and I never did write one before now. So, okay, so, here it is. This is ?Starting at the House of White?.? Starting at the house of white Glowing in the noonday sun A historical city glowing at night Arlington?s glow in the light A memorial to a nation?s son Starting at the house of white A tribute to air, space and flight The aircraft weighing a ton A historical city glowing at night The capital a lovely sight Strolling the mall is fun 122 Starting at the house of white A memorial for those who fight Defending their country with gun A historical city glowing at night The monuments in all their might Sadly our visit is done Starting at the house of white A historical city glowing at night An An The group applauded. ?Did you really write that,? asked Robert. ?That was so cool,? Carrie commented. Angie explained that she had a difficult time, but that it was fun and felt really good to finish (see Appendix M for villanelle scaffold). Nicole worked alone on the fourth day. She sat in a corner of the room, her desk facing the wall, and did not say a word to anyone until it was time to present at the end of the period. She got up before the group and announced that she had written some, ?important things today.? Nicole explained, ?I wrote two poems because I was trying to find where poetry hides. The first one is about growing up, I think. The second one is about love and hate.? She read I remember a house I remember a dress I remember church when we were little 123 I remember it was beautiful I remember it was fun I remember it was mystery-ous I wish the house back I wish the dress back I wish the church and mystery back Young is more fun I wish the fun again ?I think it was more fun when I didn?t know some of the things I know now,? Nicole explained. She then read her second poem using the puppet she had used as Juliet the week before. In my heart is mostly love. I love my family. I love my friends. I love to read. I love to play. But he broke my heart a little. So now there is a little room for hate. Nicole read the first part of the poem with a cheerful voice and the second part with a mournful tone. The group applauded. ?Your poetry is all good,? said Robert. Nicole replied with, ?Thank you. So is yours.? ?You really think so?? asked Robert in a seemingly surprised tone. Nicole nodded in the affirmative. 124 ?I looked for poetry today too,? explained Laura, ?and I think I found it. This is maybe the only thing I ever did write that really seems like a real poem sounds like.? I remember? Summer, and I am in the lake house Books and miskitos ( I prayed you would not have thos here too, wow!) Feling the grass between my toes. Reading books, quiet as a mouse That is how summer in Finland goes. ?Well, what do you guys think?? asked Laura. ?I think it is a beauty,? replied Carrie. Jennifer nodded in agreement. ?You really have mosquito in Finland too? We have so many in Africa. I think they all are living in Africa. But aren?t you from Germany?? asked Robert. Laura replied, ?We have mosquito everywhere in the world I think. My mother from Finland, so we go in the summer to a little cabin in there.? Participants seemed sad to leave for the week. ?I think we have only got two more week. That is sad,? lamented Matthew. The group nodded in agreement as they left the room. Day Five John explored ?Where Does Poetry Hide?? when he arrived earlier than the other participants. In past weeks he had talked with some of his Korean peers, but on this day he pulled his desk to the corner of the room and worked alone. He put earphones in his ears and wrote on his paper the entire period. Throughout the period he crossed through entire phrases and wrote and re-wrote words. He was reluctant to share, but decided to do 125 so after Robert said, ?You worked hard. We want to hear.? John relented and shared his poem. Poetry hide in party. Music, Friends, Food is poetry. Gifts, Famly, Cusins is poetry. Birthday is poetry. Christmas is poetry. Thankgivng is poetry. Halowin is poetry. Poetry hide in party. At first nobody said anything. Then Carrie said, ?I know what you mean. I feel poetry in Halloween.? ?Me too,? said Laura, ?We didn?t have Halloween in Germany, but here it was fun, and I think it was poetry.? Robert added, ?I know poetry hide in parties. It feels so like music when you know you have a party and when you have a party and when you end a party. End is like a sad poem.? John nodded, ?Yes. That?s what I mean. Thank you.? Matthew had begun the idea for ?Where Does Poetry Hide?? during the previous week, but he said he needed more time. On this day he came in with something scrawled on a piece of paper, which I later learned was a list of what seemed like random things. When it was time to share he passed his pictures around the group (see Figures 41 & 42). Poetry hide inside a vase With dust and time Until it break 126 And poetry escape On the floor In the trash To the world Figure 41. Photograph of Matthew?s poetry vase. Poetry hide under a mushrom Dirt, little mose, bug, mol It keep them dry for day and night Like poetry keep our heart from storm ?I think I might cry,? Nicole reacted, to which Matthew replied quietly, ?Wow.? 127 Figure 42. Photograph of Matthew?s poetry mushroom. Laura came in with a determined attitude announcing, ?I am going to do one of the villanelles and without help from the papers or helping stickers.? I encouraged her, ?I am sure you can. I look forward to reading it.? When the period came to an end Laura shared the poem she had produced, proudly explaining that it had been, ?like a puzzle, kinda? like math. It really isn?t hard at all. Everyone listen to this.? Curby is a crazy moose Always when he sees a giant mouse He always looses his shoes His laces are almost always loose He would love to eat a steak Curby is a crazy moose But he still got the owes And his bones start to shake 128 He always looses his shoes And his mam calls lets call a truse for goodness sake Curby is a crazy moose But that?s a different way to choose So he goes weeks to the lake He always looses his shoes And so to his feet he glues Waiting for his legs to break Curby is a crazy moose He always looses his shoes ?How did you do that,? Robert questioned, ?that rhyming isn?t hard?? Laura replied, ?No, that actually made it easier. I knew how I had to make some line rhyme with some line, so it worked. Now I read it, and it does not sound very beautiful. Is it good?? The group nodded and murmured in approval, clapping as Laura took her seat. Nicole worked in a corner of the room, materials spread in front of her on the floor. She worked independently and seemed to shut out the noise around her, for even when Robert almost tripped over her she didn?t look up at him. At the end of the period she had produced several pieces. The first, she claimed, was a poem she had written for me. 129 I have vacuumed the floor that was dirty and which you probably thought you would have to clean Forgive me for saying so but your house is a mess The group laughed and applauded. Next Nicole provided an analysis of ?Fire and Ice.? Nicole is a fan of the Twilight book series by Stephenie Meyer. Each book in the series begins with an epigraph. In the German translation the first book in the series opens with ?Fire and Ice.? In the English translation, ?Fire and Ice? is actually the epilogue to the third book in the series. Nicole read the poem for the group and then proceeded to analyze why the poem was used as the prologue for the book, encouraging the other participants to read the series. I think Stephenie Meyer chose ?Fire and Ice? to start her book because she thought some people who read the book might know it. I think she maybe also thought it was a good way to trick people in to reading good poetry. I don?t know how all the books will go, and I don?t know how the last one will end, but I think 130 she maybe is saying that people think the world might end up by freezing, and some people in this book know about vampires, and they are both hot and cold. Some are good and some are bad. It is hard to say what will happen. Robert Frost said he didn?t know either. If you like this poem, and if you almost like vampires, and if you like a good love story, you should read these books. I think you can read them in your language probably or in English. Carrie commented, ?I think I might like it. Maybe can I borrow you?? Nicole replied, ?Sure, I will bring it on Monday.? Angie sat with Robert and chatted while she worked. She asked him, ?Is your country so different?? Robert replied, ?So different? No. It is not so different I think. I think people nice here and there. I think school more hard here.? Angie replied, ?I thought it was so different, but after some time, I think I love this place too and my home place too.? I had not observed the two of them in specific, sustained interaction prior to this day. Robert talked with Angie, asking her questions about her writing during the entirety of the morning. ?Do you think writing is easy in English,? Robert asked, ?because I never really learned write much before here.? Angie replied, ?I think it is not easy or hard here or home, but some things are easy and hard both and some are never easy or hard.? Angie had chosen to work with ?Where Does Poetry Hide?? Specifically, she wanted to explore through the door of observation. She wrote Observations about my countries I came here Looking for differences Forcing myself to see what would make me 131 Love my country more Forcing myself to eat what would make me Desire my food more Forcing myself to sing songs that would make me Want to be hanging out with my friends back home. Then I saw what would make me love this country too. Then I ate food that made me desire this food too. Then I heard my music here and knew that we listen to the same music. So I thought, if we listen to good music, eat good food, and like hot boys, How different from home can this place really be? ?It really is like home a lot here,? Jennifer agreed. ?I don?t know. It seems some different and some same, but I agree there are hot boys,? Laura replied. The girls all laughed. On the second day Jennifer had recast ?Fire and Ice.? She read it again, but this time she shared her collage with the group. In Jennifer?s words, ?I made it to help me see if I think really what I write about it before.? Robert replied, ?What do you think?? ?I think I am right before, but now I think also I understand and believe it some more,? Jennifer replied. William had written a poem he said he intended to use when he returned home after the morning session. He explained that he was behind in, ?doing house cleaning and things like that.? I have beaten the rugs 132 that were in mi casa and which you were telling me to clean all week Now can I go see a movie? The group laughed and clapped. Robert referred to William?s poem on the community quilt saying, ?Now you can sleep or go to movie. You have a nice life, I think.? The group laughed again. On the previous Saturday, while reading ?This is just to say,? Chris had claimed that he did not know what plums were, so this week Angie had brought a plum for him to try. He thanked her, but seemingly did not like the plum. He wrote a response to ?This is just to say,? using facial expression of distaste and disgust as he read. I no lik the plums that were in the refrigerador and which you were probably saving 133 for breakfast I think nex tim You buy the Fresas The combination of acting and reading won him applause and questions. ?What are fresas?? questioned John. William replied, ?You know, like strawberries.? John responded, ?You mean they can be fresas or strawberries?? William replied, ?In Spanish we says fresas and strawberries in English.? John reacted with awe, ?You saying that Spanish and English is not the same?? ?No,? William said, ?only a couple of words.? John nodded in understanding, ?Oh, I thought they was almost the same. They sound the same to me.? ?Me too,? agreed Matthew. ?I thought so too,? Carrie added. Nicole jumped in, ?In Spanish class here we talked about how they sometimes sound the same because they have from the same family or original language, but they are different. Do you think German sounds same as English?? Carrie replied, ?No. But in Korea we learn some German and English, but no Spanish I think.? Carrie had been excited about an upcoming band trip. She decided that poetry hides in music. She shared her poem, prefacing it with, ?If you think I am wrong then you need to listen to music when you go out from here.? Poetry hide in music. In my flute. In my piano. In my ipod. 134 In music is poetry. No music is no poetry. ?Music is poetry,? Chris chimed in, ?I think yes.? The other participants applauded. Day Six On our final day together some participants chose to write new poems while others finished work they had begun the previous week. The participants then presented their final pieces, and then we enjoyed pizza together. John wrote a pizza poem for our final day together. I have eaten the Pizza that you had in my house And which you were probably going to eat later Forgive me It was decious Because it was yours His piece was met with laughter and a slap on the back from Robert. 135 Laura wanted to try to write a ?better villanelle.? She had been thinking about her villanelle from the past week and had decided that it was ?not really dark enough.? Again she composed the villanelle without the aid of the scaffold sheet. ?This is the lonely flower villanelle,? she announced. Laura read, It?s just another point of view This lonely flower once so pretty dying is its only fate maybe it was just a lie sitting on a tower It?s just another point of view coming here to die in its lonely hour once so pretty dying is its only fate and my only question is why waiting for a shower It?s just another point of view flying into high into the sky still full of power once so pretty dying is its only fate 136 her last words were goodbye she?s getting sour It?s just another point of view once so pretty dying is its only fate ?That is sad,? Carrie commented. ?I think it is good,? Robert said. Laura also created a collage (see Figure 43) for the poem, ?Burning Trash,? which she passed around the room for others to see as she read a copy of the poem. Figure43. Photograph of Laura?s ?Burning Trash? collage. Carrie had brought something into the room in a box, telling me that she wanted to hide it until later. When she was ready to present to the group, Carrie removed her flute from the box she had been hiding. She explained to the group that she had written music to go with her ?Where Does Poetry Hide?? poem from the week before. Carrie explained, ?Last week I say poetry hide in music. This week I show you so you see it too.? When she finished playing Robert led a standing ovation as the group clapped for her. William and Nicole made twin cat puppets and read Pablo Neruda?s ?Oda al Gato.? Nicole speaks German as her first language, but she is taking Spanish in school, so she read the Spanish version followed by William?s reading of the English version. ?You 137 Espanish good,? praised Chris. The group applauded. William shook hands with Nicole and the two took their seats. Angie made a ?Fire and Ice? collage (see Figure 44), which she shared with the group as she recited the poem from memory. Figure 44. Photograph of Angie?s ?Fire and Ice? collage. Angie also recast ?This is just to say,? and shared it with the group on the final day. She read, I have finished the book that we were reading together and which you were probably saving to finish this weekend 138 Forgive me, but now I am going to tell you the ending. For our final day together Angie also created a dance which she performed before the group. She had taken a German popular song and choreographed it, performing first to that song. She then switched, and using the same music and same choreography, chanted ?Fire and Ice? over and again. The group seemed to all stand at once to offer an ovation. William asked, ?Can you do it again, and we can maybe try to do it too?? She agreed, and William, Chris, Laura, and Nicole joined her at the front of the room. Angie showed them the basic dance moves and reminded them of the words to ?Fire and Ice.? The group did a fairly choreographed dance, while Robert cheered them on with, ?come on now, come on now, come on now, come on now,? as he clapped to the rhythm. William wrote two tankas for our final day together. He prefaced the reading with, ?These are for you guys and for Mrs. Piper.? The full text of William?s tankas may be found in the discussion in chapter five, page. He concluded the reading with, ?I am going to miss this class.? ?Me too,? agreed Robert. ?Yeah, can we do it again next year,? asked Laura. Angie challenged her, ?You want to do more poetry but you don?t like it?? Laura admitted, ?It is not so bad. It is kind of a kind of game you can play with words.? Chris wrote a poem in Spanish and then wrote the same poem in English. He read both for the group. Esta clace es Moy divertida pov que 139 La maestra si Sabe ensenar moy bien Yno es aborrida The class is Bery fun Because Teacher is Smart and good And is no bad The group laughed. Jennifer commented, ?Your English is not bad too.? Chris laughed and spoke a shy, ?Thank you.? Then Chris addressed the group, ?Mi favorite poem es by Roque something. It is about bread and live and poems for all the world. I will read in English and Maestra Piper is reading in Espanish for us. Piper, come up here and read the one in Espanish. His performance (and my Spanish) produced laughter from the group. I finished my reading. He shook my hand and told me I could take my seat. Matthew had two items to share with the group?one he had written during the week between our meetings. He had responded to ?This is just to say,? recasting it to fit a situation for which he was in some trouble from his English teacher. He read, I have lost the test that was on my desk 140 and which you were probably taking for you Forgive me I lost your test He explained, ?I got in trouble from the teacher on Friday. I no know what happen. I have a reading test on my desk. I get up to get a tissue. I come to my desk again. It is gone. She no believe. She think it maybe I take to give to another somebody in the hall,? he explained. Matthew had another to share with the group. This is just to say I wrote the haiku Gave it to William Who he had stolen my plums Tomorrow I make him pay ?Hey, why me? I did not steal,? retorted William. ?Yes. Last week you take from Angie?s desk some plum,? Matthew reassured the group. Angie and William both clapped. ?Okay, okay, you caught me,? William laughed. Jennifer held a notebook for the group to see, passing it to Robert who sat in the front. She explained, ?Today I want to put all my things together so I can put in my love box at home.? ?What is love box?? Robert inquired. ?I start to put special things in a 141 box when I am baby so sometime I have baby and give her my special things,? she replied. ?We do that too,? said Nicole. ?I have one like that,? Robert replied. Robert, having liked the Darth Vader costume from the first day, had picked up a copy of ?Fire and Ice,? which he chose to read in character as well. ?Listen again, my children. I am still your father.? The group laughed as Robert walked around the room tapping participants on the head with his light saber as he recited the poem from memory. Robert also read the ?Where Does Poetry Hide?? poem he had written on day three. The group applauded. Robert asked whether the group from earlier could, ?please do that dance again?? They seemed happy to do so, and Robert, dressed as Darth Vader, stood in front of them directing them as would a band leader. The group exited with laughter and hugs. 142 CHAPTER V DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS Overview The purpose of this study was to examine what happened when a particular teacher of English language learners introduced her poetry activities, centered on aesthetic response and scaffolding transactions, to a group of English language learners who varied in fluency from nonfluent to near fluent English proficiency. The results of the study indicated that transactions with particular poetry activities structured through centers seemed to result in the lessening of participants? inhibitions, thus accommodating access to the target language in the learner?s environment and consequent target language acquisition. Participant products, both tangible and oral, seemed to indicate that learners? transactions with poetry activities lowered inhibitions and resulted in interactions with and among other participants, thus indicating a lowered affective filter. This chapter begins with a discussion of the way in which each research question is manifested in participant response. Following that is a discussion of individual participants with a discussion of how the research questions were observable within the group as a whole. The chapter concludes with a discussion of implications that arose from this study and recommendations for future research in this area. 143 Research Question 1 What are observable characteristics of the participants in terms of lowering their affective filters?their inhibitions?regarding the target language? When input is comprehensible, students are less likely to be inhibited. Comprehensible content in learning environments lowers anxiety, thus allowing both language acquisition and learning to take place (Krashen, 1982). In consideration of the six days with participants, I feel that it is important to note that all ten participants took part in each day?s activities, and they did so in both private, personal ways and in public ways as well. Laura Laura admitted that she did not like poetry. My past experience with her, though brief, had indicated that she did not particularly like to do what others were doing. I had generally perceived her to be free spirited. She recalled, ?I really didn?t like poetry. Remember I told you last year? But I liked these poetry games. They were fun. I think I think poetry is not hard now. I think it can be fun. I think it can push you to think.? On the first day when the other participants were sharing their quilt squares in front of the classroom Laura not only read hers aloud, but she also ad-libbed the word ?yum,? demonstrating that she was putting herself into the mindset of performance and not just recitation. When she presented her ?This is just to say? poem, Laura took a deep bow. Though Laura?s self-reported proficiency level was ?limited English proficiency,? and though she had been in the United States for only six months at the time of the study, her seemingly increased comfort in front of a group may have been encouraged through her lowered inhibitions with the group and with the activities. 144 Based on federal classifications and WIDA expectations for ELLs at Laura?s fluency level, one might have expected her to use only short phrases and words that might have impeded understanding. Laura commented several times throughout the study that she had begun to see poetry as sort of mathematical or as a puzzle. She seemed particularly proud of her villanelles, as evidenced through her attitude upon finishing her first one when she announced to the group that she had done it without the help of a scaffold. She recalled, ?I wrote one villanelle. Then I wrote another villanelle. I think everyone thought it was hard, but I liked it. It had a puzzle so I feel like it was really important and not childish.? Though she had been previously reluctant to consider poetry, she admitted, ?I think I will do more villanelles. I think people will think I am smart. You made me think that. I liked making puppets too. It was like you could make somebody be what you wanted?so you could act a poem like you think it is. Another indicator of Laura?s lowered affective filter was her seeming confidence when she presented her discovery for ?Where Does Poetry Hide?? as she not only said, ?This is maybe the only thing I ever did write that really seems like a real poem sounds like,? but also, ?Well, what do you guys think?? Laura?s perception of the quality of her work was demonstrated through both her announcement that her work seemed like ?a real poem? and her seeming confidence to inquire about what others thought of her work. Angie Angie seemed interested in poetry at the onset of the study. While I had not had particular interactions with her besides casual acquaintance, I knew that she was generally talkative. However, I recalled that her teachers the year before had been 145 concerned about her lack of production in the classroom and in terms of homework. For that reason I was thrilled that she not only participated daily in the study but that she did it with a certain fervor in that she generally went beyond what might have been considered the basics of the poetry activities. Angie commented, ?I loved it. Really. I really thought about some things easier than when I do poetry things in school. I think it was because it seemed fun this way.? She also spoke freely about the things she found difficult, admitting, ?I thought I could make a collage real easy. I thought I would write about that poetry hide in cute boys and then make a collage about that. It was not easy like I thought. I think because maybe poetry does not hide there for me or something.? Angie?s comment that she ?thought about some things easier than when (she) does poetry in school,? may indicate that poetry presented in the format of this study? thorough constructivist framed poetry centers?lowers anxiety concerning poetry, and/or promotes more access to poetry through a more comfortable or inviting venue. Angie had self-reported that her ACCESS scores indicated ?limited English proficiency? at the intermediate level. Based on federal classifications and WIDA expectations for ELLs at Angie?s fluency level, one might have expected her to use longer phrases and words that indicate an understanding of linguistic complexity. Lowering of inhibitions seemed evident in Angie?s comments, ?I like the ?Fire and Ice? collage thing I made. I made a villanelle. It was hard, so I am proud I did it. It took almost two weeks, but I am proud. On the last time I did a good ?Where Does Poetry Hide?? I think it sounds like real poetry. Like adult poetry.? She further commented, ?I want to write another villanelle. I also want to do some more dancing to poetry. They made me feel important. I liked people thinking I had some good poetry. I also feel good 146 about it. Like proud.? These feelings of pride and importance suggest that Angie?s affective filter had been lowered, and she was therefore able to interact with her peers and transact with the poetry. Robert In light of Robert?s having as his background an oral tradition of literacy, it might seem obvious to some that Robert would perform in costume?that he would improvise dialogues for puppets. My own prior experience with Robert in the years prior to my leaving the school system indicated that he was generally hesitant to speak to more than one individual at a time. His early difficulties with acclimatization may have had some influence on his hesitancy. Robert had more typically refrained from reading aloud and from presenting in front of the classroom. On the first day he had asked, ?Can you help us decide,? wanting my assistance in deciding with which poetry centers he should work. On the second day Robert had transitioned from asking advice into purposefully creating puppets and dialogues, announcing his craftsmanship to the group as he worked. In fact, he seemed the least reserved about combining elements from more than one poetry center. Though he seemed confident in many aspects of poetry transaction and performance, Robert was hesitant to share his composition of ?Where Does Poetry Hide?? His analysis of poetry seemed thoughtful as he compared the concept to friends, food, and dreams, yet he seemed hesitant to share it. This led me to an early assumption that Robert was comfortable with performing poetry written by other people but was too anxious to share work he had written. On the final day Robert read his piece in the character of Darth Vader. He read the poem clearly and with a sense of boldness. I then 147 formed another assumption that Robert was perhaps more comfortable with reading and performing in the character of someone other than himself or by allowing puppets to perform. When asked what he noticed about himself when working in the poetry centers, Robert replied, ?I got to act. I never thought I could. I made puppets, so that was fun. I thought I had to just write when I do some poetry, but this fun. This a lot of fun. I think other people think this fun too.? Though he admitted that some of the work was difficult, he seemed eager to discuss the things that were particularly rewarding to him. He recalled, ?I think people like me when I was Vader and read my poem and then when I was Vader read ?Fire and Ice.? People like my puppets talking reading ?This just to say.? I just made the talk when they read the poem. It was easy to just make it up there. I think I did good.? Robert?s overall analysis of the experience was, ?I want to act with some more poems. I like it. I wish I can do it in real school.? Nicole Nicole was the only participant who had tested fluent for English proficiency. I had taught Nicole in the past. Though very social, Nicole had seemed to dislike presentations in front of the group and situations where other people could hear her read. Interestingly her observations were more reflective of others than of herself. She commented, ?I haven?t done anything like this before, but I liked it. I love poetry, and I love art. I noticed that other participants liked the poetry when sometimes they don?t do work in class. I noticed we were having fun with poetry and we got to choose.? On the fourth day Nicole announced that she had written some ?important things? prior to reading her two poems for the ?Where Does Poetry Hide?? center, offering 148 explanations following her readings. This willingness to share her written work suggests a lowered affective filter. On the final day Nicole read Neruda?s ?Oda al Gato? in Spanish (her fourth language) while William read it in English. The two read the poem in their secondary languages with the help of cat puppets they had made. To read a poem in a language other than her primary suggests lowered inhibitions as a result of Nicole?s lowered affective filter. John John had been in the United States for only one month at the start of the study. He considered himself a beginning speaker of English, and for the most part during the first two weeks he did not openly speak to others unless spoken to. In fact, he commented about the first day, ?On first time we stand and read quilt poem. I was scare. People know more English. I am new.? Starting with week three he began interacting with other participants, including those who did not speak, as he did, Korean as their primary language. John was candid about his initial feelings saying, ?I was scared before we start. Then I was scared some first day. I do not know what we will do. Then I am think it is so fun. I start to like puppet and how they read poetry. I think now I like poetry like this way.? When John worked on ?Where Does Poetry Hide?? he revised and edited it many times before he shared it with the group. After he shared the poem several members of the group discussed it, to which John replied, ?Thank you.? Based on federal classifications and WIDA expectations for ELLs at John?s fluency level, one might have expected him to use only short phrases and words that might have impeded understanding. Indeed, at the start of the study it seemed unlikely that John would openly 149 share, yet by the end of the study he was not only sharing but also injecting humor into his poetry with such pieces as ?This is just to say,? concerning his stealing of pizza, thus seeming to surpass the characteristics and expectations generally observed at his level of fluency and moving into a higher level of fluency. Matthew Matthew had been in the United States for five months at the start of the study. Based on federal classifications and WIDA expectations for ELLs at Matthew?s fluency level, one might have expected him to use only short phrases and words that might have impeded understanding, being reticent of an ?early production stage? of fluency. He had been hesitant to come to the Saturday sessions, but his mother had encouraged him. He recalls, ?I think it is fun. I think I was scary to start. Then I was not scary after it start. I think it might be fun to do some more.? Matthew seemed particularly interested in the use of puppets, by himself and by others, for reading poems aloud. He commented, ?I think all a little challenge. I think I make a puppet and it is easy a little. Puppet read my poem. It is easy then a little. I think find words for poem is little hard. Then is not so hard after I do a little.? He was also impressed by other participants as indicated by his comment, ?I think puppet and other puppet from other people and hear other poem from other people. I think other people can write poem. I did not know they can write poem.? Matthew?s comments seem to indicate that the use of puppets to read may have assisted in the lowering of his affective filter, thus allowing him to perform before the group. Chris ?I think I want come all sabado, pero es no more. Maybe you come back?? was Chris?s response to me during the study. While he had a difficult time completing the 150 demographic and survey forms at the onset of the study, by the study?s end Chris had moved into primarily communicating with the other participants through code switching between Spanish and English. Based on federal classifications and WIDA expectations for ELLs at Chris?s fluency level, one might have expected him to use only short phrases and words and respond primarily to pictorial cues that might have impeded communication. On the first day, in addition to volunteering to read Dalton?s poem aloud, Chris wrote a poem in both English and Spanish and read it for the group, his demeanor suggesting pride in his subject matter: music and his girlfriend. When he read his poem for ?Where Does Poetry Hide?? Chris announced, ?Maestra, I have good poem today. I can read it?? He read his poem, written in both Spanish and English, explaining in the poem that poetry in both Mexico and in the United States hides in books and in his heart, citing, ?It is not different.? Chris indicated that he thought the work was a little difficult saying, ?Es little dificil. Little. I no know English. Pero es ok. I love making love poem for Mariana. Y I love puppets. I give poem Mariana y she love it. I like I can write English y Espanish too. Thank you.? By the final day his inhibitions were low enough such that he read Dalton?s poem in English and asked me to follow his reading with my reading of the original Spanish version of the text. Immersing himself in the language and the art of poetry may have helped lower Chris?s affective filter enough to allow him to read an entire text aloud in English. 151 William William had been in the United States for over seven years at the start of the study. Based on federal classifications and WIDA expectations for ELLs at William?s fluency level, and based on the length of time (seven years) he had been in the United States at the start of the study one might have expected him to communicate in fluent English. Though his basic interpersonal communication skills might imply that he is fully fluent in English, William reports that he has struggled academically explaining, ?School is not coming easy to me.? William admits, ?I did not really want to come to poetry but to see you and friends and Chris wanted to come. After we start I thought it was pretty fun. I could go work with my family or come here. I wanted to come here one time. I liked it, so I wanted to come every time.? He comments, ?I think writing English and Spanish is hard for me. Both. I didn?t write Spanish good before I come here, and I don?t write English good here. I like to read and talk and I like to do art.? Based on his comments and self assessment, it would seem that William?s affective filter was lowered through the activities and accessibility of poetry, for he performed poetry authored by others and he wrote poetry to share with the group. It is also possible that his encouragement toward Chris allowed him to put aside his own inhibitions in order to help his friend, possibly leading to the lowering of his own affective filter. Jennifer Jennifer came to the school system just prior to my leaving last year. She had been in the United States for eleven months at the start of the study. I recall when she came that one of the classroom teachers at the school had referred to Jennifer as ?tragically 152 shy.? Even as the study took place I noticed that Jennifer typically looked down when she was talking, communicated with an almost toneless voice, and was reluctant to share her work. Based on federal classifications and WIDA expectations for ELLs at Jennifer?s fluency level, one might have expected her to use only short phrases and words that might have impeded understanding. Still, Jennifer shared her work daily. When she participated in the dual voice poetry with Carrie, Jennifer demonstrated activity consistent with a lowered affective filter. Carrie Though she did not frequently volunteer conversation, Carrie was one of the more talkative newcomers I had encountered. Though she had been in the United States for less than one month at the start of the study, Carrie commented, ?I think is fun. I like write and the art. Make me happy. I want Saturday to come again.? Carrie and Jennifer developed a poem for two voices based on Fleishman?s Joyful Noise: Poems for Two Voices. After practice the two performed their poem for the group. Discussion: Lowering Participants? Affective Filters When these students were able to make choices without fear of being put on the spot, they seem more comfortable with trying new things without concern of criticism, as evidenced through their transactions with texts both in their primary languages and in English. Further, comprehensible input may both promote and aid in the lowering of inhibitions. In this study participants were invited to choose activities and were provided with scaffolds, which may have lowered affective filters due to comprehensible input. Krashen claims, ?The best methods are . . . those that supply ?comprehensible input? in low anxiety situations, containing messages that students really want to hear. These 153 methods do not force early production in the second language, but allow students to produce when they are ?ready,? recognizing that improvement comes from supplying communicative and comprehensible input, and not from forcing and correcting production? (Krashen, 1982, 6). It is that allowance to ?produce when they are ?ready?? (Krashen, 1982, 6) that seems particularly relevant to consideration of the affective filter as it relates to this study. Participants were invited to make choices about with which activities they would engage. This invitation free from pressure to produce language or product may be seen in comments and actions made by participants throughout and at the conclusion of the study. Laura admitted that she now saw poetry as more of a puzzle, citing her desire to write more villanelles, whereas she previously disliked poetry. Angie commented, ?I really thought about some things easier that when I do poetry things in school. I think it was because it seemed fun this way.? These comments may indicate that encounters with content are more comprehensible when they are invited, not forced. John admitted having been scared at the start of the study, but by the final day he was writing humorous poetry and interacting with other participants, an interaction that had increased with each passing Saturday. His comments, ?I was so scared before we start,? and ?Then I am thin it is so fun,? suggest that content was comprehensible so that his affective filter was lowered. Nicole?s comment may also be indicative that content, when presented in an inviting way, lowers affective filters due to a low sense of risk, when she noted ?I noticed that other participants like the poetry when sometimes they don?t do work in class.? 154 Robert seemed comfortable with dramatics and from the first day, completely covering his body to act as Darth Vader. In the days following he continued to interact with and perform for other students, primarily through puppetry, combining ad lib with written poetry. This allowance to mask his appearance as though not he, but others, were reading his work, may have contributed to the lowering of his affective filter. William, the participant who had been in the United States longer than the other participants, also seemed less inhibited. He admitted his reluctance to come to the Saturday session, citing that he could have been working construction and earning money. Over the course of the six Saturdays, William wrote poetry, created puppets, interacted with other participants, and expressed, ?After we start I thought it was pretty fun.? William may be an example of how the structure of activities directly impacts the level of engagement; he was met with comprehensible activities and responded with enthusiasm. Research Question 2 What are observable transactions between participants and texts (i.e. signs that may be interpreted as verbal symbols)? In, ?The Acid Test for Literature Teaching,? Rosenblatt explains, ?When we teach literature we are therefore concerned with the particular and personal way in which students learn to infuse meaning into the pattern of the printed symbols? (Rosenblatt, 2005a). For this study participants used as resources prior language experience and understanding of how language works. 155 Laura Laura chose to recast ?This is just to say,? because, she said, ?I really don?t like poetry, you know, so I am going to write about something being not a good thing, maybe somebody being a little bad. I think that?s like me.? Her choice of the William Carlos Williams poem may demonstrate that she related to the author?s insincerity. Though she reminded the group daily that she disliked poetry, she seemed to have a transaction with ?This is just to say? in such a way that she not only recast it to suit her personality, but also created a puppet to illustrate and read her recast poem. Laura had announced to the group that she was ?a little bad,? perhaps indicating that her transaction with the William Carlos Williams poem encouraged her to reflect on herself as she considered what the poem meant to her. Laura?s recasting of the poem not only demonstrates how she understood sarcasm in the original poem, but also how she had equated her dislike of poetry with a poem that she believed was ?about something being not a good thing.? On Valentine?s Day Laura brought with her a German love poem she had copied onto a piece of paper she had marbleized. She made a puppet to read the poem which she had memorized. Later she gave the puppet and poem to Angie as a gift. Her involvement with the presentation of the poem?memorization and illustration?indicates that she had a transaction with the poem?that it had an impact on her, and she had an impact on the poem in the way it was presented to others. On the final day she made a collage with ?Burning Trash,? once again illustrating her transaction with a poem in that it brought to her mind certain images, and she applied back to it those images as a part of the poem, incorporating the actual text of the poem into her collage. 156 Angie Angie chose to read ?Fire and Ice? with a combination of British and, in her words, ?red neck? accents with the aid of puppets. She then said that she ?liked the poem so much? she wanted to do a fan dance in costume as she read it. Later she considered ?Fire and Ice? from a different angle, creating a collage to demonstrate her feelings concerning the poem. On the final day she recited the words to the poem over and over as she danced to the tune of a popular German song. It seems that Angie?s transactions with ?Fire and Ice,? allowed her to think about how she would present the poem to others, as well as how she felt about the poem. Robert Robert chose to read ?Fire and Ice? in the voice of Darth Vader. He created puppets to converse about ?This is just to say,? assuming the apologetic nature of the poem in his presentation and presenting the poem as a play in three acts, ad libbing lines to address the audience as an emcee might do. From the first day Robert was transacting with other participants? written work. He told Nicole that he would play handball with her after he heard her haiku about handball. After hearing William?s bilingual poem about school, Robert repeated, ?school, escuela, school, escuela,? aloud several times. He recalled that on the first day William had read a poem about wanting to sleep instead of playing soccer. When William read a ?This is just to say? poem on day five, Robert commented that based on the two poems (the one on the first day and the poem on day five), ?Now you can sleep or go to a movie. You have a nice life, I think.? Following John?s golf haiku, Robert inquired about learning to play. When John explored, ?Where Does Poetry Hide?? by 157 saying that he thought it (poetry) hid in parties, Robert agreed, ?I know poetry hide in parties. It feels so like music when you know you have a party and when you have a party and when you end a party. End is like a sad poem.? Nicole Nicole began to explore using both English and German in her poetry reading. She chose to read ?Farewell, My Love? (Steinemann, 2008) in both German and English using a sock puppet she had created, explaining that he (the puppet) was bilingual. Nicole also seemed concerned with reading poetry that she considered, ?real. . . like something like Shakespeare in an old high language,? and later creating puppets to read selections from Romeo and Juliet. Nicole chose to recast ?This is just to say? as a poem about lost love. Her transaction with the poem produced a sarcasm ridden apology that implied choice of convenient love over promised love. To have conveyed this theme in English demonstrates a high level of written fluency. Nicole demonstrated her transactions with both ?Fire and Ice? and the book Twilight when she provided her understanding of why Stephenie Meyer chose the Frost poem for her book series. Nicole?s explanation of her understanding led other group members to ask questions about the book. John John described his experience with ?Burning Trash? with ?I like make Power Point for ?Burning Trash.? I think I real understand and you know it.? His transaction with this piece helped lower his affective filter as he was confident about his understanding and confident enough to readily share it with the group. John said the 158 paint stirrer puppet he made looked like Jesus on the cross, and he found poetry to accompany his puppet, first a Korean poem about a cricket and then ?Fire and Ice,? explaining that he thought Frost was taking about the end of the world in his poem and therefore, ?Jesus should read it.? John also demonstrated transactions with poetry written by other students, as he questioned Jennifer?s haiku asking, ?What is claw?? After William had read a poem written in both Spanish and English John questioned, ?You saying that Spanish and English is not the same,? thus indicating that he had transacted with the poem in that he thought all the words were the same, and had been attentive to the conversation following the reading. Matthew Matthew made a Power Point presentation for ?Fire and Ice,? exploring the meanings of the words in the poem and how he felt they should be represented visually. His transaction with the poem impacted him as well as other group members, for his presentation was received by the others with nods of understanding and affirmation. Matthew illustrated a vase and a mushroom for ?Where Does Poetry Hide?? He then went home and came back with a list the following week. He seemed to transact with the concept of hiding, using actual objects he had represented visually as the hiding places. Matthew used, ?This is just to say,? to respond to frustration he was feeling at being wrongly accused of stealing a test. He recast the poem as an apology to the teacher. Chris Chris seemed particularly interested in the work of Pablo Neruda. He took Neruda?s Odes to Common Things to share with his family. Chris also seemed to transact with Roque Dalton?s poem ?Como Tu? with which we began the study. He read the 159 poem aloud for the group and commented as he was reading, ?Es a beauty poesia,? seeming to react emotionally to the text of the poem. In the discussion that followed he provided his understanding of the poem. On the final day he invited me to read the poem with him, but this time he read the English translation and I read the poem in Spanish. He also seemed attentive to the work of other students, for on the first day he asked for an explanation of Nicole?s haiku about handball. When Jennifer read her poem for ?Where Does Poetry Hide?? Chris questioned, ?I think es sad. Yes?? indicating that he had transacted with Jennifer?s poem as she read it. William William made a puppet to represent the colors he felt were conveyed in ?Fire and Ice,? and then he rewrote the poem, adding adjectives and other words to, in his words, ?better explain the poem to other people.? His transaction with the poem not only got him to reflect internally, but it also provided a tool with which he could teach others?a trait that also may aid in the lowering of affective filters for both the teacher and the receptor. William and Chris also made puppets to represent what he (William) thought the voice in Neruda?s ?Papas Fritatas? would look like. Additionally, William seemed concerned about where poetry hides. He asked members of the group whether they thought the poem should be a love poem. After deliberating for the session about the question, ?Where Does Poetry Hide?? William decided to write a love poem for his family, explaining how poetry hides in each of his family members. William seemed to transact with the two-voice poem Jennifer and Carrie had written, and he convinced Chris to read it with him. He also transacted with Neruda?s 160 ?Oda al Gato? as he read it aloud in English, his second language, with Nicole, who read the piece in Spanish. Jennifer Jennifer recast ?Fire and Ice,? applying it to Biblical themes. Her face demonstrated an emotional reaction to her reading of the recast poem. Her transaction with John?s presentation of ?Fire and Ice,? was also evident by her physical reactions, her nodding and closing her eyes and her comment to him that, ?I think it sounds like a church something.? Carrie Carrie?s transaction with ?Fire and Ice? seemed visually powerful for herself and for the other group members. Her story created from the premise of the poem, along with the theatrics she developed with the colored cloths, demonstrated that she had been impacted by the poem and its presentation to others had been impacted by her. Carrie seemed interested in Nicole?s interpretation of ?Fire and Ice? and its relation to Twilight, to the effect that she asked Nicole whether she could borrow her copy of the book Twilight. Carrie also commented about Laura?s flower villanelle, ?That is sad,? seeming to indicate a transaction with Laura?s poem. Discussion: Transactions with Texts Rosenblatt (2005a) speaks of ?the particular and personal way in which students learn to infuse meaning into the pattern of the printed symbol.? Laura?s transaction with ?This is just to say,? seems relevant in that she had previously expressed dislike for poetry. That she related to the poem with, ?. . . something being a little bad. I think it?s like me,? seems to indicate that she not only ?infused meaning? into the words, but also 161 related it back to herself and expressing that relationship through her resulting poem of insincere apology like unto that of Williams. Angie seemed to transact with ?Fire and Ice,? for she revisited it several times over the course of the six Saturdays. On the second day she decided that the poem should be read in two different voices, but she also decided to do a fan dance in costume while reciting the poem. While these two presentations do not represent transactions in particular, Angie later made a collage that she explained, ?makes me think about what it is all that I can think about that poem when I hear it.? On our final day Angie set the poem to music and danced while reciting it. Robert?s transaction with ?This is just to say,? may be observed through his representation of the poem to the group. While some participants recast the poem to deliver an insincere apology, Robert portrayed the poem as a sincere apology between friends. His transaction with the poem led him to show emotion through his dramatic reading, ad libbing to fill in the voice of the second party in the friendship he felt was depicted. Both John and Matthew made Power Point presentations to represent their transactions with poems, combining images and words to represent their feelings about the poems. William made puppets to convey his feelings about poems, saying that each puppet represented something about each poem he read so that he could, in his words, ?better explain the poem to other people.? Both Carrie and Jennifer seemed to have transactions with ?Fire and Ice.? Jennifer related the poem to Biblical themes. Carrie recast the poem into a story and visually represented the colors she felt when hearing the poem. These transactions not only demonstrate that English language learners may have 162 transactions with literary works that are not in their primary language, but that such transactions may be helpful in lowering the affective filter in that students are relating to the text and therefore content is more comprehensible and affective filters are lowered. Research Question 3 What are observable interactions among participants? The poetry centers used in this study attempted to create a context where students had opportunity to draw upon their past years of language in interaction with other participants and me (Schecter & Cummins, 2003). Laura Laura expressed her enjoyment of the activities overall. As mentioned earlier, she had not been generally talkative but more of a private person. She commented, ?I liked talking to friends while we were working. I think it was fun because it was sort of relaxed. Even if some were hard, it was still easy because it was relaxed.? When Laura presented her ?This is just to say? poem, William gave her a high-five. Laura also affirmed William when he asked her advice about giving his mother the Valentine?s Day poem he had written, telling him, ?She will put it on the wall I think.? While this might seem otherwise unremarkable, Laura had, in the past, generally kept to herself. These interactions seemed to demonstrate a certain comfort level with another group member. Angie Angie interacted with the other group members. She offered her soccer ball to Matthew who said he didn?t have one, demonstrating that she was attentive to his soccer haiku. She also interacted with the group when she presented her work, making eye contact and exchanging comments such as, ?Listen to this now? and ?Don?t you guys 163 want to know how I did that?? When some members of the group were uncertain to what ?This is just to say? refers when it mentions, ?I have eaten the plums,? Angie was thoughtful in that she brought plums for members of the group. On the final day she taught members of the group the choreography she did with ?Fire and Ice,? drawing other members into her transaction and interacting with the other members in the process. Robert Robert was very supportive of the members of the group, offering affirmative nods and comments, and an occasional ?Woo hoo.? He also commented on poems group members had written in a way that demonstrated his high level of engagement with their work, with comments such as the one he gave Carrie on the first day, ?That is so cool. I like the colors,? and telling Chris, ?I like hearing the English and Spanish.? He assured Nicole, ?Your poetry is all good.? Nicole Nicole?s performance of the balcony scene from Romeo and Juliet seemed to please other group members as they attempted to read along with her from memory. She also seemed interested in the performance and work of other group members, as demonstrated through such comments as, ?I would like to see Robert do some more Dark Vader poetry. I have never seen him do anything in front of people (before now), but he should be an actor or something.? Nicole also affirmed Jennifer for her recasting and explanation of ?Fire and Ice,? telling Jennifer, ?I think that sounds smart.? She also affirmed Chris when he read his ?Where Does Poetry Hide?? poem written in a combination of Spanish and English, saying, ?I am not sure what you said, but it sound like it?s very nice.? Nicole also participated in a group discussion about Spanish and 164 English cognates, sharing her experience in Spanish class in order to help William explain how some of the Spanish words in his poem sound similar to English words. John John?s level of group engagement and interaction increased each week. While he was hesitant to talk and interact on the first week, by the time we had reached the last meeting he had written a poem, which he dedicated to the group, for our last meeting together. The poem contained humor, which demonstrates an increasing level of fluency, for it is often considered difficult to convey humor and sarcasm in a second language. John wrote I have eaten the Pizza that you had in my house And which you were probably going to eat later Forgive me It was decious Because it was yours 165 John commended other members of the group for their work. After William read his revision of Frost?s ?Fire and Ice,? John commented, ?I think I understand more better now about it.? Matthew Matthew shared his poems that he had written about where poetry hides, to which Nicole reacted, ?I think I might cry.? Matthew was visually surprised by her comment and replied, ?Wow.? This interaction was an affirmation for him. On the final day Matthew shared a comedic haiku about William stealing plums. His interaction with the group had changed from the first day and his near silence, to humor with group members with whom he had previously had little contact. Matthew commented, ?I can think at the blank wall.? When he realized that we had only two remaining meetings Matthew said, ?I think we have only got two more week. That is sad.? Chris Chris had been in the United States for only seven months at the start of the study. I assumed, incorrectly, that since he was communicating so fluently and openly in Spanish, and since he realized he could do so with me, that he would not attempt communication in English. Chris not only attempted communication with other participants, but he also read an entire poem in English on the final day of the study. His friend William told me that Chris did not really use English in school. Chris confirmed, ?es verdad. I only speak some Espanish in the school.? Yet he recalls about his expereince, ?I think no understand, but I do. I like poesias.? Chris interacted with other group members in a combination of Spanish and English, both questioning them about cultural issues and complimenting them on their work with the poetry centers. Chris 166 asked Nicole, ?En tu ah, tu pais, you like music a Ramstein,? curious about whether she listened to the German band. Nicole laughed in reply, ?Yes, but I think it is more like for my parents not us.? Chris nodded, seeming to understand. William Through his interaction with art and with other participants William read, wrote and listened to language, and he seemed to enjoy doing so. William said, ?I like that we can read some and draw some too. I think the way some of the poems had helpers made them easier. Like when I know how many syllables are in some or when you gave us a sample with black lines. That made it more easier, and I liked it more.? William?s ?This is just to say? poem stimulated conversation among group members in which William, along with help from Nicole, participated and fielded questions about cognates. On our final day William wrote two tankas to commemorate the Saturday poetry activities and to praise the activities we did while working in the centers. By the time you read La poesia a me I will have left you Pero do not cry for me I will see you in your dream I enjoy this class Because it?s lots of fun And it?s fun to do Specially the puppets 167 I am going to miss this class He left the study smiling, which differed greatly from his attitude on the first day of just visiting to decide whether he would rather be doing construction with his father. Jennifer She seemed especially excited when she shared the dual language poem she authored with Carrie, marching to the front of the room and holding her head up as she read, a change from previous days when she had held her head down when she read aloud. She recalls, ?I think people like these poetry centers. It is interesting. I think about what I will do next time. It is fun. I like to see other people do too. Hardest was first day with haiku and lantern. I think it was hard to find syllables. After that was most easy. The two voice was a little challenge, but it was so fun.? She also seemed proud of some of her other work saying, ?The ?Where Does Poetry Hide? was most special. I feel a little sad when I write it, so I know it is real and true.? On the final day Jennifer assured Chris, ?Your English is not bad too,? after he had read a poem he had written first in Spanish and then in English. Carrie Carrie commented, ?Class liked my quilt poem. They all said it is real nice. That makes me feel nice and good. That was the first day, so I am happy to come next time. I think the two voice poem is so fun too.? Carrie was the only participant to comment that she did not particularly like the puppets saying, ?Maybe I didn?t like puppet much. It is okay, but I like other art more.? Carrie also encouraged other group members. She said to Laura of her ?Where Does Poetry Hide?? poem, ?I think it is a beauty,? perhaps echoing Chris?s comment on the first day after his reading of ?Como Tu?.? She also 168 affirmed John?s ?Where Does Poetry Hide?? experience agreeing, ?I know what you mean. I feel poetry in Halloween.? Discussion: Participant Interaction Peer interaction among participants seemed to help lower their inhibitions. Participants seemed increasingly willing to share what they had written (John was timid to write a haiku on the first day but by day six he was recasting poetry in the frame of humor), and they seemed willing to assist their peers in collaboration on activities (Jennifer and Carried performed dual-voice poetry). The outcomes of this study suggest that both positive feedback and opportunities for peer interaction may assist in lowering the affective filter (Morales-Jones, 2002; Richards & Lockhart, 1994; Valdes, 2001). Feedback and interaction on the first day helped set the tone for the remaining sessions, for in reflecting on conversations of the first day, one may see the level of trust and respect. During our discussion about poetry on the first day I affirmed participants saying, ?I think what you said is important. I agree.? I invited the participants to take part in establishing a community through discussion about community and by introducing themselves through our writer?s poetry quilt activity. Participants then affirmed each other with compliments and high fives as each member presented his or her quilt square. In the sessions that followed participants affirmed each other as they presented for the group. In fact, all responses during the six days were positive affirmations, and many were affirmations specific to a particular product or performance. Group members interacted with each other in friendly discussion as they worked. Some members collaborated to write and present together. The environment established was nonthreatening. Participants seemed to feel safe to take risks in producing language and 169 in expressing themselves artistically. For English language learners, increased time spent interacting with peers to accomplish academic tasks may help lower their inhibitions and so enhance access to the target language in the classroom environment. Implications for the English Language Arts Classroom Since many English language learners arrive in the general classroom with limited English fluency and therefore heightened inhibitions, activities such as those presented in this study lower the anxiety levels of participants. Such activities may also help students whose primary language is English in terms of lowering inhibitions and making content comprehensible. ELLs need time to read and write without being hurried through the process. For English language learners increased time spent interacting with peers to accomplish tasks in the English language arts classroom may help lower their inhibitions and so enhance access to the target language in the classroom environment (Freeman & Freeman, 2003; Holmes & Moulton, 2001; Schecter & Cummins, 2003). Students in content-area classrooms also need choice so that they may invest in their own content and linguistic growth (Dewey, 1897; Fay & Whaley, 2004; Wong Fillmore & Snow, 2000). Participants demonstrated that they were in charge of their own learning when they acted on their own ideas about using materials collaboratively from different poetry centers and in different parts of the room. I had been concerned that I might impose too much of my ideas about poetry and about the use of materials in the poetry centers. Participants seemed to see the materials in the centers and the premise behind each of the poetry centers as being less compartmentalized and more contiguous, using ideas and materials from two or more centers to develop a singular response. 170 The outcome of this study suggests that the use of learning centers may be one way to facilitate interaction that lowers ELLs affective filters, thus providing access to language acquisition as well as academic understanding and consequent learning regarding lowering affective filters, transactions with texts, and interactions with peers (Heard, 1999; Herell & Jordan, 2004; Freeman & Freeman, 2003). The group dynamic for the study was highly engaging seemingly promoting language learning and acquisition by lowering the participants? inhibitions. On the surface was the continual praise by participants in response to participant presentations. More subtle were the conversations between participants of unlike primary language backgrounds: conversations about cultural understanding, discussions about common music interests, friendly commentary about overheard conversations and interactions. A member of the group would begin a conversation about one participant?s performance or production, and other members of the group would participate. The following excerpt from day one and consequent linguistic, academic, and interpersonal benefits demonstrates how interaction during writing supported relationships. Chris: Alemana, alemana, hey alemana?escucha a Ramstein? Laura: What? Susan: He was calling you ?German? and asking if you listen to the band Ramstein. Make sure the base is this size, and then you can put whatever you want on it. Laura: Oh. I listen to that. You listen to that in Spain? Chris: Que? No en Mexico. Laura: You speak Spanish in Mexico? 171 Chris: Si. Espanish en Mexico, en Guatemala, en Honduras, en Panama, en all? Laura: Wow. That is so cool. I think only in German we only speak only the German. Angie: You listen to Ramstein in Spanish? Chris: No. Aleman. Angie: Mrs. Piper, do you think it will hold this when I put it on? Susan: It should, but I also have hot glue. I will plug it in so that it can get hot. Chris: How do you say Hola? Laura: Hello. Chris: No. In Germany. Konichiwa, Bon Jour, Ahn Yahn . . . Laura: You have magazines, right? Susan: I do. Laura: Maybe I need them a little. Angie: Can I use some hot glue? There?s not a soccer ball in any of these magazines. I need a soccer ball. Laura: Chris, do you like Apokalyptica? Chris: Apokalyptica? The band? So-so. Susan: I will be bringing some more magazines next week if you want to wait, or you could make a soccer ball. Angie: Oooo, I think I will make a soccer ball. Laura: I like American Idol. Carrie: I like too. John: Me too. 172 This environment seemed to invite open conversation and discussion and praise about the work of other participants. Admittedly, this dynamic might not be present in another attempt at the same study with different participants, but it seems that the community building activity on the first day, followed by student choice and presentation and praise on subsequent days, may have created an environment that led to the lowering of affective filters. Also of seeming import to the English Language Arts classroom is the quality of academic activity?the advanced literacy work by English language learners at fluency levels varying from very limited to fluent. In the introduction I mentioned that it is the responsibility of the teacher to not only carefully plan and deliver content to meet the objectives of state and local curricula, but to do so in a way that supports student language development (Short & Echevarria, 1999). While the temptation may exist to present modified content to English language learners, the observations of this study suggest that modifying content because of LEP level it is not defensible. In the words of Koch from Rose, Where did you get that Red: Teaching Great Poetry to Children (1990) Restricting children to poems supposed to be on their age- or grade-level deprives them of too many good things. They get more out of genuinely good poems than out of mediocre ones, even if the better poems are difficult in some ways (179). English language learners can successfully do work that addresses big ideas in academic domains in general and in the domain of English in particular. This charge to both support language development and access student experience may be seen as a 173 framework teachers can use to address the needs of ELLs and L1 English students within the classroom setting. Writerly Moves It seems helpful to the field of English language arts to consider what writerly moves emerged from transactions between participants and texts and from interactions among participants in the study. Some of the moves I observed participants making addressed what poetry is and what literature is as demonstrated through participant transactions and interactions. Since participant conversation and feedback played a large role in the study, effects of talk on writerly moves are addressed. Also addressed, for they are integral to writerly analysis as it pertains to this study, are the uses and implications of recasting texts. Talk From the first day conversation played a role in framing the community of participants. I provided feedback based on participant discussion about the activities we would be doing in the upcoming weeks. Participants offered feedback to each other as they presented their poetry quilt squares, not only offering positive remarks, but also inquiring about the content of the poetry presented. In the following conversation about Jennifer?s poem, Matthew asked for clarification of a word. Laura assisted Jennifer in the explanation, and then she offered a compliment to Jennifer. Jennifer: Me now. Nails Nail White Long Favorite Birthday present 174 Claw Matthew: What is claw? Jennifer: It like a cat. You know? Matthew: Your hands like cat? Laura: No. Her fingernail (holding up her hand to show him). Matthew: Ah ah ah ah. Okay. Laura: I like the poem. I like your nails too. Jennifer: Thank you. Feedback took place at every meeting after each presentation. The feedback ranged from clapping, to an occasional ?woo hoo? or ?Read it again. I like that sound. Read it again,? from Robert, to discussions about the content of a poem or about graphic arts decisions such as the design of a Power Point, a puppet or a costume or a sketch or collage to accompany a piece of participant writing. Participants were invited to choose the ways in which they transacted with texts, and conversation surrounding puppet design (Act! Dance! Read!), recasting of texts, and conversations about ?Where Does Poetry Hide?? were all ways of talking about writing that led to participant writing. Discussion and interaction engendered writerly moves. Through discussion Chris learned the word pal and used it in future conversations. Because of writerly talks several participants formed ideas about the intent of ?Fire and Ice,? and some participants revised their ideas based on subsequent talks as when John and Jennifer both thought the poem made Biblical allusions. When John made his Jesus puppet, he explained that he thought Robert Frost wrote the poem, ?about end of all world [therefore] Jesus should read it.? A couple of participants nodded and seemed to indicate that they agreed with his analysis. 175 Jennifer said, ?I think that a little bit. I think it sounds like a church something.? Later Jennifer recast ?Fire and Ice? presenting her understanding of the poem with Some say the world will end in fire, Some say in flood. From what I?ve read in the Bible. I hold with those who favor fire. But if it had to perish twice, I think I know enough of God To say that for destruction I can?t say, he would decide. After her reading John agreed, ?That is like a little what I think about the poem.? This negotiated understanding through conversation may help lower affective filters since the parties involved in the conversation have a partner with whom to talk and a fellow writer from whom to glean ideas. Angie and Robert discussed ?Where Does Poetry Hide?? seeming to negotiate an understanding about the question, while Angie wrote her poem. Angie sat with Robert and chatted while she worked. She asked him, ?Is your country so different?? Robert replied, ?So different? No. It is not so different I think. I think people nice here and there. I think school more hard here.? Angie replied, ?I thought it was so different, but after some time, I think I love this place too and my home place too.? I had not observed the two of them in specific, sustained interaction prior to this day. Robert talked with Angie, asking her questions about her writing during the entirety of the morning. ?Do you think writing is easy in English,? Robert asked, ?because I never really learned write 176 much before here.? Angie replied, ?I think it is not easy or hard here or home, but some things are easy and hard both and some are never easy or hard.? Angie had chosen to work with ?Where Does Poetry Hide?? Specifically, she wanted to explore through the door of observation. Inspired by the conversation, Angie wrote Observations about my countries I came here Looking for differences Forcing myself to see what would make me Love my country more Forcing myself to eat what would make me Desire my food more Forcing myself to sing songs that would make me Want to be hanging out with my friends back home. Then I saw what would make me love this country too. Then I ate food that made me desire this food too. Then I heard my music here and knew that we listen to the same music. So I thought, if we listen to good music, eat good food, and like hot boys, How different from home can this place really be? While Angie wrote her villanelle she talked with several participants about her trip to Washington D.C., trying to conjure memories of her visit to use in her poem. Nicole talked with me and several participants about ?nice poems? and in trying to explain decided that she wanted to use a scene from Romeo and Juliet. She also talked about Meyer?s use of ?Fire and Ice? in the Twilight book series and, following the 177 conversation, wrote an essay of her analysis. On the surface these conversations may seem unremarkable, yet they took place among participants who were limited in their English proficiency. Conversations about reading from the stance of being a writer helped the participants decide what and how to write and present their ideas. Recasting Participants were invited to recast texts. For the particular poetry center introduced in this study, participants were provided with copies of ?This is just to say? by William Carlos Williams, as well as scaffolds for recasting and examples of the poem recast by students. Recasting was chosen for use in the Idea Modeling poetry center, primarily because the use of scaffolds seemed likely to lower inhibitions. While some participants used the scaffold to create their own versions of ?This is just to say,? others used the idea of recasting with poems, such as ?Fire and Ice? from other poetry centers. In the past I had used idea modeling and recasting in English language arts classes with L1 speakers of English. With English language learners the outcome of recasting was similar to that I would expect from native speakers of English. Participants seemed to transact with the original Williams poem in a variety of ways. Some participants, such as Nicole (?This is just to lie? and ?This is just to say re: vacuuming?), John (?This is just to say re: pizza?), Laura (?This is just to say re: breaking my umbrella?), and Angie (?This is just to say re: spoiling the book ending?), followed a pattern of insincere apology that many suggest is present in Williams?s original poem. While it may be argued that the use of a scaffold helped participants with the frame of the writing, sarcasm and insincerity are writerly moves that suggest understanding of textual intent and linguistic complexity. 178 Some participants recast the Williams poem with a suggestion of sincerity or apology. William used the framework to write a plea to his family to allow him to have fun after finishing his chores. Matthew used a false accusation made against him by a teacher as inspiration for his recast poem (?This is just to say re: I have stolen the test?). Robert approached the poem from the perspective of one friend apologizing to another, creating puppets to use in reading the poem and in delivering the conversation between friends that followed the apology. Other participants combined recast poetry with graphic and performing arts as well. Carrie?s transaction with ?Fire and Ice? produced a story that contained a legend- like quality as well as a performance that, in her words, ?represent what colors and feel are in the poem.? William expanding on the original text of ?Fire and Ice,? adding and substituting words to help others understand the poem. Writerly moves also seemed evident in Jennifer?s recast of ?Fire and Ice? and John?s reading of ?Fire and Ice? performed by his ?Jesus? puppet, both of which alluded to Biblical themes. Practicing and Editing Another writerly move that pervaded the study was the concept of practice and editing for verbal, nonverbal, and written products. Participants practiced prior to presenting reading of texts by their puppets. They rehearsed before they danced or performed dramatic readings for the group. Participants wrote and edited pieces to get them into the format they desired, at times asking other participants for help and advice. Typically participants did not wish to present their pieces if they had not had an opportunity to practice. When they practiced participants sometimes did so alone and at other times did so with another group member. It seems that their reaction to practicing 179 or lack of practice had an impact on their affective filters. This might suggest that practice and editing assist in lowering of affective filters. Participants? desire to practice and edit also suggests their desire to perform well in front of their peers. Perhaps they enjoyed the feedback given by other group members. It is also possible that a sense of competition was present. This seeming motivation to perform for peers may also have assisted participants in putting aside anxiety and lowering affective filters at the hope of praise and personal edification. A Model for the Classroom Incorporating consideration of what is already believed about how ELLs learn within the zone of proximal development and with lowered affective filters, the body of empirical research on language acquisition is expanding. While it seems that activities presented through poetry centers may assist in lowering inhibitions of English language learners, it must be noted that the participants in this study voluntarily attended poetry related activities on Saturday mornings. In the general classroom some variables will differ from those in the study. Depending upon the class size it may be more manageable to have either fewer centers at the same time or more than one of each center at the same time. Either way, in a classroom setting poetry centers could still be manageable. Implications for Future Research The results of this study have influenced me to consider how this same study might be applied to a group of English language learners in their home country. I am currently preparing a grant that may lead to duplication of this study in South Korea in considering poetry centers in the L2. I am also interested in what might be different about the study if alternate activities, such as those centered around mathematics, social 180 studies or science, were used. A future study might focus on this connection as a case study. 181 REFERENCES 107th Congress. No child left behind act of 2001. Public Law 107-110. (2001). Adler, P.A. & Adler, P. (1994). ?Observational techniques.? In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.). Handbook of qualitative research. (377-392). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Barbieri, M. (2002). ?change my life forever?: Giving voice to English-language learners. Portsmouth: Heinemann. Bernache, C., Galinat, K., & Jiminez, S. (2005). "Coteaching in a sheltered model: Maximizing content and beginning-level English language learners." In D. Kaufman & J. Crandall (Eds.), Content-based instruction in primary and secondary school settings. Virginia: TESOL. Blanck, G. (1990). "Vygotsky: The man and his cause." In L. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky and education: Instructional implications and applications of socio-historical psychology. (pp. 31-58). New York: Cambridge. Bogdan, R. & Biklen, S. K. (1992). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Braslavsky, B. (1962). . Buenos Aires: Editorial Kapelusz. Brown, H.D. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching. New York: Longman. Bruner, J. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 182 Bruner, J. (1978). "The role of dialogue in language acquisition." In Sinclair, Jarvella & Levelt (Eds.), The child's conception of language. New York: Springer-Verlag. Bunch, G., Lotan, R. Valdes, G, & Cohen, E. (2005). "Keeping content at the heart of content-based instruction: Access and support for transitional English learners." In D. Kaufman & J. Crandall (Eds.), Content-based instruction in primary and secondary school settings. Virginia: TESOL. Carlson, L. M. (Ed.). (1994). Cool salsa: Bilingual poems on growing up Latino in the United States. New York: Fawcett Books. Cary, S. (2002). Working with second language learners: Answers to teachers? top ten questions. Portsmouth: Heinemann. Celan, P. (2002). Poems of Paul Celan: A bilingual German/English edition. New York: Persea Books. Chaiklin, S. (2003). The zone of proximal development in Vygotsky's analysis of learning and instruction. In A. Kozulin, B. Gindis, V. S. Ageyev & S. M. Miller (Eds.), Vygotsky's educational theory in cultural context (pp. 39-64). New York: Cambridge University Press. Choi, Y.H. (Ed.). (2005). Fragrance of poetry: Korean-American literature. Paramus, N.J.: Homa & Sekey Books. Clagett, F., Reid, L., & Vinz, R. (1996). Recasting the text. Portsmouth: Heinemann. Corbin, A. S. J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. 183 Cranton, P. (2002). "Teaching for transformation." New directions for adult and continuing education. 93 (63-71). Wilmington: Wiley Periodicals. Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Cummins, J. (1981). Empowering minority students: A framework for intervention. In O. Garcia & C. Baker (Eds.), Policy and practice in bilingual education (pp. 103- 117). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Dalton, R. (1990). Poemas clandestinos/Clandestine poems. Willimantic, CT: Curbstone Press. Daniels, H. (2007). "Pedagogy". In H. Daniels, M. Cole & J. V. Wertsch (Eds.), The Cambridge companion to Vygotsky (pp. 307-331). New York: Cambridge University Press. de Jong, E. & Grieci, G. "Mapping the ESOL curriculum: Collaborating for student success. In D. Kaufman & J. Crandall (Eds.), Content-based instruction in primary and secondary school settings. Alexandria, Virginia: TESOL. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (1998). Strategies of qualitative inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Dewey, J. (1897). "My pedagogic creed". The school journal, LIV(3), 4. Dixon-Krauss, L. (1996). Vygotsky in the classroom: Mediated literacy instruction and assessment. White Plains, NY: Longman Publishers. Echevarria, J., Vogt, M., & Short, D. (2008). Implementing the SIOP model through effective professional development and coaching. Boston: Pearson, Allyn & Bacon. 184 Echevarria, J., Vogt, M., & Short, D. (2004). Making content comprehensible for English language learners: The SIOP model. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Eisner, E.W. (1985). The educational imagination. Philadelphia: Falmer Press. Eisner, E. W. (1998). The enlightened eye: Qualitative inquiry and the enhancement of educational practice. Colombus: Merrill. English, National Council of Teachers of (Ed.). (1996). Standards for the English language arts. Urbana, IL: NCTE. Fay, K., & Whaley, S. (2004). Becoming one community: Reading and writing with English language learners. Portland: Stenhouse. Fleischman, P. (1985). I am phoenix: Poems for two voices. New York: Harper Trophy. Fleischman, P. (1988). Joyful noise: Poems for two voices. China: Harper Trophy. Freeman, D., & Freeman, Y. (1988). ?Sheltered English instruction.? Washington, D.C.: Office of educational research and improvement. Freeman, Y. S., & Freeman, D. (2003). "Struggling English language learners: Keys for academic success." In TESOL journal., 12 (3), (5-10). Alexandria, VA: TESOL. Freeman, Y. S., & Freeman, D. (2006). Teaching reading and writing in Spanish and English in bilingual and dual language classrooms. Portsmouth: Heinemann. Freire, P. (1972). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Freire, P. & Macedo, D. (1987). Literacy: Reading the word and the world. South Hadley, MA: Bergin and Garvey. Frost, R. (1923). "Fire and ice." A poem with notes and grace notes. New York: Henry Holt & Company. 185 Gasparro, M. Fatella, B. (1994). Creating drama with poetry: Teaching English as a second language through dramatization and improvisation. Washington, D.C.: Eric Digest. Gibbons, P. (2002). Scaffolding language, scaffolding learning: Teaching second language learners in the mainstream classroom. Portsmouth: Heinemann. Giroux, H. (1997). Pedagogy and the politics of hope: Theory, culture, and schooling. Boulder: Westview Press. Goodman, Y. & Goodman, K. (1990). "Vygotsky in a whole-language perspective." In Vygotsky and education: Instructional implications and applications of socio- historical psychology. L. Moll (Ed.), (223-250). New York: Cambridge University Press. Gordon, T. (2005). "Working together to raise content-based instruction into the zone of proximal development." In D. Kaufman & J. Crandall (Eds.), Content-based instruction in primary and secondary school settings. Virginia: TESOL. Harste, J., Short, K., & Burke, C. (1995). Creating classrooms for authors and inquirers. Portsmouth: Heinemann. Heard, G. (1999). Awakening the heart: Exploring poetry in elementary and middle grades. Portsmouth: Heinemann. Hedegaard, M. (1990). "The zone of proximal development as basis for instruction". In L. C. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky and education: Instructional implications and applications of sociohistorical psychology (pp. 349-371). New York: Cambridge University Press. Henry, D. (2007). "Interrater reliability." In Lecture notes. Auburn University, AL. 186 Herrel, A. & Jordan, M. (2004). Fifty strategies for teaching English language learners. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Holmes, V. & Moulton, M. (2001). Writing simple poems: Pattern poetry for language acquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press. Kagan, S. (1995). "We can talk: Cooperative learning in the elementary ESL classroom." Center for Applied Linguistics digests. (pp. 1-3). www.cal.org/resources/digest/kagan001.html. Kaufman, D. & Crandall, J. (Ed.). (2005). Content-based instruction in primary and secondary school settings. Alexandria: TESOL. Kendall, J., & Khuon, O. (2005). Making sense: Small-group comprehension lessons for English language learners. Portland: Stenhouse. Kennedy, X.J. (1966). An introduction to poetry. Boston: Little, Brown, & Co. Koch, K. (1990). Rose, where did you get that red?: Teaching great poetry to children. New York: Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group. Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press. Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practices in second language acquisition. Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press. Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. United Kingdom: Longman Group. Krashen, S. (2000). "What does it take to acquire language?" ESL magazine. (pp. 22-23). 3:3. West Sussex, UK: Keyways Publishing. 187 Krashen, S. & Terrell, T. (1983). The natural approach: Language acquisition in the classroom. London: Prentice Hall Europe. Knowles, B. (2008) "Single ladies." New York: Columbia Records. Kutz, E. Groden, S., Zamel, V. (1993). The discovery of competence: Teaching and learning with diverse student writers. Portsmouth: Heinemann. Kvale, S. (1996). InterViews. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Laine, E. (1987). Affective factors in foreign language learning and teaching: A study of the "filter". Jyvaskyla University, Finland: Jyvaskyla Cross-Language Studies. (13). Legge, J.(1967). The book of poetry: Chinese text with English translations. Ann Arbor: Paragon. Lewis, J. P. & Robb, L. (2007). Poems for teaching in the content areas: 75 powerful poems to enhance your history, geography, science, and math lessons. New York: Scholastic. Linaberger, M. (2004). "Poetry top 10: A foolproof formula for teaching poetry." In The reading teacher. 58: 4 (366-372). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Lincoln,Y. & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills: Sage. Lowry, L. (1993). The Giver. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. Mathematics, National Council of Teachers of (Ed.). (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM. McCarty, T. & Dick, G. (2003). "Telling the people's stories: Literacy practices and processes in a Navajo community school." In A. Willis, G. Garcia, R. Barrera, & V. Harris (Eds.), Multicultural issues in literacy: Research and practice. (pp.101- 122). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum & Associates. 188 McLane, J. B. (1990). Writing as social process. In L. C. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky and education: Instructional implications and applications of socio-historical psychology (pp. 304-318). New York: Cambridge University Press. Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Meyer, Stephenie. (2005). Twilight. United Kingdom: Little, Brown & Company. Mezirow, J. (1997). "Transformative learning in adulthood." Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult and Vocational Education. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage. Miller, S. M. (2003). How literature discussion shapes thinking: ZPD's for teaching/learning habits of the heart and mind. In A. Kozulin, B. Gindis, V. S. Ageyev & S. M. Miller (Eds.), Vygotsky's educational theory in cultural context (pp. 289-316). New York: Cambridge University Press. Morales-Jones, C. A. (2002). "Teaching for communication". In H. Zainuddin, N. Yahya, C. A. Morales-Jones & E. Ariza (Eds.), Fundamentals of teaching English to speakers of other languages in K-12 classrooms (pp. 68-83). Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt Publishing. Neruda, P. (1994). Odes to common things. New York: Bulfinch Press. Nieto, S. (1999). The light in their eyes: Creating multicultural learning communities. New York: Teachers College Press. Nikano, J. & Hallett, B. (1995). Heiwa: Peace poetry in English and Japanese. Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press. 189 Olshansky, B. (1995). "Picture this: An arts-based literacy program." In Educational leadership. 53 (1), (44-47). Alexandria, VA: ACSD. Olshansky, B. (1997). "Picturing story: An irresistible pathway into literacy." In The reading teacher. 50 (7), (612-613). Newark, DE: IRA. Patton, M. Q. (1987). How to use qualitative methods in evaluation. Beverly Hills: SAGE. Reid, J. M. (1993). Teaching ESL writing. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Richards, J. & Lockhart, C. (1994). Reflective teaching in second language classrooms. New York: Cambridge University Press. Richards, J. & Rodgers, T. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching: A description and analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press. Robbins, D. (2001). Vygotsky's psychology-philosophy: A metaphor for language theory and learning. New York: Plenum Publishers. Robinson, E. (1894). "The house on the hill." Boston: The Globe. Rosenblatt, L. (1995). Literature as exploration. New York: Modern Language Association. Rosenblatt, L. (2005a). The acid test for literature teaching. In L. Rosenblatt (Ed.), Making meaning with texts (pp. 62-71). Portsmouth: Heinemann. Rosenblatt, L. (2005). The literary transaction: Evocation and response. In Making meaning with texts (pp. 72-88). Portsmouth: Heinemann. Rosenblatt, L. (2005b). The transactional theory of reading and writing. In L. Rosenblatt (Ed.), Making meaning with texts (pp. 1-37). Portsmouth: Heinemann. 190 Rosenblatt, L. (2005c). What facts does this poem teach you? In L. Rosenblatt (Ed.), Making meaning with texts (pp. 96-105). Portsmouth: Heinemann. Rueda, R., & Garcia, E. (2003). "Assessing and assisting performance of diverse learners: A view of responsive teaching in action". In A. Willis, G. Garcia, R. Barrera, & V. Harris (Eds.), Multicultural issues in literacy: Research and practice. (pp.203- 222). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum & Associates. Schecter, S. R., & Cummins, Jim. (2003). Multilingual education in practice: Using diversity as a resource. Portsmouth: Heinemann. Schmittau, J. (2003). "Cultural-historical theory and mathematics education." In A. Kouzlin, B. Gindis, V. Ageyev, & S. Miller (Eds.), Vygotsky's educational theory in cultural context. (225-245). New York: Cambridge University Press. Schwandt, T. A. (2007). The sage dictionary of qualitative inquiry. Los Angeles: Sage. Sciences, National Association of (Ed.). (2008). National science education standards. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. Short, D. J., & Echevarria, J. (1999). The sheltered instruction observation protocol: A tool for teacher-researcher collaboration and professional development. Santa Cruz, CA: Center for Research on Education, Diversity, and Excellence. Skinner, B. F. (1988). "The operant side of behavior therapy." Journal of behavior therapy and experimental psychiatry. 19:171-79 Snow, D. (1992). Myths and misconceptions about English language learning. Washington D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics. Stake, R. (1998). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. 191 Starz, M. (1995). "Communicating through poetry in an ESL classroom." In Texas papers in foreign language education. 2(1). (57-68). Dallas: Texas Papers in Foreign Language Education. Steinemann, K. (2008). "Farewell, my love." Some short eulogy poems for a funeral or memorial service. Retrieved December, 7, 2008, from http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Kathy_Steinemann. Studies, National Council for Teachers of Social. (Ed.). (2002). National standards for social studies teachers. Silver Spring, MD: NCSS. Suranna, K. J. (1998). Utilizing Krashen's Monitor Model in the Integration of the Arts in Second Language Acquisition. Svedson, A. (2002). "Season it with haiku." TESOL journal. 38-39. (11:1). New York: TESOL. TESOL. (1997). ESL standards for pre-K-12 students. Alexandria: TESOL. Truscott, D. & Watts-Taffe. S. (2003). "English as a second language, literacy development in mainstream classrooms: Application of a model for effective practice. In A. Willis, G. Garcia, R. Barrera, & V. Harris (Eds.), Multicultural issues in literacy: Research and practice. (pp.185-202). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum & Associates. United States Census Bureau. (2006). "State and county quick facts." Retrieved May 10, 2009, from http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/01/0103076.html. 192 Updike, J. (1993). "Burning trash." Collected Poems 1953-1993. New York:Alfred A. Knopf/Random House. Valdes, G. (2001). Learning and not learning English: Latino students in American schools. New York: Teachers College Press. Volakova, H. (1993). I never saw another butterfly: Children's drawings and poems from Terezin concentration camp, 1942-1944. New York: (Schocken Books). Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The psychology of higher mental functions. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language (E. Hanfman & G. Vakar, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). Thinking and speech (N. Minick, Trans.). In R. W. Rieber & A. S. Carton (Eds.), The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky. Volume I: Problems of general psychology (Vol. 1). New York: Plenum Press. Williams, W.C. (1934) "This is just to say." Collected poems. New York: Objectivist Press. Wilson, R. (2000). "A summary of Stephen Krashen's 'Principles and practice in second language acquisition' ". Journal, (9). Retrieved from http://www.languageimpact.com/articles/rw/krashenbk.htm Wong Fillmore, L. (1991). Second language learning in children: a model of language learning in social context. In E. Bialystok (Ed.), Language processing in bilingual children (pp. 49-67). New York: Cambridge University Press. 193 Wong Fillmore, L. & Snow, C. (2000). What teachers need to know about language. ERIC Clearinghouse on Language and Linguistics. Washington D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics. Wood, D., Bruner, J., & Ross, G. (1976). "The role of tutoring in problem solving". Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 11. World Class Instructional Design in Assessment Consortium. (2007). English language proficiency standards and resource guide: Prekindergarten through grade twelve. Madison, WI: The Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System. Yahya, N. (2002). "Second language oral development and instruction." In H. Zainuddin, N. Yahya, C. A. Morales-Jones & E. Ariza (Eds.), Fundamentals of teaching English to speakers of other languages in K-12 classrooms (pp. 190-241). Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt Publishing. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and method. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Zainuddin, H., Yahya, N., Morales-Jones, C. & Ariza, E. (2002). Fundamentals of teaching English to speakers of other languages in K-12 mainstream classrooms. Dubuque: Kendall/Hunt. 194 APPENDIX A NOTEBOOK PAGES FROM PILOT STUDY 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 APPENDIX B POETRY CENTER ACTIVITIES 204 FRAMEWORK FOR POETRY CENTERS TO LOWER THE AFFECTIVE FILTERS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS Week 1 Poetry is for Everyone I want to first establish an environment of trust. I want participants to know that I have confidence in them?that I believe they have something to contribute to their own learning and growth. I want participants to feel that they can contribute to their own growth and learning. During week one, we will immerse ourselves in poetry as we look at (in print) and listen to (by audio recording and by participant read aloud) poems written in English and in the native languages of the participants. We will also look at poetry written in a variety of literary and school poetic forms including: haiku, tanka, lantern, acrostic, cinquain, biopoem, diamante, alphabet, and villanelle. Community Building Following poetry exploration and consideration of poetic forms, participants will be invited to write poems in either English or their native languages or to choose their favorites to include on their own quilt piece. This quilt will be constructed on a bulletin board and displayed throughout the duration of the eight meetings to represent the community being formed. The foundation of the quilt piece is an 8x8 scrapbooking square. Participants may choose to decorate their quilt piece in any manner they choose, affixing their composed or chosen poem to the piece in some way. One by one, participants bring their quilt pieces to the quilt board to affix them alongside those of their fellow classmates. When participants bring their pieces forward they will be encouraged to share either by reading or by showing the class their pieces. 205 Preparation for Poetry Centers So that participants will be better prepared for poetry centers in the upcoming weeks, I will introduce each center to the whole group. Participants will be divided into groups of three or four, in which they will stay for the duration of the remaining weeks. Participants will rotate through the six poetry centers. Each poetry center will be stocked with a variety of paints and brushes, markers, crayons, scrapbooking pieces, a laptop computer, a jump drive, paper for drawing, writing paper, and a basic improv prop box. Source Texts I have selected a number of source texts for use in this research. The following are not the only texts that may be used. Carlson, L. (Ed.). Cool salsa: Bilingual poems on growing up Latino in the United States. Celan, P. Poems of Paul Celan: A bilingual German/English edition. Choi, Y.H. (Ed.). Fragrance of poetry: Korean-American literature Dalton, R. Poemas clandestinos: Clandestine poems. Fleischman, P. Joyful noise: Poems for two voices. Fleischman, P. I am phoenix: Poems for two voices. Frost, R. ?Fire and Ice.? Legge, J. The book of poetry: Chinese text with English translations. Neruda, P. Odes to common things. Nikano, J. & Hallett, B. Heiwa: Peace poetry in English and Japanese. Robinson, E. ?The House on the Hill.? Updike, J. ?Burning Trash.? Williams, W.C. ?This is Just to Say.? 206 Weeks 2-5 Idea Modeling The idea for this poetry center is taken from the work of Claggett, Reid, and Vinz (1996), in Recasting the Text. One of the ways in which the coauthors describe recasting is idea modeling (see figure 45) in which the author uses the words or frame of the source text to invent their own writing. Participants may use the same format with different words. Participants will have copies of, ?This is Just to Say,? by William Carlos Williams. Participants may choose to recast the poem with or without a cloze style scaffold. Figure 45. Photograph of idea modeling poetry center. ?Where Does Poetry Hide?? The premise behind this poetry center comes from Georgia Heard?s (1999) Awakening the Heart. In its simplest form this is an exploratory activity (see figure 46) that allows participants to highlight themselves and their interests. Using as a source text ?Valentine for Earnest Mann,? by Naomi Shihab Nye, participants will be invited to consider where poems come from?what inspires them. Heard outlines five doors through which we may potentially view poetry: the heart door, the observation door, the concerns about the world door, the wonder 207 door, and the memory door (Heard, 1999, 50). Participants will be encouraged to write through the doors of their hearts. They will be asked to consider what they see through the door of observation. They will consider their concerns about the world, writing from that angle. Participants will also be asked to write about questions they have?about things which they wonder. They will be asked to consider memories and write from their experiences. Figure 46. Photograph of ?Where Does Poetry Hide?? Poetry Center. ?Fire and Ice? The source text for this poetry center is Robert Frost?s ?Fire and Ice.? Participants will be provided with copies of the source text (see figure 47). They will be invited to respond through artistic renderings, though multimedia based response, or through written analysis or response to the poem by recasting the text. 208 Figure 47. Photograph of ?Fire and Ice? poetry center. Act! Dance! Read! Participants choose a source text poem from the folder and may choose to act out, dance, or choral read the poem (see figure 48). Included in the selection will be a variety of poems in English and in the native languages of the participants. Figure 48. Photograph of ?Act! Dance! Read!? poetry center. Haiku, Tanka, and Lantern Poems Participants are given source texts and the scaffolding framework for writing the three poetic forms (see figure 49). They are invited to write their own poems or create artistic renderings of the existing poems. 209 Figure 49. Photograph of ?Haiku, Tanka, Lantern? poetry center. Listen and Respond Participants listen to poems on MP3s and are provided with the print versions of these source texts (see figure 50). Participants respond by recasting, artistic rendering, narrative response, dramatic reading of the source text, and multi-media creations. Figure 50. Photograph of ?Listen and Respond? poetry center. Villanelles Participants use scaffolds to write villanelles (see figure 51). Participants are provided with two different scaffolds. One scaffold is a worksheet with lines numbered according to 210 villanelle stanzas. The other scaffold is a 14X8 poster board with stickers that may be moved around for experimenting with the rhyme scheme. Figure 51. Photograph of ?Villanelle? poetry center. Week 6 Time to Share: A Celebration of Poetry. Participants practice presentations with peers and with me. Participants share their responses and renderings with the community. 211 Table 5 Summary of sessions and activities Session and Date Activity Session 1, January 31 Poetry is for everyone Community building Preparation for poetry centers Sessions 2-5 Session 2, February 7 Session 3, February 14 Session 4, February 21 Session 5, February 28 Idea modeling Where Does Poetry Hide ?Fire and Ice? Act! Dance! Read! Haiku, tanka, and lantern poems Listen and respond Session 6, March 7 Time to share: A celebration of poetry 212 APPENDIX C CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK 213 214 215 216 217 218 APPENDIX D INFORMED CONSENT FORMS 219 INFORMED CONSENT & ASSENT FOR Using Poetry Centers to Aid in Language Acquisition Your child is invited to participate in a study that examines what happens when a teacher of English as a second language presents her poetry lessons to a group of English language learners. Your child?s participation in this study will help determine whether the use of poetry in the classroom helps raise the confidence of students learning English as a second language. I am a graduate student at Auburn University and am conducting this study as part of my dissertation. I will be available to provide support to students throughout the study. Your child was selected as a possible participant because he/she speaks English as a second language and has shown interest in participating in supplementary instruction and English language instruction. If you decide to allow your child to participate, he/she will be asked to take part in the six week program consisting of eight audio taped and video taped classes held on Saturday mornings on the campus of Auburn Junior High School. In these classes, students will be invited to respond in writing or by speaking to both written poetry and spoken word poetry. Total time required of participants will be less than 30 hours. Your child?s participation will be anonymous. Names will not be recorded at any time. No information obtained in connection with this study will be associated with your child in any identifiable form. Your decision whether or not to allow your child to participate will in no way jeopardize your or your child?s future relations with his/her school or Auburn University. Your child?s participation or lack of participation will in no way affect his/her grades. You may discontinue participation at any time without penalty. If you have any questions, please contact Mrs. Susan Piper (334-559-9995 or pipersn@auburn.edu) or Dr. Alyson I. Whyte (334-844-6889 or whyteal@auburn.edu), and we will be happy to answer them. You will be provided a copy of this form to keep. For more information regarding your child?s rights as a subject you may contact the Office of Research Programs, Ms. Jeanna Sasser at (334) 844-5966 or Dr. Steven Shapiro at (334) 844-6499. HAVING READ THE INFORMATION PROVIDED, YOU MUST DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT YOU WISH TO ALLOW YOUR CHILD TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS RESEARCH PROJECT. YOUR SIGNATURE INDICATES YOUR WILLINGNESS TO ALLOW YOUR CHILD TO PARTICIPATE. Parent?s Signature Date Investigator?s Signature Date Child?s Signature Date If you (or your child) change your mind about your child?s participation, your child can be withdrawn from the study at any time. Your child?s participation is completely voluntary. If you choose to withdraw your child, your child?s data can be withdrawn as long as it is identifiable. Your decision about whether or not to allow your child to participate or to stop participating will not jeopardize your or your child?s future relations with Auburn University, the Department of Curriculum and Teaching, or Auburn Junior High School. 220 Your child?s privacy will be protected. Any information obtained in connection with this study will remain anonymous. The data collected will be protected by Susan Piper, and will be maintained in her private files, to which no other party or entity will have access. Information obtained through your child?s participation may be used in Susan Piper?s doctoral dissertation, published in professional journals, and presented at professional conferences. If you (or your child) have questions about this study, please ask them now or contact Susan Piper at (334) 559-9995 or by email at pipersn@auburn.edu or Dr. Alyson Whyte at (334) 844- 6889 or by email at whyteal@auburn.edu. A copy of this document will be given to you to keep. If you have questions about your child?s rights as a research participant, you may contact the Auburn University Office of Human Subjects Research or the Institutional Review Board by phone (334)-844-5966 or e-mail at hsubjec@auburn.edu or IRBChair@auburn.edu. HAVING READ THE INFORMATION PROVIDED, YOU MUST DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT YOU WISH FOR YOUR CHILD TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS RESEARCH STUDY. YOUR SIGNATURE INDICATES YOUR WILLINGNESS TO ALLOW YOUR CHILD TO PARTICIPATE. YOUR CHILD?S SIGNATURE INDICATES HIS/HER WILLINGNESS TO PARTICIPATE. __________________________________ Participant's signature Date Investigator obtaining consent Date ____________________________ _____________________________ Printed Name Printed Name __________________________________ Parent/Guardian Signature Date __________________________________ Printed Name Page 2 of 2 221 (HINWEIS: BITTE WILLINGEN SIE NICHT EIN, ES SEI DENN EIN GENEMIGUNGSSTEMPEL MIT DEM AKTUELLEN TERMINEN ZU DIESEM DOKUMENT HINZUGEFUEGT WURDE.) EINWILLIGUNG DER ERZIEHUNGSBERECHTIGTEN/ DES KINDES F?r eine Forschungsstudie mit dem thema ?Dichtung konzentriert um Sprachgewinn zu f?rdern? Ihr Kind wurde eingeladen um in einer Forschungsstudie teilzunehmen um herauszufinden was passiert wehh eine ?Englisch als zweite Sprache?- Lehrerin ihre Dichtungsstunde einer gruppe von Englisch lernern pr?sentiert. Diese Studie wird ausgef?hrt von Susan Piper,Doktorand, unter der direktorin Alyson Whyte, des Auburn Universit?ts Departement ?Curriculum und Lehre?. IHr Kind wurde ausgew?hlt als ein(e) m?gliche(r) Teilnehmer(in), weil er oder sie Englisch als zweite Sprache Hat. Weil Ihr Kind 18 oder j?nger ist, m?ssen wir Ihre Erlaubnis um teilzunehmen in dieser Studie einbeziehen. Was wird miteinbezogen falls Ihr kind teilnimmt? Falls Sie sich entscheiden um Ihrem Kind zu erlauben teilzunehmen in dieser Forschungsstudie, Wird von Ihrem Kind erwartet um in ein sechsw?chiges Programm teilzunehmen, zusammengesetzt aus acht Ton und video aufgenommenen Klassen, gehalten auf dem Auburn Junior High school campus an Samstagmorgen. In diesen Klassen, werden die Sch?ler eingeladen um in geschrieberner und durch gesprochener Poesie zu geschriebener und gesprochener Poesie zu antworten. Die notwendige total Zeit der Teilnehmer sollte weniger als 30 Stunden betragen. Gibt es irgenwelche Benefizien zu Ihrem Kind oder den anderen? Falls Ihr Kind In dieser Studie teilnimmt, kann Ihr Kind erwarten um ausgesetzt zu werden zu einer Vielzahl von Aktivit?ten, einschliesslich Schreiben, Sprechen und H?ren zu Poesie in verschiedenen Formen. Wir k?nnen? Ich kann nicht versprechen dass ihr Kind Irgenwelche, der oben beschriebenen Benefizien, annehmen wird. The Ergebnisse der Recherche kann Erzieher besser informieren welche wege das fl?ssige Sprechen der Englisch lernern erweitern. Werden Sie oder Ihr Kind Belobigung f?r das Teilnehmen bekommen? Es wird keine Belobigung f?r das Teilnehmen in dieser Studie geben. Elterliche Initalien___________ Teilnehmer Initalien ___________ Seite 1 von 2 222 Falls Sie (oder Ihr Kind) Ihre meinung ?ndern ?ber das Teilnehmen Ihres Kindes, Kann Ihr Kind jederzeit abgemaldet werden von dieser Studie. Ihres Kindes Teilnahme ist vollkommen Freiwillig. Falls Sie sich Entscheiden Ihr Kind abzumelden, k?nnen die Daten Ihres Kindes mit abgemeldtet werden so land sie erkennbar sind. Ihre Entscheidung Ihr kind entweder zu erlauben oder zu verbieten teilzunehmen, wird nicht Ihre und Ihes Kindes zk?nftige Verbindingen mit der Auburn Universit?t, das Department f?r curriculum und Lehre, oder der Auburn junior High School beeinflussen. Ihres Kindes Privatsph?re wird gesch?tzt. Jede Information erhalten durc die Studie Wird annonym bleiben. Die gesammelten Daten werden gesch?tzt von Susan Piper, und werden gewartet in ihrer privaten Akte, zu welchen niemand anderes zugang hat. Erhaltene Informationen durch Ihres Kindes Teilnahme kann in der Doktorarbeit von Susan Piper benutzt werden, ver?ffentlich in proffesonalen jounals, und pr?sentiert bei professionalen Konferenzen. Falls Sie oder Ihr kind Irgenwelche Fragen zu dieser Studie Haben, Fragen sie Jetzt oder kontaktieren sie Susan Piper (334-559-9995) oder pipersn@auburn.edu, oder Dr. Alyson Whyte (334-844-6889) Oder unter whyteal@auburn.edu. Eine Kopie diese Sokumentes Wird Ihrnen gegeben um zu behalten. Falls Sie irgendwelche Fragen zu Ihres Kindes Rechte als ein Rechercher Teilnehmer haben, K?nnen sie das Office f?r Menschen Subjekt Recherche der Auburn Universit?t oder das institutionelle Besprechungsbrett kontaktieren, (334-844-5966) oder hsubejc@auburn.edu oder IRBChair@auburn.edu. NACH DEM LESEN DES BEREITGESTELLTEN IFORMATIONEN, M?SSEN SIE SICH ENTSCHEIDEN, OB ODER NICHT SIE IHREM KIND ERLAUBEN TEILZUNEHMEN IN DIESER STUDIE. IHRE UNTERSCHRIFT ZEIGT IHRE BEREITSCHAFT, IHR KIND ZU ERLAUBEN TEILZUNEHMEN. IHRES KINDES UNTERSCHRIFT ZEIGT SEINE/IHRE BEREITSCHAFT ZUR TEILNAHME. ________________________ ____ _____________________________________ ______ Teilnehmers unterschrift datum Inversigator des erhaltetenen Zustimmung; datum _____________________________ ______________________________________________ Gedruckter Name Gedruckter Name ______________________________ Elterliche Unterschrift datum ______________________________ Gedruckter Name Seite 2 von 2 223 NOTE: NE PAS CONSENTER ? PARTICIPER AU MOINS UN TAMPON D?ASSENTIMENT AVEC LES DATES ACTUELLES AVOIR APPLI?ES ? CE FICHIER) PERMISSION DE PARENT/ASSENTIMENT D?ENFANT d?une ?tude de recherch? entitr? ?Centres de Po?sie d?Aider ? l?Acquisition de la Langue? Votre enfant est invit? participer ? la recherche d?examiner ce qui se passe quand un prof d?anglais langue ?trang?re et seconde pr?senter ses le?ons de po?sie ? un group des ?l?ves d?anglais langue ?trang?re et seconde. Cette ?tude est mener par Susan Piper, Candidate de Doctorat, sous la direction de Mme le Dr. Alyson Whyte, au Department of Curriculum and Teaching (du Programme et P?dagogie) ? Auburn University. Votre enfant ?tait selectionn? comme participant potential parce qu?il parle anglais comme une langue seconde. Parce qu?il a 18 ans ou plus jeune nous doivons obtenir votre autorisation de l?inclure ? cette ?tude. Qu?est-ce ? fournira si mon enfant en participer ? Si vous d?cider d?autoriser votre enfant de participer ? cette ?tude de recherche, votre enfant faire demander de prendre part dans le programme de six semaines constuire de huit classes enregistrer sur video le samedi matin au campus d?Auburn Junior High School. Dans ces classes, les ?l?ves inviteront ? r?pondre par ?crit ou en parlant aux deux po?sie ?crit et po?sie orale. Le temps tenu des participants devrait moins que trente heures. Est-ce qu?il y a des b?n?fices ? mon enfant ou les autres ? Si votre enfact participer ? cette ?tude, votre enfant peut s?attendre ?tre expos? ? une vari?t? des activit?s y compris l??criture, la parole, et l??coute de la po?sie des formes vari?s. Nous (je) ne pouvons pas promettre que votre enfants re?evra n?importe quelles ou tous ces b?n?fices d?crites. Les r?sultats de la recherche peut informer mieux les ?ducateurs aux chemins d?avancer l?aisance des d?butants d?anglais ?trang?re et seconde. Est-ce que votre enfant re?evra de l?indemnisation d?en participer ? Il n?y a pas d?indemnisation pour participer ? cette ?tude. Initiales de Parent/Guardien ______ Initiales de Participant ______ Page 1 of 2 224 Si vous (or votre enfant) change d?avis en concernant la participation de votre enfant, votre enfant peut ?tre repli? de cette ?tude ? n?import quel temps. La participation de votre enfant est volontaire compl?tement. Si vous choisiriez de retirer votre enfant, les donn?es de votre enfant peuvent ?tre replies autant qu?elles sont identifiables. Votre d?cision qui concerne votre autorisation de la participation ou l?arret de la participation de votre enfant ne compromettra pas vos relations ou les r?lations de votre enfants avec Auburn University, le Department of Curriculum and Teaching, ou Auburn Junior High School. La confidentialit? de votre enfant protegera. N?importes quelles informations obtiennent ? la connection avec cette ?tude resterent anonymes. Les donn?es rassambl?es serent prot?g?es par Susan Piper, et garderent dans ses fichiers priv?s, ? lesquelles n?importe d?autre personne aura acc?s. Les informations obtiennent via la participation de votre enfant peuvent ?tre utilis?es dans la dissertation doctoral de Susan Piper, publi?es dans les journaux professionaux, et present?es aux conf?rences professionales. Si vous (ou votre enfant) avez des questions qui concernment cette ?tude, s?il vous pla?t, posez-les maintenant ou contactez Susan Piper ? (334) 559-9995 ou par courriel ? pipersn@auburn.edu ou Mme le Dr. Alyson Whyte ? (334) 844-6889 ou par courriel ? whyteal@auburn.edu. Une copie de ce document vous donnera ? garder. Si vous avez des questions de les droits de votre enfant comme participant de recherche, vous pouviez contacter l?Auburn University Office of Human Subjects Research (le Bureau des Sujets Humains de Recherche) ou l?Institutional Review Board (le Bureau de Revue Institutionnelle) via t?l?phone (334) 844-5966 ou par courriel ? hsubjec@auburn.edu ou IRBChair@auburn.edu. AVOIR LU CES INFORMATIONS FOURNIES, VOUS DOIVEZ D?CIDER SI VOUS VOULEZ FAIRE PARTICIPER VOTRE ENFANT DANS CETTE ?TUDE DE RECHERCHE. VOTRE SIGNATURE INDIQU? VOTRE VOLONT? D?AUTORISER VOTRE ENFANT DE PARTICIPER. LE SIGNATURE DE VOTRE ENFANT INDIQU? SA VOLONT? ? PARTICIPER. _________________________________ ______________________________ Signature de Participant Date Chercheur obtien consentement Date ____________________________ _____________________________ Nom manuscrit Nom manuscript __________________________________ Signature de Parent/Guardien Date __________________________________ Nom manuscrit Page 2 of 2 225 NOTA IMPORTANTE: NO ACEPTE SU PARTICIPACI?N A MENOS QUE ESTE DOCUMENTO CONTENGA EL SELLO DE APROBACI?N CON LOS DATOS CORRECTOS Y LAS FECHAS PERTINENTES CONSENTIMIENTO DE LOS PADRES/ANUENCIA DEL HIJO/A A PARTICIPAR Destinado a Servir de Estudio de Investigaci?n ?Centros de Poes?a para la Asistencia en la Adquisi?n del Lenguaje Su Hijo/a ha recibido una invitaci?n para participar en un estudio de investigaci?n cuyo objeto ser? evaluar, que ocurre cuando una maestro de ingl?s como segundo lenguaje presenta lecciones de pose?a a un grupo de estudiantes de ingl?s. Este estudio ser? conducido por Susan Piper, quien es candidata al Doctorado, y estar? bajo la direcci?n de la Dra. Alyson Whyte, de la Universidad de Auburn: Facultad de Carreras y Ense?anza. Su hijo/a ha sido seleccionado como posible participante ya que ?l o ella habla ingl?s como segundo lenguaje. Ya que su hijo/a es menor de edad, hasta los 18 a?os es necesario tener su aprobaci?n y permiso para incluirlo/a en el estudio. ?Que representa el hecho de que su hijo/a participe? Si usted decide permitir que su hijo/a participe en este estudio de investigaci?n a ?l/ella se le solicitar? que forme parte del programa de seis semanas de duraci?n. Este programa consiste en ocho clases que ser?n grabadas y dictadas los s?bados por la ma?ana en el campo escolar de la Escuela Secundaria de Auburn. En dichas classes se le solicitar? a los estudiantes que respondan de manera oral y escrita ante poes?a escrita o expresada oralmente. El tiempo total requerido de los participantes no exceder? las 30 horas. ?Existe alg?n beneficio para su hijo/a y los dem?s participantes? Si su hijo/a participa en este estudio, su hijo/ podr? tener acceso a una variedad de actividades como escritura, discurso, y la posibilidad de que sea expuesto a escuchar variados fragmentos po?ticos. No se le puede asegurar que su hijo/a va a recibir todos o algunos de los beneficios mencionados sin excepci?n. Los resultados de esta investigaci?n servir?n como veh?culo de informaci?n para los educadores y de ayuda como otra opci?n en las diferentes maneras de mejorar la fluidez del lenguaje de los estudiantes del idioma ingl?s. ?Usted o su hijo/a recibir? alg?n tipo de compensaci?n por su participaci?n? No existir? ning?n tipo de compensaci?n por su participaci?n en este estudio. Padre/Apoderado Iniciales de su nombre______ Iniciales del Nombre del Participante_______ Pagina 1 del total de 2 226 En caso de que usted o su hijo/a cambien de idea en participar en la investigaci?n. Su hijo/a puede retirarse del estudio de investigaci?n en cualquier momento. La participaci?n de su hijo/a es completamente voluntaria. Si usted elige retirar a su hijo, los datos de ?l o ella tambi?n ser?n retirados de los archivos tan pronto como sean identificados. Su decisi?n de permitirle a su hijo/a participar o no permitirle continuar en el estudio, no perjudicar? en ning?n momento ninguna relaci?n futura con la Universidad de Auburn, el Departamento de Carreras en Educaci?n, o la Escuela Secundaria de Auburn. La privacidad de su hijo/a ser? protegida: Cualquier informaci?n que se obtenga concerniente con este estudio de investigaci?n permanecer? de manera an?nima. Cualquier dato obtenido ser? mantenido en reserva por Susan Piper, y permanecer? en sus archivos privados, en los cuales ninguna otra persona tendr? acceso a tal informaci?n Los datos obtenidos a trav?s de la participaci?n de su hijo/a pueden ser usados por Susan Piper en su Disertaci?n del Doctorado, publicaci?n en peri?dicos profesionales, y presentadas en conferencias profesionales. Si usted (o su hijo/a) tienen preguntas acerca de este estudio., por favor satisfaga sus interrogantes ahora o contacte a Susan Piper al tel?fono (334) 559-9995 o a su correo electr?nico: pipersn@auburn.edu Tambi?n puede llamar a la Dra. Alyson Whyte al tel?fono (334) 844-6889 o a su correo electr?nico whyteal@auburn.edu. Usted recibir? una copia de este documento para que pueda tenerlo en su poder. Si usted tuviera alguna inquietud acerca de los derechos de su hijo/a como participante de esta investigaci?n, usted puede llamar a la Universidad de Auburn y contactar a la oficina de Personas Objeto de Estudio e Investigaci?n, o al Panel Institucional encargado de revisar los casos al tel?fono: (334)-844-5966 o v?a correo electr?nico: hsubjec@auburn.edu o a RBChair@auburn.edu. HABIENDO LE?DO LA INFORMACI?N PROPORCIONADA USTED DEBE DECIDIR SI ES QUE DESEA QUE SU HIJO/A PARTICIPE EN ESTE ESTUDIO DE INVESTIGACION. SU FIRMA CORROBORAR? SU VOLUNTAD DE PERMITIR QUE SU HIJO O HIJ/A PARTICIPE. _______________________________ __________________________________ Firma del participante Fecha Fecha de la obtenci?n del Consentimiento ____________________________ _____________________________ Nombre en Letra Imprenta Nombre en Letra Imprenta __________________________________ Firma del Padre/Apoderado Fecha __________________________________ Nombre en Letra Imprenta Pagina 2 del total de 2 227 228 229 230 231 APPENDIX E CODING SAMPLE 232 Day 1 Videotape transcription Susan: Come on in guys. Come in and write your name on a nametag. How are you? Hi. I?m Susan Piper. [setting] Chris: I?m Chris. [setting] Susan: Hi Chris. It?s nice to meet you. Hi William. How are you? Are you having a good year? [setting] William: Hi Mrs. Piper. I am passing all this year. This is Chris. He just came to here after Christmas. Hi Sunshine! [setting] [rel] Susan: Sunshine? [setting] [rel] Laura: He calls me Sunshine. How are you Mrs. Piper? We missed you. [setting] [rel] Susan: Thank you. I have missed you guys too. Take a nametag, and then you can find a seat. [setting] Angie: Hi Mrs. Piper. Do you remember me? [setting] [rel] Susan: Of course I do. [setting] [rel] Laura: I still hate poetry. But I want to see you.[def] [rel] Susan: Well thank you for coming. Maybe we can find something you like about poetry. [people & objects] Laura: I think no. [def] Chris: Hi Sunshine. [setting] [rel] Laura: Not you too! [setting] [rel] Jennifer: I am Jennifer. You no know me. [setting] Susan: It?s nice to meet you Jennifer. Thank you for coming. [setting] Carrie: Hi. Nice meet you. I?m Carrie. [setting] Nicole: Hi Mrs. Piper. [setting] Susan: Hi Nicole. It?s great to see you. Nice to meet you too, Carrie. [setting] 233 Nicole: You too. [setting] Susan: In about five minutes we?re going to start, so go ahead and find a seat up here at the front. [setting] Robert: (laughing as he walks in) Hi Mrs. Piper. Are you surprised to see me? You probably didn?t think I would come did you? [setting] [rel] Susan: I am happy to see you, and I had hoped you would come. [setting] [rel] Robert: My brother say to tell you hi for him. [setting] [rel] Chris: You brother? [setting] Robert: Mrs. Piper knows my brother. [setting] [rel] John: (just nods when he comes in) [setting] Matthew: Hi Piper. I Matthew. This is John. We from Korean. He just come to here just two week ago. Can we come to here? [setting] [rel] Susan: Well it is great to meet you guys. Of course you can. I am so happy you are there. We are getting ready to start. Write your name on a nametag and find a seat you like. [setting] Laura: Can I have some water? I need water for soccer, and I forgot mine. (Students chat as they come in, fill out a nametag, and find a seat). Susan: Sure. You can go ahead and take this one. I didn?t open it. We are going to get started in a few minutes. First, can you give me the papers I sent home for your parents to sign? (collect assent/consent forms) I have a couple of pieces of paper I want you to fill out, and then we are going to get started with some fun things, okay? Thank you so much for coming. Are you all going to get to come every week? We are going to do different things every week. [process] (Students nod and mumble in the affirmative). [process] Susan: That?s great! Okay, everyone take a pencil. We?re going to go ahead and get started. On this page I want you to tell me about yourself. I want you to tell me your name, but I will never use it on anything I write about you. On the next line I want you to tell me your first language. After that, please tell me your grade level. Then I want you to tell me how long you have been in the United States. 234 When you get to the bottom I want you to look at the box. Inside the box it says, I consider myself a and then you have three choices. Remember when I met with you last week, I asked you to find our your fluency scores from the ACCESS test? Raise your hand if you know what I am talking about. Well, I want you to let me know your fluency score if you know it. If you don?t know it, or if you know what it means, you can choose one of the three choices in the box. The first choice is beginning speaker of English. The second choice is intermediate speaker of English. The third choice is fluent speaker of English. If you tested fluent on the ACCESS test, I want you to mark the third choice. [process] Laura: What?s ACCESS? [setting] Angie: The test we took about English. [setting] Laura: Oh yeah. I can tell you next time my score. Okay? [methods] Susan: Great. That?s fine. Chris: Habla espanol? [setting] Susan: Si. [setting] Chris: Oh. Okay. I can English little. [setting] Susan: I guess we can talk then. [setting] Chris: (laughs) That?s good. That?s good. [setting] Susan: When you finish that form, I am going to take that and give you another paper. [process] Chris: Here. I say beginning. [def] Susan: Gracias., Danka, Cahmsahmneeda, uh?Thanks. [people & objects] (Students laugh). [people & objects] Susan: Now I have another form for you. Your name will not be on this form. I want you to tell me a little about your reading and writing and speaking and listening in English and in your language. [process] (Reviews the questionnaire in both English and Spanish). [process] Chris: I understand. I do. I do. [people & objects] Laura: Well this is easy. [people & objects] 235 Susan: Do I have forms from everyone now? [process] Laura: We met every Saturday? Oh?.I thought we only met once a month but no I am glad. [people & objects] Susan: Are you all ready to get started? [process] William: To write some poesias write some?poemas? Poems? [people & objects] Susan: Great! I want to write some poems too. [people & objects] Chris: Poesias es poems? [people & objects] Susan: Yes. [people & objects] Chris: Oh. I like. I like. That?s good. [people & objects] Laura: What do you do now?[rel] [people & objects] Susan: This year I have been teaching at a university in Mobile, Alabama. [people & objects] William: Do you miss the students here? [people & objects] [rel] Susan: Of course I do. I really do miss this school. [rel] Laura: What are we going to do now? [process] Susan: Are you ready to start? We are going to do some activities with poetry. I love poetry. I know that not everyone does, but I think that because you can find poetry in every language it?s one of those things that appeal to a lot of people. Poetry is short sometimes, so it?s easy to read quickly. We learn some poems when we are children and we remember them forever. I am going to share with you one of my favorite poems. It was written by Roque Dalton who wrote it in Spanish, and it was translated into English. Now I am going to read it to you in English, but would one of you like to read it for us in Spanish, in its original language? [process] Chris: a?me, me. [events] Susan: Do you want to read it for us in Spanish? [people & objects] [strat] Chris: Yes. [events] 236 Susan: Well, come up here. [people & objects] Chris: I need come there. Oh?okay. [people & objects] Susan: Listen carefully. This is ?como tu?.?[events] Chris: (reads poem) pauses, es a beauty posia, ah? (continues to read). [events] Susan: Thank you very much. You did a beautiful job. Let?s clap for him. Now I am going to read it in English. I am going to give each of you a copy. This poem expresses how I feel about poetry. (reads poem) [people & objects] I believe poetry is for everyone. Chris: Like pan. Like bread? [events] Susan: What do you think Chris? [events] Chris: I think si. I think yes es verdad. [events] Laura: I think so. I think poems are not just for some people. [events] William: I think some poems are but like some like I write for my girl or my mom. [events] Susan: Do you write poems for your girlfriend and for your mom? [events] William: Well?yeah. I do. But they are just for them. They aren?t for you to read or she or he to read. [events] Susan: I think what you just said is important. I agree. We write some poems for other people, and those poems are private. Some poems we write just for ourselves and we don?t want anyone else to read them. Right? [people & objects] William: Yeah, that?s what I mean. [events] Nicole: But I think what the poem you read means is that everyone can have poetry. It?s not just for some people. [events] Robert: Oh. I think so. I come from small village and we have some poetry. I never see it but I hear it a lot. I think people some talk in poetry a lot some. [events] Susan: That is a great observation! [people & objects] Robert: Do you think so? I think so. I hear it all the time. At least I always think it?s 237 poetry. It some seem like song and some seem like story but it rhyme or is smart talk I think. [events] Susan: Robert, what you have just said is poetry. You said that in such a beautiful way. I think a lot of people enjoy hearing poetry. I was going to talk about how some people think of music as poetry, and you did a good job of explaining that. [events] Chris: Musica? Reggaton? Es poesia? [events] [strat] William: It is a little. Some of it rhymes. Some of it has an over and over sound. [events] [strat] Nicole: I think that?s rhythm. [events] [strat] Chris: No. No rhythm. Re-ge-tton. [events] [strat] Nicole: No. I mean the over and over (gestures with her hands and feet). [people & objects] Chris: Ah, I know. I know. Okay. [strat] John: I think Korea poetry rhythm sometimes. I think everyone can enjoy. [events] William: You have Korean poetry too man? [people & objects] John: (nods) [people & objects] Carrie: Yes. Everyone has it. [people & objects] Nicole: Like the poem said--duh. [people & objects] [rel] (The group laughs). [people & objects] Laura: It is okay to read but I don?t like to do it. [strat] Susan: You don?t like to write it. [people & objects] Laura: No. I mean, yes. I do not like to write it. [strat] Susan: I understand. That?s okay. During our time together there will be time to write poetry, but there will also be time to read poetry, to create and explore poetry. [people & objects] Laura: I will try. It?s okay. [people & objects] [strat] 238 Matthew: You no like? Why you say it? [methods] [people & objects] Susan: It?s okay. We don?t all like the same things. If you don?t like something we are are doing you can tell me. [people & objects] Nicole: (To the group) She wants you to tell her. My dad says she is doing some study so it?s okay if we tell her so she will know. [people & objects] Carrie: I like poetry. [people & objects] Jennifer: Me too. [people & objects] Susan: Would you like to see some of the things we will be doing? I am going to show you what we will be doing for the next several Saturdays. You may want to do all of them, and you may want to only do some of them. You can decide which activities you want to do. [process] Robert: Can you help decide? [strat] Susan: Well, let me tell you about each activity, and I think that will help you decide. [methods] Robert: Okay. [strat] Susan: First, let me tell you why I call each of these areas of the room ?poetry centers.? Does anyone have an idea why I call them ?poetry centers.? [strat] Robert: Cause they centers where we do something poetry. [people & objects] [strat] Susan: That?s exactly right. [strat] Nicole: And they are centers where there are something to do that is something different in every center. [people & objects] [strat] Susan: You guys are both right. Each center is different from each other center, and at each center you will do an activity related to or about poetry. It will be different from the activity you do in another center. [process] John: What is all things there? [people & objects] [strat] Susan: Great question! At each center there are some materials you may use for the activity you do in that center. You may also be in one center and decide you want some of the materials from the other center. That?s okay too. I will also show you now that there is a place in the room (points) where I have put most of the art 239 supplies since you may want to use those supplies for more than one activity. [process] Now let?s look at each center. [people & objects] [strat] This center is called Act! Dance! Read! [process] Angie: Yeah! [people & objects] Susan: You may choose a poem from the folder, and you may choose to act out, dance, or read the poem. In this folder I have a collection of poetry written in all of your first languages. Some of them are also written in English. Some of them are not. For this center you may also want to create your own puppet and let the puppet read the poem. Did you see the stage outside the room earlier? Well that?s a puppet theatre. I have lots of materials for making different kinds of puppet. [process] Robert: ooo cool! [people & objects] Chris: I want to puppet first. [people & objects] Susan: Or you can act out the poem. I have a costume and prop box if you want to create a character to act out the poem. Do you have any questions about this center? [process] Chris: I can make puppet now? [people & objects] Susan: Let me tell you about all the poetry centers first. [people & objects] [strat] Chris: Okay. [people & objects] Susan: This center is ?Fire and Ice? and ?Burning Trash.? (laughter) Susan: There are two poems in this center. You may read the poems and either create something based on what the poems make you think about or write a poem or a letter to respond the authors of the poem. [process] Robert: Make a puppet to read the poem? [people & objects] [strat] Susan: Sure. You can make a puppet to read the poems. [people & objects] [strat] Chris: I want to make a puppet. [people & objects] Susan: I want to give each of you a copy of this poem as I talk about this center. The poem you will use in this center is ?This is Just to Say.? Notice on the paper I have given you that on one side you see the whole poem, and on the other side of the paper you see some 240 words from the poem and some blanks where I took the words out. For this activity, you may choose to use the framework or the idea for the original poem?this poem?to write your own poem. You may also read the original poem and decide to write another poem without help from the framework. You may want to do something different with the original poem. Maybe you will want to draw a picture or act it out, or perhaps you will want to make a collage. [process] Robert: Or read it with a puppet? [people & objects] [strat] (the group laughs) [people & objects] Susan: Or read it with a puppet. [people & objects] [strat] Angie: What are the doors for? [people & objects] [strat] Susan: Actually, the doors are part of a different poetry center. This poetry center is called, ?Where Does Poetry Hide?? [process] Chris: I know. No. I no know. [people & objects] [strat] Susan: Maybe you do know. You can think about it now and when you are ready to do this poetry center you will have some ideas. This poetry center asks you to think about the places where poetry hides. It asks you to consider what you see around you. It tells you to think about what is in your heart. [process] Chris: That?s it. Heart. [people & objects] [strat] Susan: I want you to keep that idea Chris. Do you think poetry hides in the heart? [people & objects] Chris: In my heart? [people & objects] [strat] Susan: I think you have a great poem to write about that! [people & objects] [strat] Chris: (smiles and nods). [people & objects] [strat] Susan: You may also want to consider what bothers you?what makes you worry or concerned. You may also think about important memories from your past or things about which you wonder. Does poetry hide in our memories? Does anyone have questions about this center? [process] Jennifer: Can I do that one first? [strat] Susan: Sure. You will be able to choose which poetry centers you do and the order in which you do them. Now who can tell me about haiku poetry? [people & objects] [strat] Robert: I think it is something about math. 241 Carrie: It is five and seven and five I think. Susan: That?s great! Robert, you are right. We count the number of syllables in each line of haiku. And Carrie is also right. The first line of haiku has five syllables. The second has seven syllables, and the third line has five syllables. That?s the end of the poem. It only has three lines. I have examples of haiku, tanka, and lantern poems here. We will talk about each of these later today. [process] Susan: For this center you may listen to poems on these ipods while you look at the poems on paper. After you listen to the poems you can respond by creating something, by writing a poem, by acting. You may want o make a collage or create something on the computer. It?s your choice. [process] I also have a very challenging poetry center. This center shows you how to write a villanelle. I have some sample villanelles here, as well as a blank framework if you want to use it. You may also see that there are colorful Post-It tabs on these small posterboards. This is another tool to help you with writing a villanelle. I hope some of you will read the poems and try to write a villanelle of your own. It?s kind of like a word puzzle. [process] When you finish with your activity for today, I would like for you to walk around the room and look at the activities in each of the poetry centers. [process] Chris: All fun? I think. Susan: I hope you think it is fun. Today I want us to develop a sense of community here together. What does community mean? [process] John: People live together. [people & objects] Matthew: Neighbor. [people & objects] Robert: I lived in community in my country. [people & objects] Carrie: Maybe group? [people & objects] Chris: Mercado? [people & objects] William: Community market? [people & objects] Susan: These are all great answers. All of these things relate to community. How could we be a community? [people & objects] Robert: We together. [people & objects] 242 Nicole: If we all work together we maybe are a community. [people & objects] Angie: Or if we are just together to share stuff. [people & objects] Laura: What stuff? [people & objects] Angie: Like pens, and poems, and paper, and room. [people & objects] Susan: This is great! You all have a good idea about community. Today we are each going to design a quilt piece so that we can make a community quilt (holds up picture of community quilt). [process] Angie: What are we going to put on these? [people & objects] [strat] Susan: Sometimes students write a haiku or lantern poem. We talked about haiku. How about tanka and lantern poems? I am going to give you a framework for these three types of poems. We can write poems to put on our quilt pieces or we can decorate the pieces in another way. [process] Remember that when we write a haiku we write a line of 5 syllables, 7 syllables, and 5 syllables. If you want to write a Tanka it?s the same as a haiku, but two more lines of 7 syllables. See on this page? [process] Do you remember writing a lantern poem? [strat] Robert: I think so. It looks like on this paper? Like it looks like a lantern or something. [people & objects] [strat] Susan: Chris, are you okay? What are you doing? [people & objects] Chris: I want to write for my baby. [people & objects] [strat] Susan: You have a baby? [people & objects] [strat] Chris: No, my?my?girl? [people & objects] William: friend. [people & objects] Chris: My girlfriend. [people & objects] Susan: You can write a poem for your girlfriend if you want to. [people & objects] Chris: Okay. She will like. [people & objects] 243 Susan: You don?t have to write a poem on your quilt piece, but you may choose to. You may choose to write about anything you want. [process] Jennifer: Okay. Ready. [people & objects] [strat] Carrie: Start? [people & objects] [strat] Susan: Yes. Go ahead. [people & objects] [strat] Angie: How do you spell ?chewy?? [people & objects] [strat] Susan: C-H[people & objects] [strat] Laura: C-H-E-W-Y[people & objects] [strat] Robert: Can you show another lantern poem? [people & objects] [strat] Susan: Here?s an example at the top with some blanks on the page for you. [people & objects] [strat] Robert: Oh. I see. I like that. [people & objects] [strat] Matthew: What do you write about? [people & objects] [strat] Susan: Anything you want. [people & objects] [strat] Carrie: Can I write flute? [people & objects] [strat] Susan: Do you want to write about the flute? Do you play the flute? [people & objects] [strat] Carrie: (nods) [people & objects] [strat] Susan: You can write about the flute. [people & objects] [strat] Nicole: Can I write everything down first and then what? [people & objects] [strat] Susan: When you know what you want to write on your quilt piece or how you want to decorate it, then you can make the quilt piece. [people & objects] [strat] Angie: I don?t know what to write about. [people & objects] [strat] Laura: Me either. I will think though. Don?t tell me yet. [people & objects] [strat] Robert: I want to do art. [people & objects] [strat] 244 Susan: Do you want to draw or paint or? [people & objects] [strat] Robert: No I want to lantern art. The word art. [people & objects] [strat] Susan: Do you want to do a lantern poem about art? [people & objects] [strat] Robert: (nods) Like, if I start with art that?s one right? [people & objects] [strat] Susan: Art is one syllable, right. [people & objects] [strat] Robert: Maybe doodle? Is that two? [people & objects] [strat] Susan: That?s right. It?s two syllables. Doodle is two syllables. [people & objects] [strat] Robert: Okay. Let me see? [people & objects] [strat] Jennifer: I like your nails. I want white nails. [people & objects] [strat] Angie: I am getting my nails Sunday. [people & objects] [strat] Jennifer: I got mine for birthday. Can I write that? [people & objects] [strat] Susan: Sure you can. [people & objects] [strat] Robert: What is the word for make a statue or something like skulk? Skalt? [people & objects] [strat] Susan: Do you mean sculpt? [people & objects] [strat] Robert: Yes. I want to use that in my art lantern. [people & objects] [strat] Angie: I am almost finished. I think I have it almost. [people & objects] [strat] Susan: So are you ready to put it on a quilt square? [people & objects] [strat] Angie: Can I think some more before? [people & objects] [strat] Susan: Sure you can. [people & objects] [strat] Robert: Read this. Is the syble right here? [people & objects] [strat] William: Can we write music? About music? [people & objects] [strat] 245 Chris: No. No I mean?no. Never mind. Can you look? [people & objects] [strat] Susan: Give me just a minute. [people & objects] [strat] Robert: See. Is this right? [people & objects] [strat] Susan: Wow! That?s fantastic! [people & objects] [strat] William: He means can we use music words in our lantern poem. [people & objects] [strat] Chris: Yeah. That?s I mean. [people & objects] [strat] Susan: If you want to write about music, that would be great. Do you like music? [people & objects] [strat] Chris: Yes and my girlfriend. [people & objects] [strat] (group laughs) [people & objects] [strat] Susan: Some of you are finishing with your poems. What I want you to do if you are ready, is to choose a base for your quilt square. [process] Angie: I?m ready! [people & objects] Robert: Am I ready? [people & objects] [strat] Nicole: I am almost ready. [people & objects] Chris: No ready. [strat] Susan: Keep working if you are not ready. Robert, are you happy with your poem? Do you like it? [process] Robert: Yes. Do you? [people & objects] [strat] Susan: Yes. If you are satisfied?if you like it?go ahead and find a quilt square base (holding up the squares).You can use any of the materials here to cut, write, draw, design, decorate, invent, your quilt square. There are art supplies in these boxes. [process] Chris: What this en Ingles? [people & objects] [strat] Susan: Ribbon. It?s ribbon. [people & objects] [strat] 246 Chris: Ribbon? [people & objects] [strat] Susan: Yes. [people & objects] [strat] Robert: Collage. How do you spell? How about create? I am changing some. [people & objects] [strat] Carrie: How about band trip? Is that two? [people & objects] [strat] Susan: Yes. That?s two syllables. [people & objects] [strat] Laura: What?s another word?oh..chew. [people & objects] [strat] Robert: Is make a noun? [people & objects] [strat] Susan: Make is a verb. [people & objects] [strat] Robert: How about life? Is that art? [people & objects] [strat] [events] Susan: Is art life?.or is life art? [people & objects] [strat] Robert: (smiles) yeah. I like it. It is to me. [people & objects] [strat] Angie: Is there another word for bubbles? Bubbles? [people & objects] [strat] Jennifer: Ball. I think. How about nail? Another word? [people & objects] [strat] Carrie: Craw? Craw? [people & objects] [strat] Susan: Claw? [people & objects] [strat] Carrie: Yes. [people & objects] [strat] Susan: Claw could be another word for nails. [people & objects] [strat] Carrie: Can I use note? Is that music? [people & objects] [strat] Susan: You could use it. Are you doing? [people & objects] [strat] Carrie: Is it word for music? Note? [people & objects] [strat] Chris: MAESTRA! Es difficil. Es difficil. [people & objects] [strat] Susan: Let me see what you have. You have started, so that?s great. [people & objects] [strat] 247 Chris: Es en Espanish. [people & objects] [strat] Susan: Do you want to write yours in Spanish? [people & objects] [strat][events] Chris: Yeah. Yeah. I can? Yeah. [people & objects] [strat][events] Susan: Sure. You can write it in Spanish. [people & objects] [strat] Chris: Wow! Gracias. Thank you. Gracias. I write?sabout Mariana?and musica. [people & objects] [strat] Susan: What kind of music? [people & objects] [strat] Chris: Regatton. Es tres? [people & objects] [strat] Susan: Si. Yes it?s three syllables. [people & objects] [strat] Chris: Maiana es quarto. [people & objects] [strat] Susan: Yes. It has four syllables. [people & objects] [strat] Jennifer: Can I cut a shine bag for mine. [people & objects] [strat] Susan: Yes. You may use any materials while you are working with any of these activities. [people & objects] [strat] Susan: It?s okay. This is very interesting what you have chosen Robert. [people & objects] [strat] Robert: I like it. [people & objects] [strat] Susan: I can see that you do. You like art and poetry? [people & objects] [events] Robert: I do. [people & objects] [strat] [events] Susan: That?s great. You are doing such a great job. [people & objects] Jennifer: I want silver, and black and white. [people & objects] [strat] Carrie: I want black and too. [people & objects] [strat] Chirs: Deportes?.deportivo?es quat ?es four? Hmmmm?. Es (sings) en Ingles? [people & objects] [strat] Susan: Cantar? [people & objects] [strat] 248 Chris: Si. [people & objects] [strat] Susan: Sing. [people & objects] [strat] Chris: Cantar is sing. [people & objects] [strat] Chris: Marianna[people & objects] William: Harley[people & objects] Chris: Alemana, alemana, hey alemana?escucha a Ramstein? [people & objects] Laura: What? [people & objects] Susan: He was calling you ?German? and asking if you listen to the band Ramstein. Make sure the base is this size, and then you can put whatever you want on it. [people & objects] Laura: Oh. I listen to that. You listen to that in Spain? [people & objects] Chris: Que? No en Mexico. [people & objects] Laura: You speak Spanish in Mexico? [people & objects] Chris: Si. Espanish en Mexico, en Guatemala, en Honduras, en Panama, en all? [people & objects] Laura: Wow. That is so cool. I think only in German we only speak only the German. [people & objects] Angie: You listen to Ramstein in Spanish? [people & objects] Chris: No. Aleman. [people & objects] Angie: Mrs. Piper, do you think it will hold this when I put it on? [strat] Susan: It should, but I also have hot glue. I will plug it in so that it can get hot. [people & objects] Chris: How do you say Hola? [people & objects] Laura: Hello. [people & objects] Chris: No. In Germany. Konichiwa, Bon Jour, Ahn Yahn? [people & objects] 249 Laura: You have magazines, right? [people & objects] [strat] Susan: I do. [people & objects] Laura: Maybe I need them a little. [people & objects] [strat] Angie: Can I use some hot glue? There?s not a soccer ball in any of these magazines. I need a soccer ball. [people & objects] [strat] Laura: Chris, do you like Apokalyptica? [people & objects] Chris: Apokalyptica? The band? So-so. [people & objects] Susan: I will be bringing some more magazines next week if you want to wait, or you could make a soccer ball. [people & objects] [strat] Angie: Oooo, I think I will make a soccer ball. [people & objects] [strat] Laura: I like American Idol. [rel] Carrie: I like too. [rel] John: Me too. [rel] Chris: Maestra, flag is rojo y verde, y blanco. [people & objects] Matthew: Red is Korean flag. [people & objects] John: And blue. [people & objects] William: We need to have Mexican flag on our[people & objects] Robert: Senegal flag is?also some red. [people & objects] Susan: I will see if I can help you find a soccer ball, Angie. [people & objects] Angie: I have one (gets the soccer ball out of her bag and laughs). [people & objects][rel] Matthew: Sharpies? [people & objects] John: They are here. [people & objects] Angie: Do you have a big round stone? I can make a soccer ball. [people & objects] 250 (Chris and William sing) [rel] Angie: Look. I will just draw lines on this stone. [people & objects][strat] Susan: That looks great! That?s even better than getting a soccer ball out of a magazine. [people & objects] Chris: Maestra! I got a question. A que hora, a termina? [people & objects] Susan: Are you tired of being here? [people & objects] Chris: We having party at 12:00. [people & objects] Laura: I like party. [people & objects] Susan: When you finish these we will present them before we make them part of the community quilt. [process] Carrie: We have to? [people & objects][strat] Susan: I would love for you to tell the class what you did and show them your poem and artwork.[process] Carrie: Okay, I think. [people & objects] Robert: I made orgami bird, orgami, origami, origami bird for my art lantern quilt piece. [people & objects] Susan: That is so nice. You are so creative. If you don?t want to put your name on your quilt piece, you can put your initials. Why don?t you take about ten more minutes and then we are going to share them. Ten more minutes. [process] (Robert digs through the prop box for a while). [people & objects] Susan: Chris, It?s beautiful. Now you are going to write your poem on it. [people & objects] Chris: Huh? [people & objects] Susan: Escribe la poesia. [people & objects] Chris: What poesia? [people & objects] Susan: The one you just wrote about music and Mariana. [people & objects] Chris: Ah, yeah, okay, okay. [people & objects] 251 Susan: (to Robert) Would you like to create something else? [people & objects][strat] Robert: Yes. [people & objects] Nicole: Aghhhh. [people & objects] Susan: Are you making a crane? [people & objects] Nicole: Trying. [people & objects] Susan: Be sure to go ahead and write your poem on there, and then I want you to share it with the class. Then you will place it on this quilt. [process] Angie: I?m going first. [people & objects] (Students start to hold up their pieces and parade them in front of the camera). [process] [methods] (Robert dressed as Darth Vader looks for a poem to read in front of the class). [process] [methods] (Students begin to look through the poetry books as other participants finish). [process] [methods] Angie: I am not sure about this German poem. I think it is funny. Maybe it is weird. [people & objects] Laura: Let me see. (reads poem) [people & objects][strat] Nicole: That?s about a bird waiting for his owner. You know. [people & objects][strat] Angie: Oh. I thought it was about a man. [people & objects][strat] Laura: It could be a man waits for his woman. [people & objects][strat] Nicole: I don?t think so. [people & objects][strat] Angie: I think so. [people & objects][strat] Susan: Do you guys see what you just did? [people & objects][strat] Nicole: We didn?t really fight. [people & objects][strat] 252 Susan: No. But you both read a poem and thought it meant something different. [people & objects][strat] Nicole: So. I think we do that sometimes. [people & objects] Susan: That?s right. We do that sometimes. I want you both to read the poem again and see whether you can see what the other one is saying about the poem. You don?t have to change your mind, but I want you to see that some things might have more than one possible meaning. [people & objects][strat][process] [persp] Robert: I want to practice in the hall. Okay? [people & objects][strat] Susan: You can practice reading your poems aloud and to each other. We will read in a five minutes. [people & objects][strat][process] Nicole: I guess I see how you think that about the man. [people & objects][strat] Laura: I can see the bird thing. I guess it could be a dog or cat waiting for his owner too. That?s funny now. [people & objects][strat] Susan: Take two more minutes to practice before we present our work. [process] (Robert re-enters the room wearing a Darth Vader mask, carrying a lightsaber, and wrapped completely in a white sheet?this was his idea). [strat] [events] Robert: Can I read as Vader? [strat] [events] Susan: Sure. That would be great. I would love to hear Vader read a poem. [people & objects] Robert: (Reading in voice and character complete with Vader?s heavy mask breathing) These are the elements of art. Art. Painting. Doodle. Draw. Write. Sculpture. Art. Live. Art is your father. (Robert has written a lantern poem and has the pieces arranged as a lantern). [people & objects][strat] (The group erupts in laughter and clapping. Robert takes a bow). [strat] [events] Robert: Thank you very much. [strat] [events] Susan: Who wants to go next? [process] Angie: Me. I do. This is called Soccer number 15 because I play soccer. My number is 15. And this is kind of a lantern and kind of I just like it like this. [strat] [events] 15 Soccer 253 Action Powerful Fun, Artistic 15 Soccer Fun Girls-power 15 (Angie finishes with a kick into the air and a mock head bunt). [strat] [events] (The group claps). [strat] [events] Nicole: Okay. I?m next. I played handball before, and I play tennis now, so this is my dedication. I think this is a haiku, or I wanted it to be haiku. [strat] [events] I like to play sports My favorite sport is handball Try it .You?ll love it Susan: That is a haiku, and a great haiku at that. Nicole: Is it the right number of?.of?syllables? [strat] [events] Susan: Yes. It does fit the five-seven-five pattern. [strat] [events] Laura: I can go next. I don?t really love poetry. But I love gum. So I did a gum poem. Okay? [strat] [events] Susan: I love gum too, so I want to hear it. Laura: Okay. Gumball Chewy Fun design tasty yummy Ball Robert: woo hoo! That?s great. [strat] [events] (everyone laughs and claps). [strat] [events] Laura: Thank you Robert. Chris: Ready. Wait. Ready. (Stands at front with William). 254 Esta es mi trabajo. Okay. Okay. Ready? [strat] [events] My Music Reggaton Deporte Mariana Cantar Musica No more. It?s all. Laura: I like it. Robert: I like the words. They sound fun. [strat] [events] Chris: ah Gracias. Spanish. [strat] [events] Robert: Huh? [strat] [events] Chris: the words Spanish. [strat] [events] William: Okay now me. The quilt it is like Mexican flag with eagle in the middle. And Harley my girlfriend. This is my haiku now. It?s soccer like Sunshine. [strat] [events] Angie: Hey! William: Soccer Don?t like the soccer Mi padre thinks I should play I would rather sleep (Laughter and clapping by all). [strat] [events] Susan: Thank you for your honesty. William: You are welcome. Jennifer: Me now. Nails (hold up hands to show us her nails, shy but expressive then). [strat] [events] Nail White Long Favorite Birthday present Claw 255 Matthew: What is claw? [people & objects][strat] Jennifer: It like a cat. You know? [people & objects][strat] Matthew: Your hands like cat? [people & objects][strat] Laura: No. Her fingernail (holding up her hand to show him). [people & objects][strat] Matthew: Ah ah ah ah. Okay. [people & objects][strat] Laura: I like the poem. I like your nails too. [strat] [events] Jennifer: Thank you. [people & objects] Carrie: Okay now. Flute is mine. [strat] [events] Flute Band Trip Disney World Flue Challenging Note (other students all said ?wow.? Two of them said ?awesome.?) [strat] [events] Robert: That is so cool. I like the colors. [strat] [events] Carrie: Thank you. We going to Disney World with band. [people & objects] Matthew: Me now? I also about soccer. It?s not the same. [strat] [events] I like to play soccer But I don?t have a soccer ball So I can?t play soccer Angie: Aha?I have another soccer ball. Do you want it? [people & objects] Matthew: No. It?s joke. [people & objects][strat] Angie: How is it a joke? [people & objects] Matthew: I can play in Korea. But I didn?t get ball yet here. [people & objects] Angie: Oh. [people & objects] (everyone claps) [strat] [events] Matthew: John[people & objects] 256 John: Huh? [people & objects][strat] Matthew: You come here. [people & objects][strat] John: Okay. Mine is golf. [people & objects][strat] I like to play golf. It is my favorite sport. But I can?t play well. Robert: Wow. How do you play? [people & objects][strat] John: It?s hard. Very hard. [people & objects] Robert: I want to play. [people & objects][strat] John: I can show you. [people & objects] Robert: Thanks. [people & objects][strat] Susan: You guys did such a wonderful job. I am so proud of you. Now let?s place our quilt squares on the quilt. [process] (Students come up to get hot glue on their quilt pieces and place them where they want to place them on the quilt framework at the front of the class). [process] William: It?s time already? [people & objects][process] Robert: Will you bring puppets Saturday? [people & objects][process] [strat] Susan: I will have everything that is here today for every Saturday. [people & objects][process] Chris: I want puppets too. [people & objects][strat] (Videotape stopped at two hours). [methods] (As students placed their quilt pieces they gathered their belongings and began to leave). 257 APPENDIX F TRANSCRIPT FROM DISCUSSION ABOUT POETRY ON DAY ONE 258 Susan: Thank you very much. You did a beautiful job. Let?s clap for him. Now I am going to read it in English. I am going to give each of you a copy. This poem expresses how I feel about poetry. (reads poem) I believe poetry is for everyone. Chris: Like pan. Like bread? Susan: What do you think Chris? Chris: I think si. I think yes es verdad. Laura: I think so. I think poems are not just for some people. William: I think some poems are but like some like I write for my girl or my mom. Susan: Do you write poems for your girlfriend and for your mom? William: Well?yeah. I do. But they are just for them. They aren?t for you to read or she or he to read. Susan: I think what you just said is important. I agree. We write some poems for other people, and those poems are private. Some poems we write just for ourselves and we don?t want anyone else to read them. Right? William: Yeah, that?s what I mean. Nicole: But I think what the poem you read means is that everyone can have poetry. It?s not just for some people. Robert: Oh. I think so. I come from small village and we have some poetry. I never see it but I hear it a lot. I think people some talk in poetry a lot some. Susan: That is a great observation! Robert: Do you think so? I think so. I hear it all the time. At least I always think it?s poetry. It someseem like song and some seem like story but it rhyme or is smart talk I think. Susan: Robert, what you have just said is poetry. You said that in such a beautiful way. I think a lot of people enjoy hearing poetry. I was going to talk about how some people think of music as poetry, and you did a good job of explaining that. Chris: Musica? Reggaton? Es poesia? William: It is a little. Some of it rhymes. Some of it has an over and over sound. 259 Nicole: I think that?s rhythm. Chris: No. No rhythm. Re-ge-tton. Nicole: No. I mean the over and over (gestures with her hands and feet). Chris: Ah, I know. I know. Okay. John: I think Korea poetry rhythm sometimes. I think everyone can enjoy. William: You have Korean poetry too man? John: (nods) Carrie: Yes. Everyone has it. Nicole: Like the poem said--duh. (The group laughs). Laura: It is okay to read but I don?t like to do it. Susan: You don?t like to write it. Laura: No. I mean, yes. I do not like to write it. Susan: You guys are both right. Each center is different from each other center, and at each center you will do an activity related to or about poetry. It will be different from the activity you do in another center. John: What is all things there? Susan: Great question! At each center there are some materials you may use for the activity you do in that center. You may also be in one center and decide you want some of the materials from the other center. That?s okay too. I will also show you now that there is a place in the room (points) where I have put most of the art supplies since you may want to use those supplies for more than one activity. Now let?s look at each center. This center is called Act! Dance! Read! Angie: Yeah! Susan: You may choose a poem from the folder, and you may choose to act out, dance, or read the poem. In this folder I have a collection of poetry written in all of your first languages. Some of them are also written in English. Some of them are not. For 260 this center you may also want to create your own puppet and let the puppet read the poem. Did you see the stage outside the room earlier? Well that?s a puppet theatre. I have lots of materials for making different kinds of puppet. Robert: ooo cool! Chris: I want to puppet first. Susan: Or you can act out the poem. I have a costume and prop box if you want to create a character to act out the poem. Do you have any questions about this center? Chris: I can make puppet now? Susan: Let me tell you about all the poetry center first. Chris: Okay. Susan: This center is ?Fire and Ice? and ?Burning Trash.? (laughter) Susan: There are two poems in this center. You may read the poems and either create something based on what the poems make you think about or write a poem or a letter to respond the authors of the poem. Robert: Make a puppet to read the poem? Susan: Sure. You can make a puppet to read the poems. Chris: I want to make a puppet. Susan: I want to give each of you a copy of this poem as I talk about this center. The poem you will use in this center is ?This is Just to Say.? Notice on the paper I have given you that on one side you see the whole poem, and on the other side of the paper you see some words from the poem and some blanks where I took the words out. For this activity, you may choose to use the framework or the idea for the original poem?this poem?to write your own poem. You may also read the original poem and decide to write another poem without help from the framework. You may want to do something different with the original poem. Maybe you will want to draw a picture or act it out, or perhaps you will want to make a collage. Robert: Or read it with a puppet? (the group laughs) Susan: Or read it with a puppet. 261 Angie: What are the doors for? Susan: Actually, the doors are part of a different poetry center. This poetry center is called, ?Where Does Poetry Hide?? Chris: I know. No. I no know. Susan: Maybe you do know. You can think about it now and when you are ready to do this poetry center you will have some ideas. This poetry center asks you to think about the places where poetry hides. It asks you to consider what you see around you. It tells you to think about what is in your heart. Chris: That?s it. Heart. Susan: I want you to keep that idea Chris. Do you think poetry hides in the heart? Chris: In my heart? Susan: I think you have a great poem to write about that! Chris: (smiles and nods). Susan: You may also want to consider what bothers you?what makes you worry or concerned. You may also think about important memories from your past or things about which you wonder. Does poetry hide in our memories? Does anyone have questions about this center? Jennifer: Can I do that one first? Susan: Sure. You will be able to choose which poetry centers you do and the order in which you do them. Now who can tell me about haiku poetry? Robert: I think it is something about math. Carrie: It is five and seven and five I think. Susan: That?s great! Robert, you are right. We count the number of syllables in each line of haiku. And Carrie is also right. The first line of haiku has five syllables. The second has seven syllables, and the third line has five syllables. That?s the end of the poem. It only has three lines. I have examples of haiku, tanka, and lantern poems here. We will talk about each of these later today. Susan: For this center you may listen to poems on these ipods while you look at the poems on paper. After you listen to the poems you can respond by creating something, by writing a poem, by acting. You may want o make a collage or create something on the computer. It?s your choice. I also have a very challenging poetry center. This center shows you how to write 262 a villanelle. I have some sample villanelles here, as well as a blank framework if you want to use it. You may also see that there are colorful Post-It tabs on these small posterboards. This is another tool to help you with writing a villanelle. I hope some of you will read the poems and try to write a villanelle of your own. It?s kind of like a word puzzle. When you finish with your activity for today, I would like for you to walk around the room and look at the activities in each of the poetry centers. 263 APPENDIX G COMMUNITY TRANSCRIPT 264 Susan: Today I want us to develop a sense of community here together. What does community mean? John: People live together. Matthew: Neighbor. Robert: I lived in community in my country. Carrie: Maybe group? Chris: Mercado? William: Community market? Susan: These are all great answers. All of these things relate to community. How could we be a community? Robert: We together. Nicole: If we all work together we maybe are a community. Angie: Or if we are just together to share stuff. Laura: What stuff? Angie: Like pens, and poems, and paper, and room. Susan: This is great! You all have a good idea about community. Today we are each going to design a quilt piece so that we can make a community quilt (holds up picture of community quilt). 265 APPENDIX H DISCUSSION DURING COMPOSITION OF COMMUNITY QUILT 266 Susan: Sometimes students write a haiku or lantern poem. We talked about haiku. How about tanka and lantern poems? I am going to give you a framework for these three types of poems. We can write poems to put on our quilt pieces or we can decorate the pieces in another way. Remember that when we write a haiku we write a line of 5 syllables, 7 syllables, and 5 syllables. If you want to write a Tanka it?s the same as a haiku, but two more lines of 7 syllables. See on this page? Do you remember writing a lantern poem? Robert: I think so. It looks like on this paper? Like it looks like a lantern or something. Susan: Chris, are you okay? What are you doing? Chris: I want to write for my baby. Susan: You have a baby? Chris: No, my?my?girl? William: friend. Chris: My girlfriend. Susan: You can write a poem for your girlfriend if you want to. Chris: Okay. She will like. Susan: You don?t have to write a poem on your quilt piece, but you may choose to. You may choose to write about anything you want. Jennifer: Okay. Ready. Carrie: Start? Susan: Yes. Go ahead. Angie: How do you spell ?chewy?? Susan: C-H Laura: C-H-E-W-Y Robert: Can you show another lantern poem? 267 Susan: Here?s an example at the top with some blanks on the page for you. Robert: Oh. I see. I like that. Matthew: What do you write about? Susan: Anything you want. Carrie: Can I write flute? Susan: Do you want to write about the flute? Do you play the flute? Carrie: (nods) Susan: You can write about the flute. Nicole: Can I write everything down first and then what? Susan: When you know what you want to write on your quilt piece or how you want to decorate it, then you can make the quilt piece. Angie: I don?t know what to write about. Laura: Me either. I will think though. Don?t tell me yet. Robert: I want to do art. Susan: Do you want to draw or paint or? Robert: No I want to lantern art. The word art. Susan: Do you want to do a lantern poem about art? Robert: (nods) Like, if I start with art that?s one right? Susan: Art is one syllable, right. Robert: Maybe doodle? Is that two? Susan: That?s right. It?s two syllables. Doodle is two syllables. Robert: Okay. Let me see? Jennifer: I like your nails. I want white nails. 268 Angie: I am getting my nails Sunday. Jennifer: I got mine for birthday. Can I write that? Susan: Sure you can. Robert: What is the word for make a statue or something like skulk? Skalt? Susan: Do you mean sculpt? Robert: Yes. I want to use that in my art lantern. Angie: I am almost finished. I think I have it almost. Susan: So are you ready to put it on a quilt square? Angie: Can I think some more before? Susan: Sure you can. Robert: Read this. Is the syble right here? William: Can we write music? About music? Chris: No. No I mean?no. Never mind. Can you look? Susan: Give me just a minute. Robert: See. Is this right? Susan: Wow! That?s fantastic! William: He means can we use music words in our lantern poem. Chris: Yeah. That?s I mean. Susan: If you want to write about music, that would be great. Do you like music? Chris: Yes and my girlfriend. (group laughs) Susan: Some of you are finishing with your poems. What I want you to do if you are ready, is to choose a base for your quilt square. Angie: I?m ready! 269 Robert: Am I ready? Nicole: I am almost ready. Chris: No ready. Susan: Keep working if you are not ready. Robert, are you happy with your poem? Do you like it? Robert: Yes. Do you? Susan: Yes. If you are satisfied?if you like it?go ahead and find a quilt square base (holding up the squares).You can use any of the materials here to cut, write, draw, design, decorate, invent, your quilt square. There are art supplies in these boxes. Chris: What this en Ingles? Susan: Ribbon. It?s ribbon. Chris: Ribbon? Susan: Yes. Robert: Collage. How do you spell? How about create? I am changing some. Carrie: How about band trip? Is that two? Susan: Yes. That?s two syllables. Laura: What?s another word?oh..chew. Robert: Is make a noun? Susan: Make is a verb. Robert: How about life? Is that art? Susan: Is art life?.or is life art? Robert: (smiles) yeah. I like it. It is to me. Angie: Is there another word for bubbles? Bubbles? Jennifer: Ball. I think. How about nail? Another word? 270 Carrie: Craw? Craw? Susan: Claw? Carrie: Yes. Susan: Claw could be another word for nails. Carrie: Can I use note? Is that music? Susan: You could use it. Are you doing? Carrie: Is it word for music? Note? Chris: MAESTRA! Es difficil. Es difficil. Susan: Let me see what you have. You have started, so that?s great. Chris: Es en Espanish. Susan: Do you want to write yours in Spanish? Chris: Yeah. Yeah. I can? Yeah. Susan: Sure. You can write it in Spanish. Chris: Wow! Gracias. Thank you. Gracias. I write?sabout Mariana?and musica. Susan: What kind of music? Chris: Regatton. Es tres? Susan: Si. Yes it?s three syllables. Chris: Maiana es quarto. Susan: Yes. It has four syllables. Jennifer: Can I cut a shine bag for mine. Susan: Yes. You may use any materials while you are working with any of these activities. Susan: It?s okay. This is very interesting what you have chosen Robert. Robert: I like it. 271 Susan: I can see that you do. You like art and poetry? Robert: I do. Susan: That?s great. You are doing such a great job. Jennifer: I want silver, and black and white. Carrie: I want black and too. Chirs: Deportes?.deportivo?es quat?es four? Hmmmm?. Es (sings) en Ingles? Susan: Cantar? Chris: Si. Susan: Sing. Chris: Cantar is sing. Chris: Marianna William: Harley Chris: Alemana, alemana, hey alemana?escucha a Ramstein? Laura: What? Susan: He was calling you ?German? and asking if you listen to the band Ramstein. Make sure the base is this size, and then you can put whatever you want on it. Laura: Oh. I listen to that. You listen to that in Spain? Chris: Que? No en Mexico. Laura: You speak Spanish in Mexico? Chris: Si. Espanish en Mexico, en Guatemala, en Honduras, en Panama, en all? Laura: Wow. That is so cool. I think only in German we only speak only the German. Angie: You listen to Ramstein in Spanish? Chris: No. Aleman. 272 Angie: Mrs. Piper, do you think it will hold this when I put it on? Susan: It should, but I also have hot glue. I will plug it in so that it can get hot. Chris: How do you say Hola? Laura: Hello. Chris: No. In Germany. Konichiwa, Bon Jour, Ahn Yahn? Laura: You have magazines, right? Susan: I do. Laura: Maybe I need them a little. Angie: Can I use some hot glue? There?s not a soccer ball in any of these magazines. I need a soccer ball. Laura: Chris, do you like Apokalyptica? Chris: Apokalyptica? The band? So-so. Susan: I will be bringing some more magazines next week if you want to wait, or you could make a soccer ball. Angie: Oooo, I think I will make a soccer ball. Laura: I like American Idol. Carrie: I like too. John: Me too. Chris: Maestra, flag is rojo y verde, y blanco. Matthew: Red is Korean flag. John: And blue. William: We need to have Mexican flag on our Robert: Senegal flag is?also some red. Susan: I will see if I can help you find a soccer ball, Angie. 273 Angie: I have one (gets the soccer ball out of her bag and laughs). Matthew: Sharpies? John: They are here. Angie: Do you have a big round stone? I can make a soccer ball. (Chris and William sing) Angie: Look. I will just draw lines on this stone. Susan: That looks great! That?s even better than getting a soccer ball out of a magazine. Chris: Maestra! I got a question. A que hora, a termina? Susan: Are you tired of being here? Chris: We having party at 12:00. Laura: I like party. Susan: When you finish these we will present them before we make them part of the community quilt. Carrie: We have to? Susan: I would love for you to tell the class what you did and show them your poem and artwork. Carrie: Okay, I think. Robert: I made orgami bird, orgami, origami, origami bird for my art lantern quilt piece. Susan: That is so nice. You are so creative. If you don?t want to put your name on your quilt piece, you can put your initials. Why don?t you take about ten more minutes and then we are going to share them. Ten more minutes. (Robert digs through the prop box for a while). Susan: Chris, It?s beautiful. Now you are going to write your poem on it. Chris: Huh? 274 Susan: Escribe la poesia. Chris: What poesia? Susan: The one you just wrote about music and Mariana. Chris: Ah, yeah, okay, okay. Susan: (to Robert) Would you like to create something else? Robert: Yes. Nicole: Aghhhh. Susan: Are you making a crane? Nicole: Trying. Susan: Be sure to go ahead and write your poem on there, and then I want you to share it with the class. Then you will place it on this quilt. Angie: I?m going first. 275 APPENDIX I SCAFFOLDS FOR HAIKU, TANKA, AND LANTERNS POEMS 276 HAIKU Sample Haiku: 5 syllables Before morning dawns 7 syllables While all the world is asleep 5 syllables My cat stalks the moon 5 syllables Be|fore mor|ning dawns 1 2 3 4 5 7 syllables While all the world is a|sleep 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5 syllables My cat stalks the moon 1 2 3 4 5 5 syllables ---------------------------------- 7 syllables ------------------------------------------------ 5 syllables ---------------------------------- 277 TANKA 5 syllables Before morning dawns 7 syllables While all the world is asleep 5 syllables My cat stalks the moon 7 syllables The moon, sensing her presence 7 syllables Begs the rising sun for help 5 syllables Be|fore mor|ning dawns 1 2 3 4 5 7 syllables While all the world is a|sleep 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5 syllables My cat stalks the moon 1 2 3 4 5 7 syllables The moon, sen|sing her pre|sence 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7 syllables Begs the ri|sing sun for help 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5 syllables ---------------------------------- 7 syllables ------------------------------------------------ 5 syllables ---------------------------------- 7 syllables ------------------------------------------------ 7 syllables ------------------------------------------------ 278 Lantern Poem Line 1: A 1-syllable noun (what your poem is about) Line 2: Two syllables describing line 1 Line 3: Three syllables describing line 1 Line 4: Four syllables describing line 1 Line 5: A 1-syllable noun that is a synonym or near-synonym for the line 1 noun ___________ _______________ _____________ ________________ _______________ ______________ _____________ ____________ ________________ ____________ _____________ 279 APPENDIX J SCAFFOLD FOR RECASTING ?THIS IS JUST TO SAY? 280 ?This is just to say? I have eaten the plums that were in the icebox and which you were probably saving for breakfast Forgive me they were delicious so sweet and so cold --William Carlos Williams 281 ?This is just to say? _______________ _______________ _______________ _______________ _______________ _______________ _______________ _______________ Forgive me _______________ _______________ _______________ ?This is just to say? I have _________ the ____________ that ___________ the ____________ and which you were probably _______________ _______________ Forgive me _______________ _______________ _______________ 282 APPENDIX K ?FIRE & ICE? POWER POINT BY MATTHEW 283 Slide 1 Fire and Ice fo r R obert Fros t Slide 2 Some sa y the wo rld will end in fir e Slide 3 Som e sa y in ice 284 Slide 4 From wh at I?ve tast ed of d esir e Slide 5 I h old wit h t h ose wh o fav or fir e Slide 6 Bu t if it h ad t o pe rish t wic e ? per?is h (p r sh ) ? v. p e r? is he d , p e r? is h? ing , p e r? is h? e s ? v. intr. ? 1 . To di e o r be de str o yed , e spe cially in a vio le nt o r un timel y ma nn e r: "Mu st th e n a Ch rist p e rish in to rm e nt in e very a ge to sa ve th o se wh o ha ve no ima gi na tio n? " Ge o rge Be rn a rd Sh a w. ? 2 . T o p a ss fr o m e xistence; disa pp e a r gra dua lly: "Ma n wi ll go do wn into t he pi t, a nd a ll his th o ught s wi ll pe rish " A. J. Balfour. ? 3 . Ch ie fly British To spo il o r de te rio ra te . 285 Slide 7 I t h ink I kn ow en ou gh of h at e Slide 8 To say t h at fo r d est ru c t ion ice Slide 9 Is also gre at 286 Slide 10 An d wo u ld su f f ic e ? s uf? fi c e (s - f s ) ? v. s uf? fi c e d , s uf? fi c ?i ng , s uf? fi c ?e s ? v.intr. ? 1. T o me e t pres e nt ne e ds or re quire me nts; be su ff icie nt: T he s e ra t io ns w ill s uff ice until ne x t w ee k. ? 2. T o be equa l t o a s pecif ie d t a s k; be ca pa ble: N o wo rds will s uf fi ce t o co nv e y my g rie f. ? v.t r. ? T o s a t is fy t he ne eds o r requireme nt s o f; b e en o ug h for . ? [M idd le E nglis h s uf fi s e n, from Ol d Fren ch su ff ire , s uf fi s - , from La t in s uf fi ce re : sub - , s ub - + fa ce re , t o ma ke ; se e dh - in I ndo - Europ e a n roo t s . ] 287 APPENDIX L ?BURNING TRASH? POWER POINT BY JOHN 288 Slide 1 Burning Trash J oh n Upd ike (1 93 2 ? 2009) Slide 2 At night ? t he lig ht t urn e d off, t he fila me nt U nburden e d of its a t om - e a t ing cha rge, Slide 3 Hi s w ife a s le e p , h e r b re a th in g d ip p in g lo w 289 Slide 4 To to uch a sw am p y so urce ? he tho ught o f d e ath . Slide 5 He r f ather's hi llto p home all owed hi m ti me Slide 6 To s e n s e t h e n ot h in g s t andin g lik e a s h e e t O f s pe ck le s s glas s be h in d h is hu man fu t u re . 290 Slide 7 He had two c omfort s he c oul d s ee, jus t t wo. Slide 8 O ne w as t he c he e r ful full ne ss of mo st t hin g s: P lump st ones an d c loud s, e x pect a nt po ds, t he soil offer ing up p r e ss ure t o his kne e s a nd ha nds . Slide 9 T he oth er wa s b urni ng t he t rash ea c h d ay. 291 Slide 10 He lik e d the h e a t, the imit a tion da nge r, Slide 11 And t he w ay, as he t oss e d in us e d - up ne w s, St r ing, na p kins , e nvel op e s, an d p aper c ups, Slide 12 Hypno ti c to ngu es o f o rder interven ed. 292 APPENDIX M VILLANELLE SCAFFOLD TEMPLATE 293 All the ?A? lines rhyme. All the ?A? 1 lines repeat. All the ?A? 2 lines repeat. All the B lines rhyme. ___________Villanelle A1 B A2 A B A1 A B A2 A B A1 A B A2 A B A1 A2 by _________________ 294 APPENDIX N SEMI STRUCTURED INTERVIEWS 295 Laura 1. What did you notice about yourself and about your environment while you were working in the poetry centers? I really didn?t like poetry. Remember I told you last year? But I liked these poetry games. They were fun. I think I think poetry is not hard now. I think it can be fun. I think it can push you to think. 2. What activities were the most challenging for you? Why? ?Where Does Poetry Hide? was hard for me. I think it was hard because I didn?t know where to begin. It just had to come from my head, and I had a hard time getting it out. 3. What activities were the most rewarding to you? Why? I wrote one villanelle. Then I wrote another villanelle. I think everyone thought it was hard, but I liked it. It had a puzzle so I feel like it was really important and not childish. 4. Were there activities that you did not enjoy? Why? Not really. I liked talking to friends while we were working. I think it was fun because it was sort of relaxed. Even if some were hard, it was still easy because it was relaxed. 5. Were there activities you would like to do again later? Why? I think I will do more villanelles. I think people will think I am smart. You made me think that. I liked making puppets too. It was like you could make somebody be what you wanted?so you could act a poem like you think it is. 296 Angie 1. What did you notice about yourself and about your environment while you were working in the poetry centers? I loved it. Really. I really thought about some things easier than when I do poetry things in school. I think it was because it seemed fun this way. 2. What activities were the most challenging for you? Why? I thought I could make a collage real easy. I thought I would write about that poetry hide in cute boys and then make a collage about that. It was not easy like I thought. I think because maybe poetry does not hide there for me or something. 3. What activities were the most rewarding to you? Why? I like the ?Fire and Ice? collage thing I made. I made a villanelle. It was hard, so I am proud I did it. It took almost two weeks, but I am proud. On the last time I did a good ?Where Does Poetry Hide.? I think it sounds like real poetry. Like adult poetry. 4. Were there activities that you did not enjoy? Why? I liked everything. Really. 5. Were there activities you would like to do again later? Why? I want to write another villanelle. I also want to do some more dancing to poetry. They made me feel important. I liked people thinking I had some good poetry. I also feel good about it. Like proud. 297 Nicole 1. What did you notice about yourself and about your environment while you were working in the poetry centers? I haven?t done anything like this before, but I liked it. I love poetry, and I love art. I noticed that other students liked the poetry when sometimes they don?t do work in class. I noticed we were having fun with poetry and we got to choose. 2. What activities were the most challenging for you? Why? I didn?t really think anything was challenging. I thought lanterns would be the easiest, but it was really kinda hard. 3. What activities were the most rewarding to you? Why? I was most happy with ?Where Does Poetry Hide.? It had to come from my mind with no pattern to follow. I think it was good. I would share that with other people. 4. Were there activities that you did not enjoy? Why? I did not really enjoy ?This is just to say,? but it was okay. Other people liked it, so I think it was maybe good. 5. Were there activities you would like to do again later? Why? I would like to do ?Where Does Poetry Hide.? I would like to see Robert do some more Dark Vader poetry. I have never seen him do anything in front of people, but he should be an actor or something. 298 Robert 1. What did you notice about yourself and about your environment while you were working in the poetry centers? I got to act. I never thought I could. I made puppets, so that was fun. I thought I had to just write when I do some poetry, but this fun. This a lot of fun. I think other people think this fun too. 2. What activities were the most challenging for you? Why? I did not try the v poem. It looked hard. The first day the lantern was hard but then it was easy when I got to start it. 3. What activities were the most rewarding to you? Why? I think people like me when I was Vader and read my poem and then when I was Vader read ?Fire and Ice.? People like my puppets talking reading ?This just to say.? I just made the talk when they read the poem. It was easy to just make it up there. I think I did good. 4. Were there activities that you did not enjoy? Why? I did not like much ?where poetry hides,? but I then like it when I did it. I think it is hard, but then I think it is good when I did it. I don?t know was it good when I did, but Laura said it was good and she smart so I think so. 5. Were there activities you would like to do again later? Why? I want to act with some more poems. I like it. I wish I can do it in real school. 299 John 1. What did you notice about yourself and about your environment while you were working in the poetry centers? I was scared before we start. Then I was scared some first day. I do not know what we will do. Then I am think it is so fun. I start to like puppet and how they read poetry. I think now I like poetry like this way. 2. What activities were the most challenging for you? Why? All was some little bit difficult. I think it is not too bad. But then I think maybe it is hard some. But then I think if I just try it is not bad. I can try more if I do not know how something. Maybe ?Where poetry hides? is hard. 3. What activities were the most rewarding to you? Why? I like make Power Point for ?Burning Trash.? I think I real understand and you know it. 4. Were there activities that you did not enjoy? Why? On first time we stand and read quilt poem. I was scare. People know more English. I am new. 5. Were there activities you would like to do again later? Why? I like my puppets. I like my Power Point. I would do again. 300 Matthew 1. What did you notice about yourself and about your environment while you were working in the poetry centers? I think it is fun. I think I was scary to start. Then I was not scary after it start. I think it might be fun to do some more. 2. What activities were the most challenging for you? Why? I think all a little challenge. I think I make a puppet and it is easy a little. Puppet read my poem. It is easy then a little. I think find words for poem is little hard. Then is not so hard after I do a little. 3. What activities were the most rewarding to you? Why? I think puppet and other puppet from other people and hear other poem from other people. I think other people can write poem. I did not know they can write poem. 4. Were there activities that you did not enjoy? Why? Maybe the ?where poetry hide.? It is too hard. But I think I made a good picture and poem today for it. 5. Were there activities you would like to do again later? Why? I like the Power Point. I like to make the puppet again to read some poem. 301 Chris 1. What did you notice about yourself and about your environment while you were working in the poetry centers? I think no understand, but I do. I like poesias. I think I want come all sabado, pero es no more. Maybe you come back? 2. What activities were the most challenging for you? Why? Es little dificil. Little. I no know English. Pero es ok. 3. What activities were the most rewarding to you? Why? I love making love poem for Mariana. Y I love puppets. I give poem Mariana y she love it. I like I can write English y Espanish too. Thank you. 4. Were there activities that you did not enjoy? Why? No. I like all. Es all fun. All. 5. Were there activities you would like to do again later? Why? I like love poem. Y I like to do puppet again. Y I like to do poetry hide. 302 William 1. What did you notice about yourself and about your environment while you were working in the poetry centers? I did not really want to come to poetry but to see you and friends and Chris wanted to come. After we start I thought it was pretty fun. I could go work with my family or come here. I wanted to come here one time. I liked it, so I wanted to come every time. 2. What activities were the most challenging for you? Why? I think writing English and Spanish is hard for me. Both. I didn?t write Spanish good before I come here, and I don?t write English good here. I like to read and talk and I like to do art. 3. What activities were the most rewarding to you? Why? I like that we can read some and draw some too. I think the way some of the poems had helpers made them easier. Like when I know how many syllbles are in some or when you gave us a sample with black lines. That made it more easier, and I liked it more. 4. Were there activities that you did not enjoy? Why? I don?t think so. I like all. Some more but nothing I don?t like. 5. Were there activities you would like to do again later? Why? I think my ?Fire and Ice? explaining was pretty cool with the puppet. I would do it with another poem maybe. 303 Jennifer 1. What did you notice about yourself and about your environment while you were working in the poetry centers? I think people like these poetry centers. It is interesting. I think about what I will do next time. It is fun. I like to see other people do too. 2. What activities were the most challenging for you? Why? Hardest was first day with haiku and lantern. I think it was hard to find syllables. After that was most easy. The two voice was a little challenge, but it was so fun. 3. What activities were the most rewarding to you? Why? The ?Where Does Poetry Hide? was most special. I feel a little sad when I write it, so I know it is real and true. 4. Were there activities that you did not enjoy? Why? I did not like much to write the lantern, but I like the lantern after I write it. 5. Were there activities you would like to do again later? Why? Later I would think ?Where Does Poetry Hide? some more. I think it hides in many place. Not just in one or two place. I think it?s everywhere. Also two voice was hard but fun to do again with another idea. 304 Carrie 1. What did you notice about yourself and about your environment while you were working in the poetry centers? I think is fun. I like write and the art. Make me happy. I want Saturday to come again. 2. What activities were the most challenging for you? Why? I think the lanterns is most challenging. Maybe ?This just to say? was hard to start. Then it was okay later. I think it is going to be hard when you show me the first day. I did it day three. It was not bad. 3. What activities were the most rewarding to you? Why? Class liked my quilt poem. They all said it is real nice. That makes me feel nice and good. That was the first day, so I am happy to come next time. I think the two voice poem is so fun too. 4. Were there activities that you did not enjoy? Why? Maybe I didn?t like puppet much. It is okay, but I like other art more. 5. Were there activities you would like to do again later? Why? I think so. I think ?Where Does Poetry Hide? is good later. The two voice poem was fun. I think people like it. It was hard too. 305 APPENDIX O PARTICIPANT DAILY ACTIVITIES 306 Chris Day 1 Read ?Como Tu?? aloud in Spanish Opened discussion with ?Like pan, like bread?? Created la musica quilt square Day 2 Made a puppet to read ?Papas Fritatas? in Spanish while William read in English Day 3 Used conversation hearts candies in both Spanish and English to make a group Valentine card Had a discussion about the word pal Day 4 Wrote and read ?Where Does Poetry Hide?? about poetry and books in both Spanish and English Day 5 Wrote a response to ?This is just to say,? explaining why he did not like plums Day 6 Wrote a poem in both Spanish and English about his enjoyment of the class; Read ?Como Tu?? in English and invited me to read it in Spanish 307 William Day 1 Wrote and read soccer haiku Created School/Escuela quilt square Day 2 Made a puppet to read ?Papas Fritatas? in English along with Chris who read in Spanish Day 3 Wrote ?Where Does Poetry Hide?? about his family Day 4 Made a ?Fire and Ice? puppet with blue and red hair to read his recast of ?Fire and Ice? using some original words and some words of his own Day 5 Wrote ?This is just to say? about doing chores Day 6 Made twin cat puppets with Nicole to read ?Oda al Gato? in English Wrote two tankas of farewell 308 John Day 1 Created golf haiku quilt square Day 2 Made a ?Jesus on the cross? puppet to read ?The Cricket? and ?Fire and Ice? Offered explanation about why Jesus should read ?Fire and Ice? Day 3 Made Power Point for ?Burning Trash? Day 4 Presented Power Point of ?Burning Trash? Day 5 Wrote ?Where Does Poetry Hide?? poem about holidays and family Day 6 Wrote ?This is just to say? about our final day and eating pizza 309 Robert Day 1 Put together a Darth Vader costume, reading his poem in character Created art lantern poem quilt square Day 2 Made rock star snake and used monkey puppet to read ?This is just to say? Day 3 Wrote ?Where Does Poetry Hide?? and read it for me after other students had left Day 4 Presented a three act play with the rock star snake puppet and monkey puppet Made snake puppet read ?This is just to say? dramatically Day 5 Chatted with Angie while she worked, asking her questions and commenting about her work Day 6 Read ?Fire in Ice? while dressed as Darth Vader 310 Matthew Day 1 Created soccer haiku quilt square Day 2 Made a puppet to read his recast ?This is just to say? Day 3 Made Power Point for ?Fire and Ice? Day 4 Drew pictures of a vase and a mushroom for ?Where Does Poetry Hide?? Presented Power Point of ?Fire and Ice? Day 5 Finished ?Where Does Poetry Hide?? reading two poems? one about the vase and the other about the mushroom he had drawn the previous week Day 6 Recast ?This is just to say? about a test he had been accused of stealing Recast ?This is just to say? about stolen plums 311 Laura Day 1 Created gumball lantern quilt square Day 2 Recast ?This is just to say? to reflect her insincerity about breaking my umbrella Day 3 Brought a German love poem written on paper she had marbleized Made a Rasta puppet to read the love poem which she had memorized Day 4 Wrote ?Where Does Poetry Hide?? about summer at the lake house Day 5 Wrote ?Curby is a Crazy Moose? villanelle Day 6 Wrote ?The Lonely Flower Villanelle? Created ?Burning Trash? collage 312 Nicole Day 1 Created handball haiku quilt square Day 2 Made a puppet to read ?Farewell, My Love? Inquired about ?nice poems? Made two puppets to perform the balcony scene from Romeo and Juliet Day 3 Recast ?This is just to say? as ?This is just to lie? Day 4 Wrote ?Where Does Poetry Hide?? about growing up Wrote about ?love and hate? and used the Juliet puppet to perform the poem Day 5 Wrote ?This is just to say? about vacuuming Shared analysis of ?Fire and Ice? framed through its use as a epigraph for the book Twilight Day 6 Made twin cat puppets with William to read ?Oda al Gato? in Spanish 313 Angie Day 1 Created soccer lantern quilt square Day 2 Created proper British man and redneck girl puppets to read ?Fire and Ice? Read ?Fire and Ice? while doing a fan dance in costume Day 3 Created a males and food collage Played ?Single Ladies? song on her laptop while displaying the collage before the group Day 4 Wrote ?Staring at the House of White? villanelle Day 5 Wrote ?Where Does Poetry Hide?? about living in different countries Day 6 Created ?Fire and Ice? collage Recast ?This is just to say? about spoiling a book for someone who had not yet read the book Danced to a popular German song while reciting/performing ?Fire and Ice? 314 Carrie Day 1 Created flute lantern quilt square Day 2 Wrote a recast story for ?Fire and Ice? Day 3 Read farmer and dragon recast of ?Fire and Ice? Wrapped herself in blue and red cloth to reveal different colors as she read her story Day 4 Wrote and read ?Brother? with Jennifer Day 5 Wrote ?Where Does Poetry Hide?? about the poetry of music Day 6 Played flute song she wrote to go along with the ?Where Does Poetry Hide?? she had written the previous week 315 Jennifer Day 1 Wrote fingernail lantern quilt square Day 2 Recast ?Fire and Ice? Day 3 Created ?Where Does Poetry Hide? photo album Wrote ?Where Does Poetry Hide? poem to accompany photo album Day 4 Wrote and read ?Brother? with Carrie Day 5 Created a collage to go with ?Fire and Ice? recast from Day 2 Day 6 Decorated a portfolio into which she put all of her work 316 APPENDIX P EMERGENT CODES 317 Affective Purple Affective Filter Transact Blue Transaction (Source Text, Participant Text) Interact Fuschia Interaction (Affirmation, Participant, Researcher) Recast Yellow Recast Perform Orange Performance (Puppet, Costume, Dance, Read, Multimedia) Participant Green Participant Created