February 11, 2014
EDCS 824
Article Craft Study 1
Park, J. (2012). A different kind of reading instruction:
Using visualizing to bridge reading
comprehension
and critical literacy. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy,
55(7), 629-640.
Park
(2012) offers an insightful and well-crafted article focusing on visualization
as a part of critical literacy, through the medium of book clubs. The intention of this craft study is not to
summarize the content of the article, rather to analyze the structure and craft
of the research and writing process. In
order to thoroughly examine this article as a budding researcher, I will
identify and describe the following components:
research question, theoretical framework, literature review, setting,
participants, data collection, data analysis, findings, discussion and
implications. Based on an interest in
reading strategies and critical literacy, and citing a dearth in literature
focusing on reading strategies as tools for critical literacy, Park poses the following
question to guide her research: “How can teachers bridge reading instruction
and critical literacy education?” (Park, 2012, p. 630).
Within the
theoretical framework, she positions herself as a social constructivist citing Au,
1998; Vygotsky, 1986; Wertsch, 1985. She
also asserts that learning occurs in and through social interaction and
involves dialogue in making meaning and solving problems (Miller, 2003; Wells,
2001). Essentially, Park (2012) views
reading as a social and critical practice, with a heavy emphasis on dialogue (Luke
& Freebody, 1997; Barton, Hamilton & Ivanic, 2000; Street, 1995; Gee, 2000; Freire 1990, 1970).
The
literature review appeared within the introduction and focused on work in
reading comprehension of proficient readers, and work within critical literacy,
with an emphasis on the lack of literature discussing strategies as a tool for
critical analysis. Therefore we see how
her literature review makes an argument for the usefulness of her study in
filling this gap in the literature.
The
article describes a yearlong, qualitative study of three after-school book
clubs. The study took place in a K-8
public school located in a large Northeastern city. The school make-up was 48% black, 29% white,
13% Asian and 9% Latino with 50% of students eligible for free and reduced
lunch.
Situated
within a voluntary, after-school book club for seventh and eighth grade girls,
the participants consisted of a middle school literacy teacher, 23 seventh and
eighth grade girls, and the researcher. Out
of the 14 seventh grade students, seven were white, five were black, one was Asian
and one self-identified as biracial. Of
the nine eighth grade students, two were white, four were black, one was Asian
and two self-identified as biracial.
There were three book clubs and they met every two weeks to discuss
student-selected text. They lasted one
hour and took place at school. The
researcher and the literacy teacher facilitated without the clubs, but they
chose not to follow and agenda, instead allowing the girls to generate
questions and lead discussions. Many of
the students were considered to be proficient readers.
With
regards to data collection, Park acted as a participant observer. She drew from ethnographic and case study
methods by keeping field notes and audiorecordings of the book clubs. Her field notes included documentation of
verbal and nonverbal behaviors including expressions, body movements, postures
and eye contact. She also kept track of
seating arrangements via diagram with particular note of who the girls chose to
sit with. She also observed the
participants on a weekly basis in their literacy classrooms. She noted their positioning in terms of
literacy learners and the way they interacted with text. She conducted three rounds of semi-structured
interviews lasting 25 minutes and occurring after school which were recorded
and transcribed. The interviews focused
on in-and-out-of-school literacy practices, expectations for the book club and
why they chose to participate, as well as their experiences of the book
club. Finally, she collected all student
generated work as documents and artifacts.
Data
analysis was ongoing and recursive, using the transcriptions from the book
clubs as the primary source of data.
While she coded data from all primary sources through inductively
generated descriptive codes, she states that the book club transcriptions were
the focus of study for this article. She
coded participants’ comments about the text as, “evaluation of texts,
identifications of symbols, visualization of characters and scenes, summaries,
predictions, theme of the book, text-text connections, text-self connections,
critiques of the text” (Park, 2012; 632).
She also coded their interactions with each other forming the following
categories: “apologizing, agreeing, supporting, disagreeing, challenging,
asking each other questions, asking for clarification, inviting others to join
the discussion, teasing each other, ignoring other members’ comments” (Park,
2012; 632). To test for validity, she
triangulated the data by using multiple sources of data. She also used member checking for
clarification and to position students as collaborators in the research
process.
The
majority of the paper focused on the author’s findings. She breaks the findings into three
categories, first discussing the types of visualizations the students reported,
followed by a discussion on where the visualizations come from and then
returning to more examples of how students visualized the characters. These three sections contain specific quotes
from the students and parts of the transcriptions as examples. She ends with implications for pedagogy,
suggesting that visualizing can lead to learning. She gives three specific ideas for
implementing visualization as a tool for critical literacy, and ends with a
summary of other reading strategies that are also useful and important for
critical literacy.
