classroom interactive practices for developing l2 literacy: a microethnographic study of two...

28
Applied Linguistics 27/3: 377–404 ß Oxford University Press 2006 doi:10.1093/applin/ami052 Classroom Interactive Practices for Developing L2 Literacy: A Microethnographic Study of Two Beginning Adult Learners of English JOHN HELLERMANN Portland State University Using methods from conversation analysis, this microethnographic longitudinal case study traces the development of interactional competence which results from adult learners’ socialization into literacy events in a modified Sustained Silent Reading (mSSR) program. The investigation focuses on two learners who participated in the mSSR program in an ESOL classroom at an adult community college for three terms. The findings show how the two learners (with different first language educational backgrounds) follow different paths in acquiring interactional competence, moving from peripheral to more engaged participa- tion in classroom literacy events through their socialization into three of these events: book selection, opening post-reading re-tellings, and completing and filing reading logs. INTRODUCTION Previous studies of L2 literacy development have focused on cognitive and structural issues involved in reading and writing in a second language including cognitive processing while reading (August 2001; Felser et al. 2003), vocabulary development (Treville 1996; Grabe and Stoller 1997; Pulido 2003), memory and cognitive processing (Carrell 1991; Bernhardt and Kamil 1995; Sagarra 2000), decoding practices (Yang 2000), and comparing L1 and L2 reading strategies (Segalowitz et al. 1991; Tang 1997). A few have focused on student literate (Hood and Joyce 1995; Palacios 2002) and conversational (Lerner 1995) practices. In contrast to much of this research, the current study explores the social processes which foster the development of classroom and interactional practices that characterize beginning literacy activities for adults in an L2. 1 This study describes such practices of two learners over the course of three terms of study (30 weeks) in an ESL classroom which employed an experimental technique for the teaching of reading to beginning adult learners—a modified method for Sustained Silent Reading (McCracken 1971; Chow and Chou 2000). at Monash University on October 7, 2014 http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ Downloaded from

Upload: j

Post on 16-Feb-2017

216 views

Category:

Documents


2 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Classroom Interactive Practices for Developing L2 Literacy: A Microethnographic Study of Two Beginning Adult Learners of English

Applied Linguistics 273 377ndash404 Oxford University Press 2006

doi101093applinami052

Classroom Interactive Practicesfor Developing L2 LiteracyA Microethnographic Studyof Two Beginning AdultLearners of English

JOHN HELLERMANN

Portland State University

Using methods from conversation analysis this microethnographic longitudinal

case study traces the development of interactional competence which results

from adult learnersrsquo socialization into literacy events in a modified Sustained

Silent Reading (mSSR) program The investigation focuses on two learners who

participated in the mSSR program in an ESOL classroom at an adult community

college for three terms The findings show how the two learners (with different

first language educational backgrounds) follow different paths in acquiring

interactional competence moving from peripheral to more engaged participa-

tion in classroom literacy events through their socialization into three of these

events book selection opening post-reading re-tellings and completing and

filing reading logs

INTRODUCTION

Previous studies of L2 literacy development have focused on cognitive and

structural issues involved in reading and writing in a second language

including cognitive processing while reading (August 2001 Felser et al

2003) vocabulary development (Treville 1996 Grabe and Stoller 1997

Pulido 2003) memory and cognitive processing (Carrell 1991 Bernhardt and

Kamil 1995 Sagarra 2000) decoding practices (Yang 2000) and comparing

L1 and L2 reading strategies (Segalowitz et al 1991 Tang 1997) A few have

focused on student literate (Hood and Joyce 1995 Palacios 2002) and

conversational (Lerner 1995) practices In contrast to much of this research

the current study explores the social processes which foster the development

of classroom and interactional practices that characterize beginning literacy

activities for adults in an L21 This study describes such practices of two

learners over the course of three terms of study (30 weeks) in an ESL

classroom which employed an experimental technique for the teaching of

reading to beginning adult learnersmdasha modified method for Sustained Silent

Reading (McCracken 1971 Chow and Chou 2000)

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

ADULT LEARNERS LANGUAGE SOCIALIZATIONAND INTERACTIONAL COMPETENCE

The majority of learners at the data collection site for this study (known

locally as lsquothe Lab Schoolrsquo) are working adults who as adults bring an

understanding of the world to the classroom that children learning a second

language do not have This understanding of the world can serve as an

important contextual resource for adults who share many of the same life

experience contexts as they interact in a lingua franca Studies which focus on

working adultsrsquo development of strategies for engagement in classroom

interaction in an L2 (English in this case) are especially interesting because

these resources from their home languages and cultures are available for use

in language learning The fact that learners who are part of the database for

this investigation are adults means that in many cases they need to use and

are using English every day outside of the classroom either for work or other

day-to-day social interactions Research on members of this population is

also important because of their under-representation in the applied linguistics

research literature

For these reasons this study starts from the theoretical perspective that

a primary goal of language learning is becoming competent interactionally

and that this competence is achieved through socialization into language

This theoretical perspective seems especially important for understanding

working adult immigrant language learning as the learners on whom this

study focuses need competence to engage in social practices both within and

outside of the classroom in a variety of situations

While the theory of communicative competence (Hymes 1974 Canale and

Swain 1980 with respect to SLA) resolved many of the conflicts over the

exclusion of language use from a theory of competence it remained tied

closely to a conceptualization of the L2 as located in the individual who is

engaged in little more than the transmission of information in the L2

Influenced in part by research in the area of ethnomethodological

conversation analysis language learning researchers have been developing

a theory of interactional competence (Kramsch 1986 Hall 1993 1995 1997 He

and Young 1998 Young 1999 2000 2002 Markee 2000) which understands

language use as situated and co-constructed A focus on interactional

competence seeks to understand the discursive practices that participants use

to co-construct their social interactions in recurring contextually-equivalent

situations Interactional competence focuses on resources including but not

limited to turn-taking appropriate use of linguistic register and the ability

to recognize and signal boundaries of communicative events (Young 2000)

The focus of studies of interactional competence is on the dynamic processes

of negotiation between interlocutors as they work to accomplish specific

social actions through their talk-in-interaction

The development of the interactional competence of language

learners has a reflexive relationship with language development through

378 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

language socialization The perspective of language learning as language

socialization (Ochs and Schieffelin 1979 Schieffelin and Ochs 1986

Kramsch 2002) was established in linguistic anthropology where the first

research focused on children developing language as novices participating in

particular activities and contexts within communities of adults who were

experts in the language and culture of the community Adult learners in

a classroom setting can be seen as engaging in socialization into English and

specifically for this project into literacy events through their interaction with

classroom peers in activities designed by an expert instructor to promote

English literacy This process of socialization into literacy events in turn

allows for the development of learnersrsquo interactional competence in English

Repeated classroom tasks such as the literacy events require learners to

participate in interaction regularly within a classroom community of practice

(Wenger 1998) with one another and their teachers using particular

language forms for particular actions within those literacy events The

increased ability of learners to participate in these literacy events is an

important part of the development of interactional competence as well as

literacy The literacy practices perspective (Scribner and Cole 1981) I am taking

in this paper sees the development of interactional competence as an integral

part of literacy development Literacy becomes accessible to learners in part

through their interaction in classroom literacy events This interaction

guided by a teacher-expert allows the language practices in literacy events

to become contextualized and salient to the learners The reoccurrence of

interactions in and for literacy events with teacher guidance is the

socialization process in which interactional competence and literacy develop

These are interactions in which learners negotiate meanings with peers and

instructors as they move from peripheral to full participation in literacy

events (Lave and Wenger 1991 Wenger 1998)

LITERACY AND LITERACY EVENTS

This study focuses on adult learnersrsquo2 development of practices for interaction

in literacy events as part of a modified Sustained Silent Reading (mSSR)

method for the teaching of reading The theoretical perspective on literacy

which informs this research is a literacy practices perspective discussed first by

Scribner and Cole (1981) and developed in the work of the New Literacy

Studies movement (Gee 1990 Street 1998 Barton 2001 cf review by Reder

and Davila 2005) This perspective considers literacy in a holistic manner

as lsquosocially organized practices which make use of a symbol system and

technology for producing and disseminating itrsquo (Scribner and Cole 1981

236) linguistic processing thus is embedded within and inseparable from

social practices or routines in which individuals are engaged

While literacy (reading in particular) is considered the goal of the

classroom interactions which are part of the mSSR investigated for this

project the interactions themselves consisted of students doing literacy in

JOHN HELLERMANN 379

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

literacy events Literacy events may be understood as lsquoany occasion in which a

piece of writing is integral to the nature of participantsrsquo interactions and

their interpretive processesrsquo (Heath 1982 50) Heathrsquos definition captures

both the goal and process of the classroom interactions which are the focus

for this study The use of this term foregrounds literacy as the process of

individuals understanding their own literacy (Street 2001) through their

negotiation both with texts teachers and one another

The literacy events analyzed in this study are

1 book selection and silent reading

2 practices for opening pair interaction for story re-telling

3 filling in and filing reading logs3

THE DATA AND SETTING

The data for this research come from a five-year federally funded project4

which investigates language learning by low-level adult learners of English

The data were collected in two classrooms which were designed to obtain

high quality video recordings Each classroom has six cameras embedded in

the ceiling5 Every class period two learners and the teacher wear wireless

microphones and there are two microphones in the ceiling to capture the

audio from the entire classroom The classroom interactions are coded for

activity and participation and portions of one half of all the recorded class

sessions are transcribed Specially designed software allows for viewing

transcription and codes together with the six camera views of the classroom

simultaneously This allows the researcher as complete a picture of the

classroom environment as currently available using video recording

The entire corpus of learner interaction consists of (at the time of writing)

over 4000 hours of classroom video recordings For analysis I isolated

instances in which the two focal participants in this study were either

wearing or sitting next to a classmate wearing a wireless microphone This

narrowed the data for close analysis to 14 three-hour class periods for

each learner The other class periods in which the learners participated were

also reviewed in order to observe their interaction with other learners and

their teachers Examples of learnersrsquo writing and information gathered from

in-home bilingual interviews were also used to add context to the analysis6

THE FOCAL PARTICIPANTS

At the time these data were collected Eduardo7 was a 51-year-old divorced

man from Mexico where he had had two years of formal education He had

been living in the USA for 14 years with his daughter son-in-law and two

grandchildren and spoke Spanish at home He had not studied English

before coming to the Lab School In the course of five terms of study at the

380 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

Lab School Eduardo logged 182 hours of instruction time giving him a

70 per cent attendance rate

Abby was a 21-year-old single woman from China with 11 years of

education in her home country Like Eduardo she had not studied English

before coming to the Lab School She lived with her parents and spoke

Cantonese at home In her first four terms of study she tallied 190 hours

of class time a 90 per cent attendance rate

These two learners were chosen because of their participation in three

consecutive terms of the mSSR method because neither of them had studied

English before attending the Lab School and because of their different

educational backgrounds Each student was assessed at approximately the

same proficiency level (based on an oral proficiency interview) and started

in a class for beginners I expected (as did their classroom teachers) that

their different levels of education and first language literacy would result in

different levels of participation in the interactive practices for literacy events

in the classroom Describing these differences aids an understanding of

emerging L2 literacy as part of learnersrsquo interactional competence as fostered

by language socialization in classroom literacy events

METHODS FOR ANALYSIS

This studyrsquos emic perspective on classroom discourse language and social

systems is influenced by ethnomethodology interactional sociolinguistics

and conversation analysis This theoretical and methodological perspective

sees language social order and social systems as locally constituted and

re-constituted Participants in any interaction be that mundane conversation

or classroom interaction co-construct a local cultural expertise (Garfinkel

1967) and display that expertise to one another at every moment (Goffman

1959 1961) through their talk-in-interaction From this perspective on social

interaction research on adults who have well-developed skills for social

interaction but little linguistic skill in their lingua franca is a rich area for the

study of the local co-construction of classroom discourse (Macbeth 2003)

This study takes advantage of the recurrent nature of activity in classroom

discourse to understand how the local practices for social interaction of two

learners in similar interactional environments constitute socialization into

literacy over the course of three terms of study The background information

for each participant in the study the categories lsquoMexican-Spanish L1 male

with little educationrsquo or lsquoMandarin-Chinese L1 female with high school

educationrsquo are not used to predict or explain a priori particular interactional

patterns While these categories played a role in participant selection it will

be a task for analysis to uncover how the discursive practices for literacy

of the two participants may or may not differ

The research relies on audio and video recording technology to open

a window onto micro-level details of situations by repeated observation

The descriptive richness and depth of context of this microethnographic

JOHN HELLERMANN 381

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

analysis (McDermott and Roth 1978 Erickson and Schultz 1981 Streeck

1983 Streeck and Mihus 2005) is the result of a detailed description of

behaviors that are immediately observable and interpretable to the

participants in the interaction themselves the talk and other communicative

resources (contextualization cues Gumperz 1982) for the interaction These

constitutive cues for contextualization include body posture gesture gaze

the manipulation of objects in the immediate environment turn-taking

and the sound production of language (Couper-Kuhlen and Selting 1996

Ochs et al 1996) Conversation analysis (Sacks et al 1974 Atkinson and

Heritage 1984) is utilized in this microethnography to make detailed

descriptions of the sequential structure of talk-in-interaction and to highlight

the perspectives on the interaction of the participants themselves

SOCIALIZATION INTO CLASSROOM LITERACY PRACTICES

Book selection and silent reading

Considering reading and literacy as a social process (Scribner and Cole 1981

Heath 1983 Brandt 1990 Reder 1994) one basic achievement in the

development of practices for carrying out literacy events done in the

language classroom and in an L2 is the ability to participate in the assessment

of the material that one reads Such preliminary moves into reading and

literacy are taken for granted by those of us living and working in literacy-

saturated social and psychological worlds However for learners with few

literacy skills these beginning practices may represent a major shift in their

conceptual understanding of the world (Goody 1977 Ong 1982) The first

literacy event in the mSSR method is selecting a book that is at an

appropriate linguistic level and which might be interesting to the reader

For learners with low-level literacy in their first languages without guidance

from the instructor (as the Sustained Silent Reading protocol states) this

could be an especially daunting task

The first data excerpts focus on Eduardorsquos engagement with the literacy

events over the course of his first two terms in the mSSR method On the

first day of the mSSR activities after the teacher instructed learners about

doing silent reading in the classroom everyday she invited learners to go to

the book carts8 to choose something to read At this point most learners got

out of their seats and went to the back of the classroom to choose a book

Eduardo however remained seated As other learners selected books from

the carts and desks (adjacent to Eduardorsquos desk) he reached over to a basket

of books and selected a book without looking at it and then read this book

for the entire twenty-minute silent reading period9 For a learner with very

low level decoding skills in English and with little experience with a reading

practice like choosing a book it may be that for Eduardo the significant part

of the book selection activity was having a book in his temporary possession

at his desk Reaching over to the book collection while remaining seated at

382 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

his desk achieved that goal in an efficient way However by week 4 of the

mSSR activity during the book selection Eduardo got out of his seat to look

at the books without hesitation and began to take some time in the selection

process He looked through the collection of books before choosing one to

read and even changed books during the silent reading period showing the

development of an understanding of the discriminating part of the task of

choosing a book Throughout the second and third terms of the mSSR

Eduardo often looked through several different books at his desk during the

silent reading period and sometimes even selected a book to read that he had

brought to class Such a change in book selection practices may display

Eduardorsquos greater discernment of quality or appropriateness of reading

material in the L2 or at least his interest in particular material It also could

show how Eduardorsquos low-level reading skills made the task of staying with

one book and actually reading that one book (which the teacher asked

learners to try to do) somewhat tiresome

Eduardorsquos increased level of participation in this literacy event was made

possible by the daily recurrence of the activity and his hearing the

instructions repeated by the teacher on a daily basis while seeing his peers

perform the task of book selection in every class period By being part of

the interaction in the classroom community of practice Eduardo was able

to move from having somewhat limited participation in the event in the

beginning of the first term of the mSSR (selecting a book without looking

at it) to more complete participation by the end of the term

By the first day of the second term of the mSSR in a class which was

made up of a few newcomers to the school and to the mSSR activity we see

that Eduardo had become socialized into the practices for the mSSR and

displayed expert status in the mSSR activity by being the first learner to

stand up and select a book after the teacherrsquos invitation After arriving at the

book cart he even helped the teacher set out the books to aid in the

selection process10 As the teacher instructed the new learners to take just

one book Eduardo held up and pointed to a book to simultaneously model

the teacherrsquos instructions for the new learners11 When he returned to his

desk after selecting his own book he even explained to a new learner what

the book selection and the mSSR activity entailed While the first two

displays of expertise were non-verbal (helping the teacher display the books

and modeling the selection of one book) Excerpt (1) shows Eduardo

explaining the mSSR to a new learner

(1)12

[1-6ndash03 A 204 20315mdash20359 Term II week 1]13

1 E ((looking to new class member)) one book

2 (20)

3 E es que todos los dias trienta minutos eh ponse

itrsquos that every the day thirty minutes she puts

every day for thirty minutes she puts

JOHN HELLERMANN 383

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

4 pon allı is every day thirty minutes reading

put there

there

5 para leer para por lo que no entiendas o lo

for read for for the what no you understand or the

read for what you donrsquot understand or

6 que quieres tu saber ella te lo dice puedes notar

what you want you to know she to you it tell you can write

what you want to know she can tell it to you to write down

7 N ( )

8 E Sı especialmente para practicar si para la persona

yes especially for practice if for the person

yes especially to practice if for the person

9 para lo que no puedes entender

for the what no you can understand

for what you canrsquot understand

10 que quieres saber tu que es ella te dice mhm

that you want to know you what it she to you tells mhm

what you want to know is what she tells you

11 dice sin verguenza que preguntarle porque ella

she says without embarrassment that to ask her because she

she says to ask without embarrassment because she

12 la pagane y la verguenza por eso venimos

the they pay and the embarrassment is why we come

the they pay her and the embarrassment is why we come

13 porque no sabemos

because no we know

because we donrsquot know

Eduardorsquos display of expertise and his offering support to a newcomer to the

class (Wenger 1998 Duff 2002) shows the social nature of classroom literacy

events The practices for literacy of the mSSR are embedded in several social

contexts in this case the classroom (Eduardo as learner expert) and a

linguisticcultural (Eduardo as Spanish speaking peer) Eduardorsquos social

interaction for this literacy event was accomplished in two languages

Eduardo mentions the core features of the mSSR (one book everyday thirty

minutes and reading) in the language of instruction while his interpretation of

the activity and his understanding of the teacherrsquos role are given in the

language he shares with his peer (Spanish) Eduardorsquos use of English

oriented to the language of the task and purpose of the task itself while his

use of Spanish fit the immediate social context of the literacy activity

Eduardo helping a Spanish-speaking newcomer to the English language class

384 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

This example shows Eduardo working through two of Rederrsquos (1987) three

modes of engagement with literacy functional and social14 In this act of

offering help to a newcomer Eduardo displays his functional engagement

with the mSSR literacy event by helping the teacher set out books and

modeling the practice of choosing a book His awareness of the mSSR event

as beneficial and one in which the entire class engages motivates him to give

instructions to a newcomer to the classroom community in that learnerrsquos L1

with key terms for the task in English displaying a social engagement with

literacy

While these observations of book selection and reading behavior do not

make claims about the development of decoding skills lexical acquisition

or memory and cognitive skills enhanced by L2 literacy development this

micro-ethnographic approach does uncover the habitus (Bourdieu 1991) of

the L2 literacy development in the classroom that is the behavioral practices

which establish a context in which other code-related skills become possible

In the book selection literacy event we see evidence of Eduardo moving

from peripheral to full participation (Lave and Wenger 1991) in his greater

discrimination in book selection The ability for Eduardo to explain the mSSR

activity to a newcomer to the class also shows the concomitant developing

interactional competence through socialization into classroom literacy events

By the end of three terms of attending classes which included the mSSR

activity Eduardo has acquired some of the social processes within the

context of the classroom community that involve him (Brandt 1990) in

literacy

In contrast to Eduardo presumably because of the literate practices learned

in her first language and culture for Abby socialization into L2 book

selection and reading perseverance was something that required less time In

her first mSSR session after the teacherrsquos instructions about selecting a book

Abby was the first learner to get out of her seat and go to the book cart

At the book cart she picked out one book and skimmed through it before

returning it She selected a second book looked through it briefly took the

book back to her seat and kept it for the entire period At the end of the class

period after the teacher suggested that students could reserve their book for

the next class period by putting a name card in the book Abby did this

highlighting her ability to engage with a text from the first day of the mSSR

This type of engagement with the text (book selection and reserving the book

for the next class period) contrasts notably with Eduardorsquos indiscriminate

book selection on the first day of the mSSR

Other evidence that Abby was able to take advantage of her experience

with L1 literacy was her use of several strategies for reading that Eduardo

did not use during the silent reading period These included the use of an

electronic dictionary to help her understand unfamiliar words and quietly

reading to herself during the time for silent reading15 The use of the

dictionary was part of systematic note taking by Abby who wrote out

unfamiliar words in columns in her notebook with the Chinese equivalents

JOHN HELLERMANN 385

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

next to them16 These skills were done without instruction from the

teacher and displayed her self-directed strategies for acquiring the L2 lexicon

While Eduardo also wrote in his notebook he usually wrote out full

sentences and phrases Watching him writing and seeing his notebooks from

time to time on camera I observed that Eduardo did not display the

experience of taking notes nor the strategic language learning skills that

Abby exhibited Conversations with the classroom teachers also suggest that

Eduardorsquos notes were not helpful to him because of their unsystematic

nature17 While Eduardo did begin using a dictionary in term three

regarding the mechanics of decoding written text the evidence suggests that

Abbyrsquos educational background played a large role in allowing her to

participate more completely from the start in the silent reading than

Eduardo18

Opening the post-reading story re-telling

Research in conversation analysis has explored how conversationalists

start their social interactions through orderly practices in their talk

(Schegloff 1968 1998 2002 Schegloff and Sacks 1973 Button and Casey

1984) While this line of research has focused on native speaker interaction

adult learners of English face the same fundamental problem as native

speakersmdashhow to get an interaction underway Adult learners of English

may bring a repertoire of strategies for social interaction from their life

experiences in other languages and cultures but whether adult learners of a

language as socially competent adults bring a sense of universal pragmatics

(Habermas 1976) to the classroom is an ongoing empirical question The

study of interaction in the context of adult learners using a lingua franca to

start activities provides a rich environment for the exploration of basic turn-

taking and conversational practices used in institutional settings

After the thirty minutes of silent reading another regular task in the

mSSR activity was peer re-telling in which the teacher instructed learners

(sometimes supplying question prompts) to tell their deskmate something

about the book they had just been reading The evidence gathered from the

two adult learners of English in this analysis suggests that differences in a

level of interactional competence in the L2 can be seen in the way the

learners engage in basic conversational skills such as opening an interaction

Two notable differences between these two learners are seen in the overt

negotiation over interlocutor selection and turn allocation at the beginning of

a task and the orientation to other activities that they are in the process of

finishing up Abbyrsquos interactions are characterized by opening moves which

display a greater range of linguistic and pragmatic skills than Eduardorsquos

Her opening moves also display notable development over the course of

three terms in the mSSR classes

A crucial first step to interaction in this literacy event for learners without

a large repertoire of linguistic code skills is the achievement of mutual

386 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

physical orientation for doing dyadic interaction19 Highly proficient speakers

of a language have a range of speech acts which they can use to subtly gain

a partnerrsquos attention while beginning learners almost without exception

rely on mutual physical orientation and object manipulation to start

their dyadic interactions (Hellermann 2004 2005) Eduardo and Abby also

both accomplished these subtle alignments for opening their re-telling

activities unproblematically in most instances Coordinating a mutual

physical orientation for re-telling entails the participants shifting their

posture slightly toward one another moving their books into a shared

space for re-telling and pointing to items in their books The interactions

between Eduardo and Lai Min another student in Excerpts (2) and (3)

occur at the beginning of Eduardorsquos second term in the mSSR The excerpts

are presented to show Eduardorsquos perseverance in opening this particular

literacy event demonstrating how he sees the establishment of mutual

orientation to a space for re-telling to be a necessary part of the re-telling

(Excerpt 2) and highlighting his manipulation of the books themselves

(Excerpt 3) as objects which are fundamental to the accomplishment of this

literacy event

(2)

[A2ndash13ndash03 204 24800 Term II week 6]20

1 T you need to speak to Eduardo

2 E ((taps Lai Min on shoulder and waves his hands motioning her

3 to move toward him))

4 L yeah ((leans back turns head slightly toward Eduardo))

5 E ((pages through his book))

6 L ((looks down to her book looks around class looks over

7 at E leans a little bit toward E))

8 L ((looks away from E)) [((leans forward away from E))

9 E [((looks toward L)) ((puts down his

10 book takes off glasses))

In (2) after the teacherrsquos directive to Lai Min to do the re-telling activity

with Eduardo (line 1) Eduardo makes a clear non-verbal summons

(shoulder tap) and invitation (waving motion) to Lai Min to begin the

re-telling activity in lines 2ndash3 Lai Min makes a minimal verbal and non-

verbal response (line 4) as Eduardo looks in his book Then as Eduardo is

paging through his book Lai Min looks at her own book looks around the

class looks to Eduardo and then looks away Lai Min does not make any

verbal moves to start the interaction and her visual orientation to various

places does not focus on an interaction space Besides the slight head

turn (line 4) and slight lean toward Eduardo (line 7) there is no clear

postural alignment to the space between herself and Eduardo When

Eduardo stops paging through his book and looks to Lai Min in line 9

JOHN HELLERMANN 387

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

he sees that her posture is not aligned to a mutual re-telling space and

he takes off his glasses and puts down his book seemingly aborting the

re-telling sequence

(3)

[A2ndash13ndash03 204 24835 Term II week 6]21

11 L ((looks at Ersquos book looks at board)) tee shuh ss tee shup

12 E ((opens another book)) ((puts book mark in it and closes it))

13 L ((looks at E))

14 E ((puts on glasses))

15 L ((opens her book))

16 E ((opens the second book points to something in the book))

17 L ((looks toward E))

18 E ( )

19 L ((L leans in toward E looking at book))

20 E Saigon Saigone Saigone

21 L ((points to Ersquos book)) Saigon

22 E Saigon Vietnam

23 L uh

24 E Saigone Vietname S( ) Vietnam

25 L mm

26 E Saigone

27 L Saigon ((leans away from E))

28 E ((looks at Lrsquos book and reads something from it)) [(prayer)

29 L [((moves her

30 book toward E))

In (3) after this aborted opening Lai Min appears to read something from

the board out loud (line 11) while Eduardo handles another book on the

table in front of him After Lai Min glances at Eduardo in line 13 Eduardo

puts on his glasses opens the book he has just been handling and points to

something in the book (line 16) which Lai Min orients to by leaning

in toward Eduardo to look at the page to which he is pointing After some

back and forth repetition of the word Eduardo is pointing to (Saigon) Lai Min

ends the focus on Eduardorsquos book by leaning away from the common

interactional space (line 27) Eduardo takes this as a cue to switch roles and

to now share information from Lai Minrsquos book In line 28 Eduardo reads

something from Lai Minrsquos book and she moves it closer to him to aid his

reading

While Extracts (2) and (3) show Eduardo initiating openings for the

re-telling literacy event and non-verbally orienting to the interaction with his

peer he was usually not the most verbally-active participant in his dyadic

388 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

interactions for re-telling When he self-selected to start a re-telling it was

when there were long pauses or notable lack of initiation from his partner

(as in (2) and (3)) By the end of term two of the mSSR however there

is evidence of Eduardo making a reciprocal verbal elicitation for a re-telling

As Excerpt (4) shows after finishing his own re-telling and completing

a closing sequence to that telling (lines 4ndash7) Eduardo reciprocates in eliciting

a re-telling from his partner (line 8)

(4)

[B 5ndash13ndash03 23601 term III week 7]22

1 E fis

2 J flying fish ((flapping left hand like flying))

3 E this is flying fi[s() this (of the)

4 J [yeah yeah yeah yeah

5 J mm mm

6 E mm hmm

7 J mm hmm

8 E what is your

9 (20) ((J picks up his book))

10 J eh (started started) this story

11 E the mountain the mountain ((reads Jrsquos book cover))

While the elicitation in line 8 is abbreviated Eduardorsquos partner (Jin) orients

to line 8 as an elicitation by picking up his own book (line 9) and beginning

his re-telling (line 10) As Jin starts the re-telling Eduardo orients to the title

of the book as an important part of the re-telling event by reading the title of

Jinrsquos book (line 11)

Two aspects of the openings for the re-tellings that the other focal student

of this study Abby displayed but that did not occur in Eduardorsquos interactions

were her pre-activity talk checking on whether the peer was ready to do

the task and then talk about interlocutor assignment for the activity

Abby became more active in initiating these opening moves over the course

of the three terms of the mSSR Excerpts (5)ndash(7) show examples of this

development In (5) which comes from the very beginning of the second

term in the mSSR we see Abby interact with Fernando but not initiate the

interaction

(5)

[1-10ndash03 B 24452 Term II week 2]23

1 F whose talk to me

2 (10) ((Fernando facing Abby Abby turns to Fernando))

3 F ((to Abby)) you oh

4 (25)

JOHN HELLERMANN 389

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

5 F hhyeah okay

6 ((Abby sneezes))

7 F bless you () god bless you a[gain

8 A [thank you

9 F again [god bless you

10 A [huh hah hah [uh hih hih hih hih hhuh

11 F [eh huh heh heh heah

12 (20)

13 F what () is your book

14 A eh () my book is () my my book is easy () easy story press

15 F oh press [mm hmm

16 A [yeah ease story pres[s

17 F [eh

18 (35)

19 A what is (your) story

In line 1 Fernando makes the first verbal move to establish the peer

dyad and achieve mutual physical orientation asking about a partner

and after a sequence involving sneezing in line 13 Fernando asks the

first elicitation question for the activity Abby responds to each elicitation

non-verbally in line 2 and with the title of her book in line 14 Abby orients

to the activity of finding out about one anotherrsquos books by asking

the reciprocal question more specifically asking about Fernandorsquos lsquostoryrsquo in

line 19

The next example of one of Abbyrsquos opening move sequences comes from

the fifth week of the second term of the mSSR Excerpt (6) shows Abby

engaging in more pre-task opening talk (lines 3 and 6) interlocutor selection

(line 8) and the launch of the task (line 10)

(6)

[2703 B 204 24353 Term II week 5]24

1 T you need to talk ladies

2 (10)

3 Ab todayrsquos uh February ((looks to Ana then back to notebook))

4 An ((shifts posture toward Abby))

5 (70)

6 Ab seventh

7 (140) ((both ss write)

8 Ab I talk to you ((turning to Ana))

9 (250) ((Ana continues writing))

10 Ab my () my book uh life story one

11 (20)

12 An ((shifts posture a bit to A))

390 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

13 Ab are you finished

14 An go (go ahead) please () where is () where is your story

After the teacher exhorts the learners (line 1) to begin their pair task

(the story re-telling) Abby announces the date and after Ana shifts her

posture toward Abby proposes the pair assignment (line 8) Since the

learners sit at desks in pairs the pair assignment is somewhat of a given so

Abbyrsquos turn in line 8 may also act as a proposal for turn allocation If

interlocutor assignment is relatively self-evident the turn lsquoI talk to yoursquo is at

least a move to attempt to get Ana to enter the interaction and may be an

explicit move to tell Ana that she Abby is starting the activity There is no

uptake by Ana after this proposal and after a rather long pause (line 9) Abby

launches the task self-selecting to re-tell her story first When there is no

verbal uptake by Ana in line 11 after Abbyrsquos turn Abby orients to her

partnerrsquos preparation for the task and asks if Ana has finished (line 13) her

preparatory work (writing notes) Ana orients to Abbyrsquos question as a pre-

request to check whether Ana is ready to start her re-telling by encouraging

Abby to continue directly eliciting information about the location of her

story in line 14

The final excerpt from the third term of the mSSR illustrates Abbyrsquos further

development of interactional practices for opening the re-telling activity In (7)

while Inez is writing in her notebook Abby shifts her posture to Inez and asks

a question (line 2) which is preliminary to a question for the assigned activity

(7)

[5-9ndash03 B 206 24121 Term III week 7]25

((Teacherrsquos prompt for the interaction lsquoDo you like books about a story or

information what kind of book are you reading nowrsquo))

1 A ((shifts posture toward Inez))

2 I are you ready

3 (70) ((Inez is writing in her notebook))

4 I yeah sorry

5 (30)

6 I ((re-positions her posture to face Abby then gestures with

7 right hand pointing to Abby and back to herself))

8 (30)

9 A ((Abby looks at the board and reads the question)) what type

10 of a book are you reading now

11 ((Inez begins her re-telling))

While Abbyrsquos question in line 2 orients to the necessity of the completion of

the preparatory work for the re-telling literacy event it also works as part

of the opening for the re-telling task itself Inez finishes writing in her

notebook and orients to Abbyrsquos question as an opening to the assigned

JOHN HELLERMANN 391

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

re-telling task by answering Abbyrsquos question and apologizing for not starting

immediately (line 4) After Inez repositions her body and non-verbally

initiates a negotiation of turn allocation for the re-telling (lines 6 and 7)

Abby self-selects to elicit the re-telling from Inez by reading one of the

teacherrsquos prompts from the board (lines 9ndash10)

Abbyrsquos socialization to the mSSR re-telling activity can be seen in the

development of opening moves in the re-telling interactions with her peers

in Excerpts (5)ndash(7) The interaction from earlier in the mSSR (Excerpt (5))

shows Abby not actively initiating dyad assignment pre-task talk and task

launch In terms two and three the excerpts show her more actively

involved in starting these re-telling activities Her task-preliminary organiza-

tional talk and task launching later in the second and third terms of the

mSSR suggest that she is now more comfortable with the re-telling literacy

event and with the language as a whole

These excerpts of Abbyrsquos interaction in the re-telling literacy events show

two common moves by more advanced learners for opening dyadic

interactions (Hellermann 2004 forthcoming) the orientation to the previous

task completion (in Excerpt (6) lsquoare you finishedrsquo and Excerpt (7) lsquoare you

readyrsquo) and interlocutor selection (in Excerpt (6) lsquoI talk to yoursquo) As other

research in conversation shows such moves for opening talk enable

participants to work out basic features of talk-in-interaction such as avoiding

simultaneous talk and ensuring that the talk about to happen is the start of

something new not from the previous topic (Button and Casey 1984)26

The interactions by Abby and Eduardo in the re-telling literacy events also

show evidence for the learnersrsquo development of interactional competence

through their socialization into literacy events27 While both Abby and

Eduardo orient to the beginnings of the re-telling events creating spaces for

appropriate mutual participation for the event from the start of the mSSR

we see evidence for a change in their participation in the re-telling events

over the course of the three terms of the mSSR Eduardo uses a speech act

(lsquowhat is yourrsquo) in a more sophisticated modality (verbal rather than non-

verbal) to reciprocate an elicitation for a re-telling in his interaction with Jin

in Excerpt (4) In Abbyrsquos later interactions she explicitly orients to the

boundaries of the events by inquiring as to her partnersrsquo readiness to

participate (Excerpts (5) and (6)) and negotiates roles for participation

(Excerpt (6) lsquoI talk to yoursquo) and turn allocation (Excerpts (6) and (7))

Learner reading logs and filing of reading logs

A basic literacy skill activity that the teacher built into the mSSR classes was

having learners chart their reading activity in a reading log and then file their

own reading logs alphabetically in a file box at the end of every lesson In

the third class period of the first term some evidence of Eduardorsquos lack of

basic literacy skills appeared during the filing activity Near the end of this

class period the teacher asked learners to put their reading logs into a file

392 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

box organized by their first names Eduardo and another learner went to

the file box at the front of the room and stood by the box with their reading

logs looking for the appropriate place to put the logs After some time

Eduardo looked over to Carla (a learner from Brazil) and held out his right

hand palm up Carla oriented to this gesture as a request for help and got out

of her seat to help the two learners showing them the place in the files to

put their logs28 A bit later in this class period as the learners were packing

up to leave the class Eduardo solicited the teacherrsquos help in understanding

the name of the process of filing (Excerpt (8)) In so doing he is building on

the co-constructed filing practice with his classmate

(8)

[10-3ndash02 A 204 25149 Term I week 2]29

1 E want to ask (you something) ((walking to file box))

2 T yes you want to ask me something

3 E somebody ((puts hand in file box then touches head)) somebody

4 T file

5 E file file

6 T uh huh this is what () please file file you papers

In Exerpt (8) Eduardo is standing next to the teacher and utters a

pre-question (Schegloff 1980) in line 1 as he walks to the file box Once at

the box in line 3 he says lsquosomebodyrsquo a bare noun phrase which projects a

predicate Eduardo produces that predicate by modeling the relevant action

a hypothetical learner filing a paper This is followed by a gesture of his

hand to his head (which Eduardo commonly used to indicate that he did not

remember a particular word in English) and a repetition of the same bare

noun phrase In line 4 the teacher orients to Eduardorsquos talk as a request for

a word to name the action of putting the reading log into the box The fact

that this interaction is elicited by Eduardo shortly after his request for help

from Carla suggests that Carla may have helped him put the reading log

in the right place but did not give Eduardo the English word for that action

It is Eduardorsquos interactions with both a peer and with the teacher which

help him co-construct a name for this literacy event

While Eduardorsquos success in filing his reading log was sporadic throughout

the rest of this first term at the beginning of the next term on the first day

of class the teacher explained again that the reading logs were to be filed

alphabetically She explained and modeled this while standing next to the

file box to assist learners After explaining and modeling the procedure to the

class she reminded Eduardo again several minutes later lsquoyou need to put this

[reading log] away young manrsquo Several minutes after that Eduardo held up

his reading log showing it to the teacher as other learners were going to the

file box to file their logs She responded affirmatively and Eduardo went to

the file box The teacher said his name Eduardo said lsquoersquo (the first letter of his

JOHN HELLERMANN 393

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

first name) and put the reading log in the appropriate place in the file box

Having participated in one term of the mSSR and the literacy event of filling

in and filing reading logs (the term in which it was just noted that he was

given support by a peer and the teacher) the reinforcement of the rules the

modeling by the teacher as well as the personal reminder and reassurance

given by the teacher guided Eduardo into full participation in this literacy

event Later in this second term and in the third term as well Eduardo

was able to file the log independently By the beginning of the third term

(4103) he was also able to tell a newcomer to the class the purpose of the

reading log

Based on conversations with his teachers the evidence from his reading

logs and his interactions with other learners in the re-telling literacy event

Eduardo seemed to have developed a genuine interest in and enthusiasm for

reading In a more complex literacy skill involving the reading logs there is

evidence that Eduardo developed the ability to orally evaluate the books

he read adopting a term introduced by the teacher to describe several of

his books lsquoso-sorsquo In the later part of the first term of the mSSR Eduardorsquos

reading log was sporadically filled in and he wrote in Spanish for the

assessment portion of the log (Figure 1)

By the second term of the mSSR Eduardo was reading some books during

the silent reading period in class for four class periods in a row (an indication

of persistence and interest) and assessed one book (The Orange Grove) in his

reading log as lsquovery goodrsquo Through this assessment Eduardo displayed

part of a personal identity as a literate person in English But even by the

third term of the mSSR classes Eduardo did not elaborate on the assessments

of his books as the reading log prompted learners to do In a row at the top

of the reading log learners were to answer the question lsquoDid you like it

[the book]rsquo and then write why The teacher provided another written

prompt in the box that learners checked for a positive assessment lsquoYes

because rsquo In this place though Eduardo always indicated that he liked the

Figure 1 Part of Eduardorsquos reading log from the first term of the mSSR

394 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

books that he read he did not specify why he liked them giving evidence

of the limitations of his ability to evaluate his reading (as Figure 2 shows)

In contrast to Eduardo Abby did not have trouble filing her reading log

On the day the teacher explained to learners how they should file their

reading logs she used Abby as an example lsquoFor example Abby file your

paper under lsquolsquoArsquorsquo for Abbyrsquo In subsequent class periods Abby displayed

competence at filing her reading log in the appropriate slot in the file box

The content of Abbyrsquos reading logs also differed from Eduardorsquos in notable

ways Where Eduardo always checked the box marked lsquoeasyrsquo when

evaluating the level of difficulty of the books he read in most cases Abby

checked the lsquojust rightrsquo box and just a few times the box marked lsquoeasyrsquo for

the books she read Figure 3 shows one of her reading logs from the third

term of the mSSR

The notations in Abbyrsquos reading log in Figure 3 suggest that she was

choosing books that were appropriate to her ability (the box labeled

lsquojust rightrsquo is marked consistently) Also Abby was able to give some detail

(although limited) when prompted by the teacher for the reasons behind

her assessment of a book In response to the teacherrsquos written prompt on

the reading log lsquoyes I liked it because rsquo Abby had two responses she used

lsquoyes I did because interestingrsquo or lsquoyes I did because easyrsquo Abby indicated

Figure 2 Part of Eduardorsquos reading log from the third term of the mSSR

JOHN HELLERMANN 395

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

these more expanded assessments both in the second and third terms of the

mSSR classes

An important question for research on language socialization and

interactional competence in a classroom setting is to what degree these

processes result in increased engagement with literacy outside the classroom

A telling insight gained from the learnersrsquo in-home L1 interviews suggests

that for both these learners the socialization into literacy events in the

classroom lead to increased participation in literacy outside the classroom

In the interviews conducted with each learner before the start of the mSSR

treatment when asked what and how much they read in English for

pleasure Abby indicated that she read student picture books for ninety

minutes a week Eduardo reported reading newspapers for thirty minutes

a week In interviews conducted in June of 2004 after the learnersrsquo

completed their participation in the mSSR Abby reported reading

newspapers and books for 7 hours a week and Eduardo newspapers and

magazines for 2 hours a week Along with the development of interactive

practices in classroom literacy events highlighted in this paper these findings

show a remarkable increase in these learnersrsquo engagement with literacy

outside the classroom and evidence of their emerging identities as individuals

literate in English

Figure 3 Part of Abbyrsquos reading log from the third term of the mSSR

396 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

CONCLUSIONS

The findings uncovered in this study show two learnersrsquo development of

interactional competence through their socialization into classroom literacy

events This socialization occurred through the learnersrsquo engagement in

discursive practices in repeated literacy events which were part of a modified

sustained silent reading program The discursive practices for the literacy

events occurred within the context of the entire classroom community of

practice (Wenger 1998) and afforded learners the opportunities to move from

peripheral to more full participation in English literacy This community of

practice included (1) the teachers who provided instructions and support for

the activities through explicit instruction and modeling (2) learner peers

who also modeled appropriate interactive and language behavior and were

the interlocutors with whom some of the literacy practices were negotiated

and (3) the texts themselves which became a mediating object the third

part in a triadic dialogue for literacy (van Lier 2002) comprised of learnerndash

teacherndashtext or learnerndashlearnerndashtext

While neither learner had studied English formally before enrolling in

classes at the Lab School this study shows that Abby the learner with a high

school education from her home country was familiar with some of the

practices for literacy events including alphabetical filing book selection

and book assessment This research also showed that over the course of

three terms doing the mSSR activities Abby developed a wider range of

interactional practices for opening the dyadic interactions involved in the

story re-telling

Eduardo on the other hand began his participation in the mSSR activities

with much less experience with classroom literacy events having had just

two years of education in his home country The literacy events which were

part of the mSSR afforded Eduardo (van Lier 2000) the opportunity to

engage with literacy and by participating at first peripherally Eduardo

quickly understood and participated more fully in the book selection literacy

event Through interaction with his peers and the teacher in term two basic

literacy skills such as alphabetizing and filing his reading log developed

Though his teachersrsquo initial impressions suggested that he got very little

from his participation in the mSSR a review of his reading logs and his

participation in class show that Eduardo acquired knowledge of literacy

through a transformation (Lave and Wenger 1991) of his understanding of

and participation in literacy events

The development of these learnersrsquo interactional competence can be seen

in Eduardorsquos pursuit of understanding the practice of filing his reading log

which he accomplished through interaction with several members of the

classroom community This change in his participation in filing the logs

shows how learning is a situated practice accomplished through repeated

interactions with the entire classroom community In the analysis of the

story re-telling activities both Eduardo and Abby exhibited an increased

JOHN HELLERMANN 397

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

ability to use talk to initiate interaction by negotiating interlocutor

assignment and turn allocation to open their re-tellings Again the repeated

practice of the re-tellings afforded the learners opportunities to negotiate

a particular classroom and social action (opening a face-to-face interaction)

and both learners developed interactional skills that allowed them to

participate in the practice more fully

A quantitative analysis of standardized assessment measures30 for all the

learners at the Lab School shows that students who participated in the mSSR

method improved in their English language literacy skills to the same degree

as students who participated in classes which used a traditional skills-based

method for the teaching of reading (Reder et al forthcoming) This result

leads one to question what classroom practices might have contributed to

the increase in scores for each group Qualitative micro-analyses such as this

study are a first step toward understanding the discursive practices of the

mSSR classrooms which led to increases in those standardized tests of literacy

skills Also while we know that first-language education is a factor in

successful second language acquisition (Cole et al 1971) we know little

about how classroom interaction between experienced and inexperienced

learners differs In order to address this question this analysis used existing

social categorizations for participant selection (their degree of previous

education in their first language environment) and focused on two students

who would be categorized differently But the use of these macro-level

categorizations was not intended to reify the association of the characteristics

of each category to individual members Rather they were used to define

places from which to empirically examine the interactional language

behavior of members of each category This examination was done through

micro-analyses of the two studentsrsquo participation in the discursive practices

in mSSR literacy events that help L2 literacy develop The focus on the

day-to-day classroom interactions of the two learners allowed us to see

different paths to L2 literacy for learners who have different educational and

literacy experiences and uncover the complex interaction within a classroom

community of practice which results in the changes reported in traditional

language assessment measures

Final version received November 2005

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank the entire staff at the National Labsite for Adult ESOL at Portland State

University for their involvement in maintaining the Lab School as a place for adults to learn

English and as a state of the art research facility I would also like to thank Kathy Harris Sandra

Banke Reuel Kurzet Steve Reder Dominique Brillanceau and three anonymous readers for

their feedback on various versions of the paper

398 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

APPENDIX A

Some transcript conventions in conversation analysis (adapted from Schegloff

2000)

I Temporal and sequential relationships

[ Overlapping or simultaneous talk

frac14 lsquolatched utterancesrsquo no break or pause between utterances

(05) Numbers in parentheses indicate silence represented in tenths of a second

() A dot in parentheses indicates a lsquomicropausersquo

II Aspects of speech delivery including aspectsof intonation

period indicates a falling intonation contour not necessarily the end ofa sentence

question mark indicates rising intonation

a comma indicates lsquocontinuingrsquo intonation

Colons are used to indicate the prolongation or stretching of the soundjust preceding them The more colons the longer the stretching

- A hyphen after a word or part of a word indicates a cut-off or self-interruption word

Underlining is used to indicate some form of stress or emphasis either byincreased loudness or higher pitch The more underlining the greater theemphasis

The degree sign indicates that the talk following it was markedly quiet orsoft

The up and down arrows mark sharper rises or falls in pitch

45 The combination of lsquomore thanrsquo and lsquoless thanrsquo symbols indicates that thetalk between them is compressed or rushed

54 Used in the reverse order they can indicate that a stretch of talk ismarkedly slowed or drawn out

hhh Outbreath

hh Inbreath

(( )) Descriptions of events ((cough)) ((sniff)) ((telephone rings)) ((foot-steps))

(word) All or part of an utterance in parentheses indicates transcriber uncertainty

Creaky voice

NOTES

1 In order to get around the unwieldy

and theoretically-loaded terminology

for describing the use acquisition

and learning of a language that is

not the home or first language of the

participants of this study I will use

JOHN HELLERMANN 399

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

the abbreviation lsquoL2rsquo throughout the

paper to refer to a language that is

being attained through formal instruc-

tion For the students in this study

lsquoL2rsquo refers to English It may not be

however that English is these

studentsrsquo lsquosecondrsquo language as the

abbreviation implies

2 Students in the current study were in

lsquolevel Arsquo classes at the data collection

site SPL level 0ndash2

3 In Sustained Silent Reading

(McCracken 1971 Pilgreen 2000)

students are given a set time in the

classroom to read silently without

interruption by the teacher or other

students and without evaluation of

what is read and how it is read

The method was altered slightly at

the data collection site to meet the

needs of beginning adult language

learners and included activities

like post-reading re-telling activities

and studentsrsquo use of reading logs

to record their assessments of their

reading

4 The National Labsite for Adult ESOL

at Portland State University is sup-

ported in part by grant R309B6002

from the Institute for Education

Science US Dept of Education to

the National Center for the Study of

Adult Learning and Literacy The

Labsite is a partnership between

Portland State University and Portland

Community College The school

and research facilities are housed at

Portland State while the registration

curriculum and teachers of the

ESL students are from Portland

Community College

5 One reviewer asked about the inabil-

ity to see learnersrsquo eye gaze with

cameras embedded in the ceiling

While this is a problem when

students are sitting directly under

the two mobile cameras which

follow students wearing the wireless

microphones most often students

are sitting in a position where

studentsrsquo faces can be seen quite

directly For details of the data

collection see Reder et al (2003)

6 The Labsite Student Study (LSS)

conducts in-home interviews with a

subset of students in the lab school

(70 per year) in their home lan-

guages over the course of four

years regardless of whether the

student remains in lab school classes

or not The primary purpose of

the LSS study is to understand

language use and literacy develop-

ment outside the classroom context

and factors which influence program

persistence

7 All names used in this study are

pseudonyms

8 The teacher had different types of

books on a cart that she wheeled into

the room every class period She took

books off the cart and spread them

out on desks at the back of the room

9 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoselectsbookclass1]

10 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardohelping]

11 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoshowing]

12 Sarah Ouellette helped with the

Spanish transcription and provided

the translation to English Transcrip-

tion conventions are included in

Appendix A lsquoTrsquo indicates the class-

room teacher in all transcripts

13 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoexplaining]

400 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

14 At the time of this excerpt Eduardo

was a novice in Rederrsquos (1987) third

mode of literacy engagement

technical still struggling with basic

technical issues like decoding English

language lexicon

15 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Abbyreading]

16 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Abbynotetaking]

17 The classroom teachers noted the

frustration of doing mSSR with

students who have very low first

language literacy because of her

inability to help students organize

their reading in instances like note

taking (Banke and Brillanceau 2004)

18 A literacy assessment test (BEST

Literacy) was administered in the

classroom in terms one and two of

the mSSR program While the scores

increased for each learner for

Eduardo the increase is not as great

as Abbyrsquos Eduardorsquos overall literacy

score went from 35 in term one

to 42 in term two which is an

increase of one student performance

level (from 3 to 4) Abbyrsquos scores

increased from 45 in term one to

56 in term two which indicates

a jump from student performance

level 4 to 6 For information

on characteristics of student language

abilities at different student perfor-

mance levels (SPLs) see pp 5ndash6 of

wwwcalorgcaelaesl_resources

Part4-5pdf

19 One of the pedagogical advantages of

doing a dyadic re-telling in a lan-

guage classroom is that even if one

student doesnrsquot understand the

instructions for the task in an activity

like the mSSR the peerrsquos act of

posture shift moving a book into

a common space and looking

toward the partner strongly invite

collaboration in some interaction and

it is collaboration that is perhaps

the most important aspect of the

re-telling activity (Pilgreen 2000)

especially for language learners

20 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoopening1]

21 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoopening2]

22 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoorientsstorytelling]

23 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Abbyopening1]

24 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Abbypretasktalkterm2]

25 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Abbystartingretelling2]

26 While more empirical evidence is

warranted a provisional claim

can be mentioned here that such

re-telling activities and perhaps

in classroom pair activities in

general are organized with a two-

part move like that displayed in

(6) lsquoquery about readinessrsquo and

lsquoturn allocationrsquo before the first task

question

27 Notably absent from Abbyrsquos and

Eduardorsquos peer re-tellings are any

verbal greeting sequences Even

when one of the pair moves across

the room to sit with another student

Abby and Eduardo did not exchange

greetings with their partner for their

JOHN HELLERMANN 401

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

task This is something that other

students did as part of their openings

28 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoasksstudentforhelpfiling]

29 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoasksaboutfiling]

30 The assessment measures were the

BEST Plus and the Peabody Picture

Vocabulary tests

REFERENCES

Atkinson J M and J C Heritage 1984

Structures of Social Action Studies in Conversation

Analysis Cambridge Cambridge University Press

August G 2001 The Road to Second Language

Reading How do we get there Unpublished

PhD Dissertation City University of New York

New York

Banke S and D Brillanceu 2004 lsquoLiving

in Interventionrsquo Unpublished manuscript

Barton D (2001) lsquoDirections for literacy

research Analysing language and social practices

in a textually mediated worldrsquo Language and

Education 152ndash3 92ndash104

Bernhardt E B and M L Kamil 1995 lsquoInter-

preting relationships between L1 and L2 reading

Consolidating the linguistic threshold and the

linguistic interdependence hypothesesrsquo Applied

Linguistics 161 15ndash34

Bourdieu P 1991 Language and Symbolic Power

Cambridge MA Harvard University Press

Brandt D 1990 Literacy as Involvement The Acts

of Writers Readers and Texts Carbondale IL

Southern Illinois University Press

ButtonG andNCasey1984 lsquoGenerating topics

The use of topic initial elicitorsrsquo in J M Atkinson

and J C Heritage (eds) Structures of Social Action

Studies in Conversation Analysis Cambridge

Cambridge University Press

Canale M and M Swain 1980 lsquoTheoretical

bases of communicative approaches to second

language teaching and testingrsquoApplied Linguistics

1 1ndash47

Carrell P L 1991 lsquoSecond language reading

Reading ability or language proficiencyrsquo Applied

Linguistics 122 159ndash79

Chow P and C Chou 2000 Evaluating

Sustained Silent Reading in Reading Classes [Web]

I-TESL-J Available httpitesljorgArticlesChow-

mSSRhtml

Cole M J Gay J A Glick and D W Sharp

1971 The Cultural Context of Learning and Think-

ing An Exploration in Experimental Anthropology

New York Basic Books

Couper-Kuhlen E andMSelting 1996 Prosody

in Conversation Interactional Studies Cambridge

Cambridge University Press

Duff P 2002 lsquoThe discursive co-construction

of knowledge identity and difference An

ethnography of communication in the high

school mainstreamrsquo Applied Linguistics 233

289ndash322

Erickson F and J Schultz 1981 lsquoWhen is

a context Some issues and methods in the

analysis of social competencersquo in J Green and

C Wallat (eds) Ethnography and Language in

Educational Settings Norwood NJ Ablex

Felser C L Roberts T Marinis and R Gross

2003 lsquoThe processing of ambiguous sentences by

first and second language learners of Englishrsquo

Applied Psycholinguistics 243 453ndash89

Garfinkel H 1967 Studies in Ethnomethodology

Englewood Cliffs NJ Prentice Hall

Gee J P 1990 Social Linguistics and Literacies

Ideology in Discourses London Falmer Press

Goffman E 1959 The Presentation of Self

in Everyday Life New York Anchor Books

Doubleday

Goffman E 1961 Encounters Two Studies in

the Sociology of Interaction Indianapolis Bobbs-

Merrill

Goody J1977 TheDomestication of the SavageMind

Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Grabe W and F L Stoller 1997 lsquoReading and

vocabulary development in a second language

A case studyrsquo in J Coady and T Huckin (eds)

Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition A

Rationale for Pedagogy Cambridge Cambridge

University Press

402 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

Gumperz J J 1982 Discourse Strategies

Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Habermas J1976 lsquoSome distinctions in universal

pragmatics A working paperrsquo Theory and Society

32 155ndash67

Hall J K 1993 lsquoThe role of oral practices in

the accomplishment of our everyday lives

The sociocultural dimension of interaction

with implications for the learning of

another languagersquo Applied Linguistics 142

145ndash66

Hall J K 1995 lsquo lsquolsquoAw man where you goinrsquorsquorsquo

Classroom interaction and the development

of L2 interactional competencersquo Issues in Applied

Linguistics 62 37ndash62

Hall JK1997 lsquoA consideration of SLA as a theory

of practice A response to Firth and Wagnerrsquo

Modern Language Journal 813 301ndash306

He A W and R Young 1998 lsquoLanguage

proficiency interviews A discourse approachrsquo in

R Young and A W He (eds) Talking and Testing

Discourse Approaches to the Assessment of Oral

Proficiency Amsterdam John Benjamins

Heath S B 1982 lsquoWhat no bedtime story means

Narrative skills at home and schoolrsquo Language

in Society 11 49ndash76

Heath S B 1983 Ways with Words Language

Life and Work in Communities and Classrooms

Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Hellermann J 2004 lsquoPractices for opening dyadic

interactionrsquo paper presented at the annual

conference of the American Association for

Applied Linguistics Portland OR

Hellermann J forthcoming lsquoThe development of

practices for action in the classroom diadic

interaction focus on task openingsrsquo Modern

Language Journal

Hood S and H Joyce 1995 lsquoReading in the

adult ESL curriculum and classroomrsquo Prospect

102 52ndash64

Hymes D 1974 Foundations in Sociolinguistics

An Ethnographic Approach Philadelphia

University of Pennsylvania Press

Kramsch C 1986 lsquoFrom language proficiency

to interactional competencersquo Modern Language

Journal 70 372ndash66

Kramsch C 2002 lsquoHow can we tell the dancer

from the dancersquo in C Kramsch (ed) Language

Acquisition and Language Socialization An ecological

approach London Continuum

Lave J and E Wenger 1991 Situated Learning

Legitimate Peripheral Participation Cambridge

Cambridge University Press

Lerner G H 1995 lsquoTurn design and the organiza-

tion of participation in instructional activitiesrsquo

Discourse Processes 19 111ndash31

MacBethD2003 lsquoHugh MehanrsquosLearning Lessons

reconsidered On the differences between the

naturalistic and critical analysis of classroom

discoursersquo American Educational Research Journal

401 239ndash80

McCraken R A 1971 lsquoInitiating sustained silent

readingrsquo Journal of Reading 148 521ndash4 582ndash3

McDermott R and D Roth 1978 lsquoThe social

organization of behavior Interactional

approachesrsquo Annual Review of Anthropology 7

321ndash45

Markee N 2000 Conversation Analysis Marwah

NJ Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

Ochs E and B Schieffelin 1979 Developmental

Pragmatics New York Academic Press

Ochs E E A Schegloff and S A Thompson

1996 Interaction and Grammar Cambridge

Cambridge University Press

Ong W J 1982 Orality and Literacy The Technolo-

gizing of the Word London Routledge

Palacios I G 2002 An ESLLiteracy Center

A qualitative study of perspectives and practices

of immigrant adults and literacy facilitators

Unpublished PhD Dissertation Indiana

University Pennsylvania Indiana PA

Pilgreen J L 2000 The SSR Handbook How to

Organize and Manage a Sustained Silent Reading

Program Portsmouth NH BoyntonCook

Pulido D 2003 lsquoModeling the role of second

language proficiency and topic familiarity

in second language incidental vocabulary

acquisition through readingrsquo Language Learning

532 233ndash84

Reder S 1987 lsquoComparative aspects of functional

literacy development Three ethnic American

communitiesrsquo in D Wagner (ed) The Future

of Literacy in a Changing World Oxford Pergamon

Press

Reder S 1994 lsquoPractice engagement theory

A sociocultural approach to literacy across

languages and culturersquo in B M Ferdman

R M Weber and A G Ramırez (eds) Literacy

Across Languages and Cultures Albany NY State

University of New York Press

Reder S and E Davila (2005) lsquoContext

and literacy practicesrsquo Annual Review of Applied

Linguistics 25 170ndash87

Reder S K A Harris and K Setzler 2003

lsquoA multimedia adult learner corpusrsquo TESOL

Quarterly 373 546ndash57

JOHN HELLERMANN 403

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

Reder S K A Harris R Kurzet

D Brillanceau S Banke and JHellermann

forthcoming Using a modified Sustained Silent

Reading for low-level adult ESOL students

Boston National Center for the Study of Adult

Learning and Literacy

Sacks H E A Schegloff and G Jefferson

1974 lsquoA simplest systematics for the organiza-

tion of turn-taking for conversationsrsquo Language

504 696ndash735

Sagarra N 2000 The longitudinal role of working

memory on adult acquisition of L2 grammar

Unpublished PhD Dissertation University of

Illinois Urbana-Champaign

Schegloff E A 1968 lsquoSequencing in conversa-

tional openingsrsquo American Anthropologist 70

1075ndash95

Schegloff E A 1980 lsquoPreliminaries to prelimin-

aries lsquolsquoCan I ask you a questionrsquorsquo rsquo Sociological

Inquiry 50 104ndash52

Schegloff E A 1998 lsquoReflections on studying

prosody in talk-in-interactionrsquo Language and

Speech 413ndash4 235ndash63

Schegloff E A 2000 lsquoOverlapping talk and the

organization of turn-making for conversationrsquo

Language in Society 291 1ndash63

Schegloff E A 2002 lsquoOpening sequencingrsquo

in J E Katz and M Aakhus (eds) Perpetual

Contact Mobile Communication Private Talk Public

Performance Cambridge Cambridge University

Press

Schegloff E A and H Sacks 1973 lsquoOpening up

closingsrsquo Semiotica 8 289ndash327

Schieffelin B B and Ochs E (1986) lsquoLanguage

socializationrsquo Annual Review of Anthropology 15

163ndash91

Scribner S and M Cole 1981 The Psychology of

Literacy Cambridge MA Harvard University

Press

Segalowitz N C Poulsen and M Komoda

1991 lsquoLower level components of reading skill in

higher level bilinguals Implications for reading

instructionrsquo AILA Review 8 15ndash30

Streeck J 1983 Social Order in Child Communica-

tion Amsterdam John Benjamins

Streeck J and S Mihus 2005 lsquoMicroethno-

graphy The study of practicesrsquo In K L Fitch

and R E Sanders (eds) The Handbook of

Language and Social Interaction Marwah NJ

Lawrence Erlbaum

Street B 1998 lsquoNew literacies in theory

and practice What are the implications for

language in educationrsquo Linguistics and Education

10 1ndash24

Street B V 2001 Literacy and Development

Ethnographic perspectives London Routledge

Tang H 1997 lsquoThe relationship between reading

comprehension processes in L1 and L2rsquo Reading

Psychology 183 249ndash301

Treville M C 1996 lsquoLexical learning and reading

in L2 at the beginner level The advantage of

cognatesrsquo The Canadian Modern Language Review

531 173ndash90

Van Lier L 2000 lsquoFrom input to affordance

Social-interactive learning from an ecological

perspectiversquo in J Lantolf (ed) Sociocultural

Theory and Second Language Learning Oxford

Oxford University Press

van Lier L 2002 lsquoAn ecological-semiotic

perspective on language and linguisticsrsquo in

C Kramsch (ed) Language Acquisition and

Language Socialization An ecological approach

London Continuum

Wenger J 1998 Communities of Practice Learning

Meaning and Identity Cambridge Cambridge

University Press

Yang J 2000 lsquoOrthographic effect on word

recognition by learners of Chinese as a Foreign

Languagersquo Journal of the Chinese Language

Teachers Association 352 1ndash18

YoungR1999 lsquoSociolinguistic approaches toSLArsquo

Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 19 105ndash32

Young R 2000 lsquoInteractional competence

Challenges for validityrsquo Paper presented at the

annual conference of the American Association

for Applied Linguistics Vancouver BC

Young R F 2002 lsquoDiscourse approaches to oral

language assessmentrsquo Annual Review of Applied

Linguistics 22 243ndash62

404 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

Page 2: Classroom Interactive Practices for Developing L2 Literacy: A Microethnographic Study of Two Beginning Adult Learners of English

ADULT LEARNERS LANGUAGE SOCIALIZATIONAND INTERACTIONAL COMPETENCE

The majority of learners at the data collection site for this study (known

locally as lsquothe Lab Schoolrsquo) are working adults who as adults bring an

understanding of the world to the classroom that children learning a second

language do not have This understanding of the world can serve as an

important contextual resource for adults who share many of the same life

experience contexts as they interact in a lingua franca Studies which focus on

working adultsrsquo development of strategies for engagement in classroom

interaction in an L2 (English in this case) are especially interesting because

these resources from their home languages and cultures are available for use

in language learning The fact that learners who are part of the database for

this investigation are adults means that in many cases they need to use and

are using English every day outside of the classroom either for work or other

day-to-day social interactions Research on members of this population is

also important because of their under-representation in the applied linguistics

research literature

For these reasons this study starts from the theoretical perspective that

a primary goal of language learning is becoming competent interactionally

and that this competence is achieved through socialization into language

This theoretical perspective seems especially important for understanding

working adult immigrant language learning as the learners on whom this

study focuses need competence to engage in social practices both within and

outside of the classroom in a variety of situations

While the theory of communicative competence (Hymes 1974 Canale and

Swain 1980 with respect to SLA) resolved many of the conflicts over the

exclusion of language use from a theory of competence it remained tied

closely to a conceptualization of the L2 as located in the individual who is

engaged in little more than the transmission of information in the L2

Influenced in part by research in the area of ethnomethodological

conversation analysis language learning researchers have been developing

a theory of interactional competence (Kramsch 1986 Hall 1993 1995 1997 He

and Young 1998 Young 1999 2000 2002 Markee 2000) which understands

language use as situated and co-constructed A focus on interactional

competence seeks to understand the discursive practices that participants use

to co-construct their social interactions in recurring contextually-equivalent

situations Interactional competence focuses on resources including but not

limited to turn-taking appropriate use of linguistic register and the ability

to recognize and signal boundaries of communicative events (Young 2000)

The focus of studies of interactional competence is on the dynamic processes

of negotiation between interlocutors as they work to accomplish specific

social actions through their talk-in-interaction

The development of the interactional competence of language

learners has a reflexive relationship with language development through

378 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

language socialization The perspective of language learning as language

socialization (Ochs and Schieffelin 1979 Schieffelin and Ochs 1986

Kramsch 2002) was established in linguistic anthropology where the first

research focused on children developing language as novices participating in

particular activities and contexts within communities of adults who were

experts in the language and culture of the community Adult learners in

a classroom setting can be seen as engaging in socialization into English and

specifically for this project into literacy events through their interaction with

classroom peers in activities designed by an expert instructor to promote

English literacy This process of socialization into literacy events in turn

allows for the development of learnersrsquo interactional competence in English

Repeated classroom tasks such as the literacy events require learners to

participate in interaction regularly within a classroom community of practice

(Wenger 1998) with one another and their teachers using particular

language forms for particular actions within those literacy events The

increased ability of learners to participate in these literacy events is an

important part of the development of interactional competence as well as

literacy The literacy practices perspective (Scribner and Cole 1981) I am taking

in this paper sees the development of interactional competence as an integral

part of literacy development Literacy becomes accessible to learners in part

through their interaction in classroom literacy events This interaction

guided by a teacher-expert allows the language practices in literacy events

to become contextualized and salient to the learners The reoccurrence of

interactions in and for literacy events with teacher guidance is the

socialization process in which interactional competence and literacy develop

These are interactions in which learners negotiate meanings with peers and

instructors as they move from peripheral to full participation in literacy

events (Lave and Wenger 1991 Wenger 1998)

LITERACY AND LITERACY EVENTS

This study focuses on adult learnersrsquo2 development of practices for interaction

in literacy events as part of a modified Sustained Silent Reading (mSSR)

method for the teaching of reading The theoretical perspective on literacy

which informs this research is a literacy practices perspective discussed first by

Scribner and Cole (1981) and developed in the work of the New Literacy

Studies movement (Gee 1990 Street 1998 Barton 2001 cf review by Reder

and Davila 2005) This perspective considers literacy in a holistic manner

as lsquosocially organized practices which make use of a symbol system and

technology for producing and disseminating itrsquo (Scribner and Cole 1981

236) linguistic processing thus is embedded within and inseparable from

social practices or routines in which individuals are engaged

While literacy (reading in particular) is considered the goal of the

classroom interactions which are part of the mSSR investigated for this

project the interactions themselves consisted of students doing literacy in

JOHN HELLERMANN 379

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

literacy events Literacy events may be understood as lsquoany occasion in which a

piece of writing is integral to the nature of participantsrsquo interactions and

their interpretive processesrsquo (Heath 1982 50) Heathrsquos definition captures

both the goal and process of the classroom interactions which are the focus

for this study The use of this term foregrounds literacy as the process of

individuals understanding their own literacy (Street 2001) through their

negotiation both with texts teachers and one another

The literacy events analyzed in this study are

1 book selection and silent reading

2 practices for opening pair interaction for story re-telling

3 filling in and filing reading logs3

THE DATA AND SETTING

The data for this research come from a five-year federally funded project4

which investigates language learning by low-level adult learners of English

The data were collected in two classrooms which were designed to obtain

high quality video recordings Each classroom has six cameras embedded in

the ceiling5 Every class period two learners and the teacher wear wireless

microphones and there are two microphones in the ceiling to capture the

audio from the entire classroom The classroom interactions are coded for

activity and participation and portions of one half of all the recorded class

sessions are transcribed Specially designed software allows for viewing

transcription and codes together with the six camera views of the classroom

simultaneously This allows the researcher as complete a picture of the

classroom environment as currently available using video recording

The entire corpus of learner interaction consists of (at the time of writing)

over 4000 hours of classroom video recordings For analysis I isolated

instances in which the two focal participants in this study were either

wearing or sitting next to a classmate wearing a wireless microphone This

narrowed the data for close analysis to 14 three-hour class periods for

each learner The other class periods in which the learners participated were

also reviewed in order to observe their interaction with other learners and

their teachers Examples of learnersrsquo writing and information gathered from

in-home bilingual interviews were also used to add context to the analysis6

THE FOCAL PARTICIPANTS

At the time these data were collected Eduardo7 was a 51-year-old divorced

man from Mexico where he had had two years of formal education He had

been living in the USA for 14 years with his daughter son-in-law and two

grandchildren and spoke Spanish at home He had not studied English

before coming to the Lab School In the course of five terms of study at the

380 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

Lab School Eduardo logged 182 hours of instruction time giving him a

70 per cent attendance rate

Abby was a 21-year-old single woman from China with 11 years of

education in her home country Like Eduardo she had not studied English

before coming to the Lab School She lived with her parents and spoke

Cantonese at home In her first four terms of study she tallied 190 hours

of class time a 90 per cent attendance rate

These two learners were chosen because of their participation in three

consecutive terms of the mSSR method because neither of them had studied

English before attending the Lab School and because of their different

educational backgrounds Each student was assessed at approximately the

same proficiency level (based on an oral proficiency interview) and started

in a class for beginners I expected (as did their classroom teachers) that

their different levels of education and first language literacy would result in

different levels of participation in the interactive practices for literacy events

in the classroom Describing these differences aids an understanding of

emerging L2 literacy as part of learnersrsquo interactional competence as fostered

by language socialization in classroom literacy events

METHODS FOR ANALYSIS

This studyrsquos emic perspective on classroom discourse language and social

systems is influenced by ethnomethodology interactional sociolinguistics

and conversation analysis This theoretical and methodological perspective

sees language social order and social systems as locally constituted and

re-constituted Participants in any interaction be that mundane conversation

or classroom interaction co-construct a local cultural expertise (Garfinkel

1967) and display that expertise to one another at every moment (Goffman

1959 1961) through their talk-in-interaction From this perspective on social

interaction research on adults who have well-developed skills for social

interaction but little linguistic skill in their lingua franca is a rich area for the

study of the local co-construction of classroom discourse (Macbeth 2003)

This study takes advantage of the recurrent nature of activity in classroom

discourse to understand how the local practices for social interaction of two

learners in similar interactional environments constitute socialization into

literacy over the course of three terms of study The background information

for each participant in the study the categories lsquoMexican-Spanish L1 male

with little educationrsquo or lsquoMandarin-Chinese L1 female with high school

educationrsquo are not used to predict or explain a priori particular interactional

patterns While these categories played a role in participant selection it will

be a task for analysis to uncover how the discursive practices for literacy

of the two participants may or may not differ

The research relies on audio and video recording technology to open

a window onto micro-level details of situations by repeated observation

The descriptive richness and depth of context of this microethnographic

JOHN HELLERMANN 381

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

analysis (McDermott and Roth 1978 Erickson and Schultz 1981 Streeck

1983 Streeck and Mihus 2005) is the result of a detailed description of

behaviors that are immediately observable and interpretable to the

participants in the interaction themselves the talk and other communicative

resources (contextualization cues Gumperz 1982) for the interaction These

constitutive cues for contextualization include body posture gesture gaze

the manipulation of objects in the immediate environment turn-taking

and the sound production of language (Couper-Kuhlen and Selting 1996

Ochs et al 1996) Conversation analysis (Sacks et al 1974 Atkinson and

Heritage 1984) is utilized in this microethnography to make detailed

descriptions of the sequential structure of talk-in-interaction and to highlight

the perspectives on the interaction of the participants themselves

SOCIALIZATION INTO CLASSROOM LITERACY PRACTICES

Book selection and silent reading

Considering reading and literacy as a social process (Scribner and Cole 1981

Heath 1983 Brandt 1990 Reder 1994) one basic achievement in the

development of practices for carrying out literacy events done in the

language classroom and in an L2 is the ability to participate in the assessment

of the material that one reads Such preliminary moves into reading and

literacy are taken for granted by those of us living and working in literacy-

saturated social and psychological worlds However for learners with few

literacy skills these beginning practices may represent a major shift in their

conceptual understanding of the world (Goody 1977 Ong 1982) The first

literacy event in the mSSR method is selecting a book that is at an

appropriate linguistic level and which might be interesting to the reader

For learners with low-level literacy in their first languages without guidance

from the instructor (as the Sustained Silent Reading protocol states) this

could be an especially daunting task

The first data excerpts focus on Eduardorsquos engagement with the literacy

events over the course of his first two terms in the mSSR method On the

first day of the mSSR activities after the teacher instructed learners about

doing silent reading in the classroom everyday she invited learners to go to

the book carts8 to choose something to read At this point most learners got

out of their seats and went to the back of the classroom to choose a book

Eduardo however remained seated As other learners selected books from

the carts and desks (adjacent to Eduardorsquos desk) he reached over to a basket

of books and selected a book without looking at it and then read this book

for the entire twenty-minute silent reading period9 For a learner with very

low level decoding skills in English and with little experience with a reading

practice like choosing a book it may be that for Eduardo the significant part

of the book selection activity was having a book in his temporary possession

at his desk Reaching over to the book collection while remaining seated at

382 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

his desk achieved that goal in an efficient way However by week 4 of the

mSSR activity during the book selection Eduardo got out of his seat to look

at the books without hesitation and began to take some time in the selection

process He looked through the collection of books before choosing one to

read and even changed books during the silent reading period showing the

development of an understanding of the discriminating part of the task of

choosing a book Throughout the second and third terms of the mSSR

Eduardo often looked through several different books at his desk during the

silent reading period and sometimes even selected a book to read that he had

brought to class Such a change in book selection practices may display

Eduardorsquos greater discernment of quality or appropriateness of reading

material in the L2 or at least his interest in particular material It also could

show how Eduardorsquos low-level reading skills made the task of staying with

one book and actually reading that one book (which the teacher asked

learners to try to do) somewhat tiresome

Eduardorsquos increased level of participation in this literacy event was made

possible by the daily recurrence of the activity and his hearing the

instructions repeated by the teacher on a daily basis while seeing his peers

perform the task of book selection in every class period By being part of

the interaction in the classroom community of practice Eduardo was able

to move from having somewhat limited participation in the event in the

beginning of the first term of the mSSR (selecting a book without looking

at it) to more complete participation by the end of the term

By the first day of the second term of the mSSR in a class which was

made up of a few newcomers to the school and to the mSSR activity we see

that Eduardo had become socialized into the practices for the mSSR and

displayed expert status in the mSSR activity by being the first learner to

stand up and select a book after the teacherrsquos invitation After arriving at the

book cart he even helped the teacher set out the books to aid in the

selection process10 As the teacher instructed the new learners to take just

one book Eduardo held up and pointed to a book to simultaneously model

the teacherrsquos instructions for the new learners11 When he returned to his

desk after selecting his own book he even explained to a new learner what

the book selection and the mSSR activity entailed While the first two

displays of expertise were non-verbal (helping the teacher display the books

and modeling the selection of one book) Excerpt (1) shows Eduardo

explaining the mSSR to a new learner

(1)12

[1-6ndash03 A 204 20315mdash20359 Term II week 1]13

1 E ((looking to new class member)) one book

2 (20)

3 E es que todos los dias trienta minutos eh ponse

itrsquos that every the day thirty minutes she puts

every day for thirty minutes she puts

JOHN HELLERMANN 383

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

4 pon allı is every day thirty minutes reading

put there

there

5 para leer para por lo que no entiendas o lo

for read for for the what no you understand or the

read for what you donrsquot understand or

6 que quieres tu saber ella te lo dice puedes notar

what you want you to know she to you it tell you can write

what you want to know she can tell it to you to write down

7 N ( )

8 E Sı especialmente para practicar si para la persona

yes especially for practice if for the person

yes especially to practice if for the person

9 para lo que no puedes entender

for the what no you can understand

for what you canrsquot understand

10 que quieres saber tu que es ella te dice mhm

that you want to know you what it she to you tells mhm

what you want to know is what she tells you

11 dice sin verguenza que preguntarle porque ella

she says without embarrassment that to ask her because she

she says to ask without embarrassment because she

12 la pagane y la verguenza por eso venimos

the they pay and the embarrassment is why we come

the they pay her and the embarrassment is why we come

13 porque no sabemos

because no we know

because we donrsquot know

Eduardorsquos display of expertise and his offering support to a newcomer to the

class (Wenger 1998 Duff 2002) shows the social nature of classroom literacy

events The practices for literacy of the mSSR are embedded in several social

contexts in this case the classroom (Eduardo as learner expert) and a

linguisticcultural (Eduardo as Spanish speaking peer) Eduardorsquos social

interaction for this literacy event was accomplished in two languages

Eduardo mentions the core features of the mSSR (one book everyday thirty

minutes and reading) in the language of instruction while his interpretation of

the activity and his understanding of the teacherrsquos role are given in the

language he shares with his peer (Spanish) Eduardorsquos use of English

oriented to the language of the task and purpose of the task itself while his

use of Spanish fit the immediate social context of the literacy activity

Eduardo helping a Spanish-speaking newcomer to the English language class

384 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

This example shows Eduardo working through two of Rederrsquos (1987) three

modes of engagement with literacy functional and social14 In this act of

offering help to a newcomer Eduardo displays his functional engagement

with the mSSR literacy event by helping the teacher set out books and

modeling the practice of choosing a book His awareness of the mSSR event

as beneficial and one in which the entire class engages motivates him to give

instructions to a newcomer to the classroom community in that learnerrsquos L1

with key terms for the task in English displaying a social engagement with

literacy

While these observations of book selection and reading behavior do not

make claims about the development of decoding skills lexical acquisition

or memory and cognitive skills enhanced by L2 literacy development this

micro-ethnographic approach does uncover the habitus (Bourdieu 1991) of

the L2 literacy development in the classroom that is the behavioral practices

which establish a context in which other code-related skills become possible

In the book selection literacy event we see evidence of Eduardo moving

from peripheral to full participation (Lave and Wenger 1991) in his greater

discrimination in book selection The ability for Eduardo to explain the mSSR

activity to a newcomer to the class also shows the concomitant developing

interactional competence through socialization into classroom literacy events

By the end of three terms of attending classes which included the mSSR

activity Eduardo has acquired some of the social processes within the

context of the classroom community that involve him (Brandt 1990) in

literacy

In contrast to Eduardo presumably because of the literate practices learned

in her first language and culture for Abby socialization into L2 book

selection and reading perseverance was something that required less time In

her first mSSR session after the teacherrsquos instructions about selecting a book

Abby was the first learner to get out of her seat and go to the book cart

At the book cart she picked out one book and skimmed through it before

returning it She selected a second book looked through it briefly took the

book back to her seat and kept it for the entire period At the end of the class

period after the teacher suggested that students could reserve their book for

the next class period by putting a name card in the book Abby did this

highlighting her ability to engage with a text from the first day of the mSSR

This type of engagement with the text (book selection and reserving the book

for the next class period) contrasts notably with Eduardorsquos indiscriminate

book selection on the first day of the mSSR

Other evidence that Abby was able to take advantage of her experience

with L1 literacy was her use of several strategies for reading that Eduardo

did not use during the silent reading period These included the use of an

electronic dictionary to help her understand unfamiliar words and quietly

reading to herself during the time for silent reading15 The use of the

dictionary was part of systematic note taking by Abby who wrote out

unfamiliar words in columns in her notebook with the Chinese equivalents

JOHN HELLERMANN 385

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

next to them16 These skills were done without instruction from the

teacher and displayed her self-directed strategies for acquiring the L2 lexicon

While Eduardo also wrote in his notebook he usually wrote out full

sentences and phrases Watching him writing and seeing his notebooks from

time to time on camera I observed that Eduardo did not display the

experience of taking notes nor the strategic language learning skills that

Abby exhibited Conversations with the classroom teachers also suggest that

Eduardorsquos notes were not helpful to him because of their unsystematic

nature17 While Eduardo did begin using a dictionary in term three

regarding the mechanics of decoding written text the evidence suggests that

Abbyrsquos educational background played a large role in allowing her to

participate more completely from the start in the silent reading than

Eduardo18

Opening the post-reading story re-telling

Research in conversation analysis has explored how conversationalists

start their social interactions through orderly practices in their talk

(Schegloff 1968 1998 2002 Schegloff and Sacks 1973 Button and Casey

1984) While this line of research has focused on native speaker interaction

adult learners of English face the same fundamental problem as native

speakersmdashhow to get an interaction underway Adult learners of English

may bring a repertoire of strategies for social interaction from their life

experiences in other languages and cultures but whether adult learners of a

language as socially competent adults bring a sense of universal pragmatics

(Habermas 1976) to the classroom is an ongoing empirical question The

study of interaction in the context of adult learners using a lingua franca to

start activities provides a rich environment for the exploration of basic turn-

taking and conversational practices used in institutional settings

After the thirty minutes of silent reading another regular task in the

mSSR activity was peer re-telling in which the teacher instructed learners

(sometimes supplying question prompts) to tell their deskmate something

about the book they had just been reading The evidence gathered from the

two adult learners of English in this analysis suggests that differences in a

level of interactional competence in the L2 can be seen in the way the

learners engage in basic conversational skills such as opening an interaction

Two notable differences between these two learners are seen in the overt

negotiation over interlocutor selection and turn allocation at the beginning of

a task and the orientation to other activities that they are in the process of

finishing up Abbyrsquos interactions are characterized by opening moves which

display a greater range of linguistic and pragmatic skills than Eduardorsquos

Her opening moves also display notable development over the course of

three terms in the mSSR classes

A crucial first step to interaction in this literacy event for learners without

a large repertoire of linguistic code skills is the achievement of mutual

386 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

physical orientation for doing dyadic interaction19 Highly proficient speakers

of a language have a range of speech acts which they can use to subtly gain

a partnerrsquos attention while beginning learners almost without exception

rely on mutual physical orientation and object manipulation to start

their dyadic interactions (Hellermann 2004 2005) Eduardo and Abby also

both accomplished these subtle alignments for opening their re-telling

activities unproblematically in most instances Coordinating a mutual

physical orientation for re-telling entails the participants shifting their

posture slightly toward one another moving their books into a shared

space for re-telling and pointing to items in their books The interactions

between Eduardo and Lai Min another student in Excerpts (2) and (3)

occur at the beginning of Eduardorsquos second term in the mSSR The excerpts

are presented to show Eduardorsquos perseverance in opening this particular

literacy event demonstrating how he sees the establishment of mutual

orientation to a space for re-telling to be a necessary part of the re-telling

(Excerpt 2) and highlighting his manipulation of the books themselves

(Excerpt 3) as objects which are fundamental to the accomplishment of this

literacy event

(2)

[A2ndash13ndash03 204 24800 Term II week 6]20

1 T you need to speak to Eduardo

2 E ((taps Lai Min on shoulder and waves his hands motioning her

3 to move toward him))

4 L yeah ((leans back turns head slightly toward Eduardo))

5 E ((pages through his book))

6 L ((looks down to her book looks around class looks over

7 at E leans a little bit toward E))

8 L ((looks away from E)) [((leans forward away from E))

9 E [((looks toward L)) ((puts down his

10 book takes off glasses))

In (2) after the teacherrsquos directive to Lai Min to do the re-telling activity

with Eduardo (line 1) Eduardo makes a clear non-verbal summons

(shoulder tap) and invitation (waving motion) to Lai Min to begin the

re-telling activity in lines 2ndash3 Lai Min makes a minimal verbal and non-

verbal response (line 4) as Eduardo looks in his book Then as Eduardo is

paging through his book Lai Min looks at her own book looks around the

class looks to Eduardo and then looks away Lai Min does not make any

verbal moves to start the interaction and her visual orientation to various

places does not focus on an interaction space Besides the slight head

turn (line 4) and slight lean toward Eduardo (line 7) there is no clear

postural alignment to the space between herself and Eduardo When

Eduardo stops paging through his book and looks to Lai Min in line 9

JOHN HELLERMANN 387

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

he sees that her posture is not aligned to a mutual re-telling space and

he takes off his glasses and puts down his book seemingly aborting the

re-telling sequence

(3)

[A2ndash13ndash03 204 24835 Term II week 6]21

11 L ((looks at Ersquos book looks at board)) tee shuh ss tee shup

12 E ((opens another book)) ((puts book mark in it and closes it))

13 L ((looks at E))

14 E ((puts on glasses))

15 L ((opens her book))

16 E ((opens the second book points to something in the book))

17 L ((looks toward E))

18 E ( )

19 L ((L leans in toward E looking at book))

20 E Saigon Saigone Saigone

21 L ((points to Ersquos book)) Saigon

22 E Saigon Vietnam

23 L uh

24 E Saigone Vietname S( ) Vietnam

25 L mm

26 E Saigone

27 L Saigon ((leans away from E))

28 E ((looks at Lrsquos book and reads something from it)) [(prayer)

29 L [((moves her

30 book toward E))

In (3) after this aborted opening Lai Min appears to read something from

the board out loud (line 11) while Eduardo handles another book on the

table in front of him After Lai Min glances at Eduardo in line 13 Eduardo

puts on his glasses opens the book he has just been handling and points to

something in the book (line 16) which Lai Min orients to by leaning

in toward Eduardo to look at the page to which he is pointing After some

back and forth repetition of the word Eduardo is pointing to (Saigon) Lai Min

ends the focus on Eduardorsquos book by leaning away from the common

interactional space (line 27) Eduardo takes this as a cue to switch roles and

to now share information from Lai Minrsquos book In line 28 Eduardo reads

something from Lai Minrsquos book and she moves it closer to him to aid his

reading

While Extracts (2) and (3) show Eduardo initiating openings for the

re-telling literacy event and non-verbally orienting to the interaction with his

peer he was usually not the most verbally-active participant in his dyadic

388 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

interactions for re-telling When he self-selected to start a re-telling it was

when there were long pauses or notable lack of initiation from his partner

(as in (2) and (3)) By the end of term two of the mSSR however there

is evidence of Eduardo making a reciprocal verbal elicitation for a re-telling

As Excerpt (4) shows after finishing his own re-telling and completing

a closing sequence to that telling (lines 4ndash7) Eduardo reciprocates in eliciting

a re-telling from his partner (line 8)

(4)

[B 5ndash13ndash03 23601 term III week 7]22

1 E fis

2 J flying fish ((flapping left hand like flying))

3 E this is flying fi[s() this (of the)

4 J [yeah yeah yeah yeah

5 J mm mm

6 E mm hmm

7 J mm hmm

8 E what is your

9 (20) ((J picks up his book))

10 J eh (started started) this story

11 E the mountain the mountain ((reads Jrsquos book cover))

While the elicitation in line 8 is abbreviated Eduardorsquos partner (Jin) orients

to line 8 as an elicitation by picking up his own book (line 9) and beginning

his re-telling (line 10) As Jin starts the re-telling Eduardo orients to the title

of the book as an important part of the re-telling event by reading the title of

Jinrsquos book (line 11)

Two aspects of the openings for the re-tellings that the other focal student

of this study Abby displayed but that did not occur in Eduardorsquos interactions

were her pre-activity talk checking on whether the peer was ready to do

the task and then talk about interlocutor assignment for the activity

Abby became more active in initiating these opening moves over the course

of the three terms of the mSSR Excerpts (5)ndash(7) show examples of this

development In (5) which comes from the very beginning of the second

term in the mSSR we see Abby interact with Fernando but not initiate the

interaction

(5)

[1-10ndash03 B 24452 Term II week 2]23

1 F whose talk to me

2 (10) ((Fernando facing Abby Abby turns to Fernando))

3 F ((to Abby)) you oh

4 (25)

JOHN HELLERMANN 389

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

5 F hhyeah okay

6 ((Abby sneezes))

7 F bless you () god bless you a[gain

8 A [thank you

9 F again [god bless you

10 A [huh hah hah [uh hih hih hih hih hhuh

11 F [eh huh heh heh heah

12 (20)

13 F what () is your book

14 A eh () my book is () my my book is easy () easy story press

15 F oh press [mm hmm

16 A [yeah ease story pres[s

17 F [eh

18 (35)

19 A what is (your) story

In line 1 Fernando makes the first verbal move to establish the peer

dyad and achieve mutual physical orientation asking about a partner

and after a sequence involving sneezing in line 13 Fernando asks the

first elicitation question for the activity Abby responds to each elicitation

non-verbally in line 2 and with the title of her book in line 14 Abby orients

to the activity of finding out about one anotherrsquos books by asking

the reciprocal question more specifically asking about Fernandorsquos lsquostoryrsquo in

line 19

The next example of one of Abbyrsquos opening move sequences comes from

the fifth week of the second term of the mSSR Excerpt (6) shows Abby

engaging in more pre-task opening talk (lines 3 and 6) interlocutor selection

(line 8) and the launch of the task (line 10)

(6)

[2703 B 204 24353 Term II week 5]24

1 T you need to talk ladies

2 (10)

3 Ab todayrsquos uh February ((looks to Ana then back to notebook))

4 An ((shifts posture toward Abby))

5 (70)

6 Ab seventh

7 (140) ((both ss write)

8 Ab I talk to you ((turning to Ana))

9 (250) ((Ana continues writing))

10 Ab my () my book uh life story one

11 (20)

12 An ((shifts posture a bit to A))

390 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

13 Ab are you finished

14 An go (go ahead) please () where is () where is your story

After the teacher exhorts the learners (line 1) to begin their pair task

(the story re-telling) Abby announces the date and after Ana shifts her

posture toward Abby proposes the pair assignment (line 8) Since the

learners sit at desks in pairs the pair assignment is somewhat of a given so

Abbyrsquos turn in line 8 may also act as a proposal for turn allocation If

interlocutor assignment is relatively self-evident the turn lsquoI talk to yoursquo is at

least a move to attempt to get Ana to enter the interaction and may be an

explicit move to tell Ana that she Abby is starting the activity There is no

uptake by Ana after this proposal and after a rather long pause (line 9) Abby

launches the task self-selecting to re-tell her story first When there is no

verbal uptake by Ana in line 11 after Abbyrsquos turn Abby orients to her

partnerrsquos preparation for the task and asks if Ana has finished (line 13) her

preparatory work (writing notes) Ana orients to Abbyrsquos question as a pre-

request to check whether Ana is ready to start her re-telling by encouraging

Abby to continue directly eliciting information about the location of her

story in line 14

The final excerpt from the third term of the mSSR illustrates Abbyrsquos further

development of interactional practices for opening the re-telling activity In (7)

while Inez is writing in her notebook Abby shifts her posture to Inez and asks

a question (line 2) which is preliminary to a question for the assigned activity

(7)

[5-9ndash03 B 206 24121 Term III week 7]25

((Teacherrsquos prompt for the interaction lsquoDo you like books about a story or

information what kind of book are you reading nowrsquo))

1 A ((shifts posture toward Inez))

2 I are you ready

3 (70) ((Inez is writing in her notebook))

4 I yeah sorry

5 (30)

6 I ((re-positions her posture to face Abby then gestures with

7 right hand pointing to Abby and back to herself))

8 (30)

9 A ((Abby looks at the board and reads the question)) what type

10 of a book are you reading now

11 ((Inez begins her re-telling))

While Abbyrsquos question in line 2 orients to the necessity of the completion of

the preparatory work for the re-telling literacy event it also works as part

of the opening for the re-telling task itself Inez finishes writing in her

notebook and orients to Abbyrsquos question as an opening to the assigned

JOHN HELLERMANN 391

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

re-telling task by answering Abbyrsquos question and apologizing for not starting

immediately (line 4) After Inez repositions her body and non-verbally

initiates a negotiation of turn allocation for the re-telling (lines 6 and 7)

Abby self-selects to elicit the re-telling from Inez by reading one of the

teacherrsquos prompts from the board (lines 9ndash10)

Abbyrsquos socialization to the mSSR re-telling activity can be seen in the

development of opening moves in the re-telling interactions with her peers

in Excerpts (5)ndash(7) The interaction from earlier in the mSSR (Excerpt (5))

shows Abby not actively initiating dyad assignment pre-task talk and task

launch In terms two and three the excerpts show her more actively

involved in starting these re-telling activities Her task-preliminary organiza-

tional talk and task launching later in the second and third terms of the

mSSR suggest that she is now more comfortable with the re-telling literacy

event and with the language as a whole

These excerpts of Abbyrsquos interaction in the re-telling literacy events show

two common moves by more advanced learners for opening dyadic

interactions (Hellermann 2004 forthcoming) the orientation to the previous

task completion (in Excerpt (6) lsquoare you finishedrsquo and Excerpt (7) lsquoare you

readyrsquo) and interlocutor selection (in Excerpt (6) lsquoI talk to yoursquo) As other

research in conversation shows such moves for opening talk enable

participants to work out basic features of talk-in-interaction such as avoiding

simultaneous talk and ensuring that the talk about to happen is the start of

something new not from the previous topic (Button and Casey 1984)26

The interactions by Abby and Eduardo in the re-telling literacy events also

show evidence for the learnersrsquo development of interactional competence

through their socialization into literacy events27 While both Abby and

Eduardo orient to the beginnings of the re-telling events creating spaces for

appropriate mutual participation for the event from the start of the mSSR

we see evidence for a change in their participation in the re-telling events

over the course of the three terms of the mSSR Eduardo uses a speech act

(lsquowhat is yourrsquo) in a more sophisticated modality (verbal rather than non-

verbal) to reciprocate an elicitation for a re-telling in his interaction with Jin

in Excerpt (4) In Abbyrsquos later interactions she explicitly orients to the

boundaries of the events by inquiring as to her partnersrsquo readiness to

participate (Excerpts (5) and (6)) and negotiates roles for participation

(Excerpt (6) lsquoI talk to yoursquo) and turn allocation (Excerpts (6) and (7))

Learner reading logs and filing of reading logs

A basic literacy skill activity that the teacher built into the mSSR classes was

having learners chart their reading activity in a reading log and then file their

own reading logs alphabetically in a file box at the end of every lesson In

the third class period of the first term some evidence of Eduardorsquos lack of

basic literacy skills appeared during the filing activity Near the end of this

class period the teacher asked learners to put their reading logs into a file

392 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

box organized by their first names Eduardo and another learner went to

the file box at the front of the room and stood by the box with their reading

logs looking for the appropriate place to put the logs After some time

Eduardo looked over to Carla (a learner from Brazil) and held out his right

hand palm up Carla oriented to this gesture as a request for help and got out

of her seat to help the two learners showing them the place in the files to

put their logs28 A bit later in this class period as the learners were packing

up to leave the class Eduardo solicited the teacherrsquos help in understanding

the name of the process of filing (Excerpt (8)) In so doing he is building on

the co-constructed filing practice with his classmate

(8)

[10-3ndash02 A 204 25149 Term I week 2]29

1 E want to ask (you something) ((walking to file box))

2 T yes you want to ask me something

3 E somebody ((puts hand in file box then touches head)) somebody

4 T file

5 E file file

6 T uh huh this is what () please file file you papers

In Exerpt (8) Eduardo is standing next to the teacher and utters a

pre-question (Schegloff 1980) in line 1 as he walks to the file box Once at

the box in line 3 he says lsquosomebodyrsquo a bare noun phrase which projects a

predicate Eduardo produces that predicate by modeling the relevant action

a hypothetical learner filing a paper This is followed by a gesture of his

hand to his head (which Eduardo commonly used to indicate that he did not

remember a particular word in English) and a repetition of the same bare

noun phrase In line 4 the teacher orients to Eduardorsquos talk as a request for

a word to name the action of putting the reading log into the box The fact

that this interaction is elicited by Eduardo shortly after his request for help

from Carla suggests that Carla may have helped him put the reading log

in the right place but did not give Eduardo the English word for that action

It is Eduardorsquos interactions with both a peer and with the teacher which

help him co-construct a name for this literacy event

While Eduardorsquos success in filing his reading log was sporadic throughout

the rest of this first term at the beginning of the next term on the first day

of class the teacher explained again that the reading logs were to be filed

alphabetically She explained and modeled this while standing next to the

file box to assist learners After explaining and modeling the procedure to the

class she reminded Eduardo again several minutes later lsquoyou need to put this

[reading log] away young manrsquo Several minutes after that Eduardo held up

his reading log showing it to the teacher as other learners were going to the

file box to file their logs She responded affirmatively and Eduardo went to

the file box The teacher said his name Eduardo said lsquoersquo (the first letter of his

JOHN HELLERMANN 393

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

first name) and put the reading log in the appropriate place in the file box

Having participated in one term of the mSSR and the literacy event of filling

in and filing reading logs (the term in which it was just noted that he was

given support by a peer and the teacher) the reinforcement of the rules the

modeling by the teacher as well as the personal reminder and reassurance

given by the teacher guided Eduardo into full participation in this literacy

event Later in this second term and in the third term as well Eduardo

was able to file the log independently By the beginning of the third term

(4103) he was also able to tell a newcomer to the class the purpose of the

reading log

Based on conversations with his teachers the evidence from his reading

logs and his interactions with other learners in the re-telling literacy event

Eduardo seemed to have developed a genuine interest in and enthusiasm for

reading In a more complex literacy skill involving the reading logs there is

evidence that Eduardo developed the ability to orally evaluate the books

he read adopting a term introduced by the teacher to describe several of

his books lsquoso-sorsquo In the later part of the first term of the mSSR Eduardorsquos

reading log was sporadically filled in and he wrote in Spanish for the

assessment portion of the log (Figure 1)

By the second term of the mSSR Eduardo was reading some books during

the silent reading period in class for four class periods in a row (an indication

of persistence and interest) and assessed one book (The Orange Grove) in his

reading log as lsquovery goodrsquo Through this assessment Eduardo displayed

part of a personal identity as a literate person in English But even by the

third term of the mSSR classes Eduardo did not elaborate on the assessments

of his books as the reading log prompted learners to do In a row at the top

of the reading log learners were to answer the question lsquoDid you like it

[the book]rsquo and then write why The teacher provided another written

prompt in the box that learners checked for a positive assessment lsquoYes

because rsquo In this place though Eduardo always indicated that he liked the

Figure 1 Part of Eduardorsquos reading log from the first term of the mSSR

394 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

books that he read he did not specify why he liked them giving evidence

of the limitations of his ability to evaluate his reading (as Figure 2 shows)

In contrast to Eduardo Abby did not have trouble filing her reading log

On the day the teacher explained to learners how they should file their

reading logs she used Abby as an example lsquoFor example Abby file your

paper under lsquolsquoArsquorsquo for Abbyrsquo In subsequent class periods Abby displayed

competence at filing her reading log in the appropriate slot in the file box

The content of Abbyrsquos reading logs also differed from Eduardorsquos in notable

ways Where Eduardo always checked the box marked lsquoeasyrsquo when

evaluating the level of difficulty of the books he read in most cases Abby

checked the lsquojust rightrsquo box and just a few times the box marked lsquoeasyrsquo for

the books she read Figure 3 shows one of her reading logs from the third

term of the mSSR

The notations in Abbyrsquos reading log in Figure 3 suggest that she was

choosing books that were appropriate to her ability (the box labeled

lsquojust rightrsquo is marked consistently) Also Abby was able to give some detail

(although limited) when prompted by the teacher for the reasons behind

her assessment of a book In response to the teacherrsquos written prompt on

the reading log lsquoyes I liked it because rsquo Abby had two responses she used

lsquoyes I did because interestingrsquo or lsquoyes I did because easyrsquo Abby indicated

Figure 2 Part of Eduardorsquos reading log from the third term of the mSSR

JOHN HELLERMANN 395

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

these more expanded assessments both in the second and third terms of the

mSSR classes

An important question for research on language socialization and

interactional competence in a classroom setting is to what degree these

processes result in increased engagement with literacy outside the classroom

A telling insight gained from the learnersrsquo in-home L1 interviews suggests

that for both these learners the socialization into literacy events in the

classroom lead to increased participation in literacy outside the classroom

In the interviews conducted with each learner before the start of the mSSR

treatment when asked what and how much they read in English for

pleasure Abby indicated that she read student picture books for ninety

minutes a week Eduardo reported reading newspapers for thirty minutes

a week In interviews conducted in June of 2004 after the learnersrsquo

completed their participation in the mSSR Abby reported reading

newspapers and books for 7 hours a week and Eduardo newspapers and

magazines for 2 hours a week Along with the development of interactive

practices in classroom literacy events highlighted in this paper these findings

show a remarkable increase in these learnersrsquo engagement with literacy

outside the classroom and evidence of their emerging identities as individuals

literate in English

Figure 3 Part of Abbyrsquos reading log from the third term of the mSSR

396 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

CONCLUSIONS

The findings uncovered in this study show two learnersrsquo development of

interactional competence through their socialization into classroom literacy

events This socialization occurred through the learnersrsquo engagement in

discursive practices in repeated literacy events which were part of a modified

sustained silent reading program The discursive practices for the literacy

events occurred within the context of the entire classroom community of

practice (Wenger 1998) and afforded learners the opportunities to move from

peripheral to more full participation in English literacy This community of

practice included (1) the teachers who provided instructions and support for

the activities through explicit instruction and modeling (2) learner peers

who also modeled appropriate interactive and language behavior and were

the interlocutors with whom some of the literacy practices were negotiated

and (3) the texts themselves which became a mediating object the third

part in a triadic dialogue for literacy (van Lier 2002) comprised of learnerndash

teacherndashtext or learnerndashlearnerndashtext

While neither learner had studied English formally before enrolling in

classes at the Lab School this study shows that Abby the learner with a high

school education from her home country was familiar with some of the

practices for literacy events including alphabetical filing book selection

and book assessment This research also showed that over the course of

three terms doing the mSSR activities Abby developed a wider range of

interactional practices for opening the dyadic interactions involved in the

story re-telling

Eduardo on the other hand began his participation in the mSSR activities

with much less experience with classroom literacy events having had just

two years of education in his home country The literacy events which were

part of the mSSR afforded Eduardo (van Lier 2000) the opportunity to

engage with literacy and by participating at first peripherally Eduardo

quickly understood and participated more fully in the book selection literacy

event Through interaction with his peers and the teacher in term two basic

literacy skills such as alphabetizing and filing his reading log developed

Though his teachersrsquo initial impressions suggested that he got very little

from his participation in the mSSR a review of his reading logs and his

participation in class show that Eduardo acquired knowledge of literacy

through a transformation (Lave and Wenger 1991) of his understanding of

and participation in literacy events

The development of these learnersrsquo interactional competence can be seen

in Eduardorsquos pursuit of understanding the practice of filing his reading log

which he accomplished through interaction with several members of the

classroom community This change in his participation in filing the logs

shows how learning is a situated practice accomplished through repeated

interactions with the entire classroom community In the analysis of the

story re-telling activities both Eduardo and Abby exhibited an increased

JOHN HELLERMANN 397

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

ability to use talk to initiate interaction by negotiating interlocutor

assignment and turn allocation to open their re-tellings Again the repeated

practice of the re-tellings afforded the learners opportunities to negotiate

a particular classroom and social action (opening a face-to-face interaction)

and both learners developed interactional skills that allowed them to

participate in the practice more fully

A quantitative analysis of standardized assessment measures30 for all the

learners at the Lab School shows that students who participated in the mSSR

method improved in their English language literacy skills to the same degree

as students who participated in classes which used a traditional skills-based

method for the teaching of reading (Reder et al forthcoming) This result

leads one to question what classroom practices might have contributed to

the increase in scores for each group Qualitative micro-analyses such as this

study are a first step toward understanding the discursive practices of the

mSSR classrooms which led to increases in those standardized tests of literacy

skills Also while we know that first-language education is a factor in

successful second language acquisition (Cole et al 1971) we know little

about how classroom interaction between experienced and inexperienced

learners differs In order to address this question this analysis used existing

social categorizations for participant selection (their degree of previous

education in their first language environment) and focused on two students

who would be categorized differently But the use of these macro-level

categorizations was not intended to reify the association of the characteristics

of each category to individual members Rather they were used to define

places from which to empirically examine the interactional language

behavior of members of each category This examination was done through

micro-analyses of the two studentsrsquo participation in the discursive practices

in mSSR literacy events that help L2 literacy develop The focus on the

day-to-day classroom interactions of the two learners allowed us to see

different paths to L2 literacy for learners who have different educational and

literacy experiences and uncover the complex interaction within a classroom

community of practice which results in the changes reported in traditional

language assessment measures

Final version received November 2005

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank the entire staff at the National Labsite for Adult ESOL at Portland State

University for their involvement in maintaining the Lab School as a place for adults to learn

English and as a state of the art research facility I would also like to thank Kathy Harris Sandra

Banke Reuel Kurzet Steve Reder Dominique Brillanceau and three anonymous readers for

their feedback on various versions of the paper

398 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

APPENDIX A

Some transcript conventions in conversation analysis (adapted from Schegloff

2000)

I Temporal and sequential relationships

[ Overlapping or simultaneous talk

frac14 lsquolatched utterancesrsquo no break or pause between utterances

(05) Numbers in parentheses indicate silence represented in tenths of a second

() A dot in parentheses indicates a lsquomicropausersquo

II Aspects of speech delivery including aspectsof intonation

period indicates a falling intonation contour not necessarily the end ofa sentence

question mark indicates rising intonation

a comma indicates lsquocontinuingrsquo intonation

Colons are used to indicate the prolongation or stretching of the soundjust preceding them The more colons the longer the stretching

- A hyphen after a word or part of a word indicates a cut-off or self-interruption word

Underlining is used to indicate some form of stress or emphasis either byincreased loudness or higher pitch The more underlining the greater theemphasis

The degree sign indicates that the talk following it was markedly quiet orsoft

The up and down arrows mark sharper rises or falls in pitch

45 The combination of lsquomore thanrsquo and lsquoless thanrsquo symbols indicates that thetalk between them is compressed or rushed

54 Used in the reverse order they can indicate that a stretch of talk ismarkedly slowed or drawn out

hhh Outbreath

hh Inbreath

(( )) Descriptions of events ((cough)) ((sniff)) ((telephone rings)) ((foot-steps))

(word) All or part of an utterance in parentheses indicates transcriber uncertainty

Creaky voice

NOTES

1 In order to get around the unwieldy

and theoretically-loaded terminology

for describing the use acquisition

and learning of a language that is

not the home or first language of the

participants of this study I will use

JOHN HELLERMANN 399

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

the abbreviation lsquoL2rsquo throughout the

paper to refer to a language that is

being attained through formal instruc-

tion For the students in this study

lsquoL2rsquo refers to English It may not be

however that English is these

studentsrsquo lsquosecondrsquo language as the

abbreviation implies

2 Students in the current study were in

lsquolevel Arsquo classes at the data collection

site SPL level 0ndash2

3 In Sustained Silent Reading

(McCracken 1971 Pilgreen 2000)

students are given a set time in the

classroom to read silently without

interruption by the teacher or other

students and without evaluation of

what is read and how it is read

The method was altered slightly at

the data collection site to meet the

needs of beginning adult language

learners and included activities

like post-reading re-telling activities

and studentsrsquo use of reading logs

to record their assessments of their

reading

4 The National Labsite for Adult ESOL

at Portland State University is sup-

ported in part by grant R309B6002

from the Institute for Education

Science US Dept of Education to

the National Center for the Study of

Adult Learning and Literacy The

Labsite is a partnership between

Portland State University and Portland

Community College The school

and research facilities are housed at

Portland State while the registration

curriculum and teachers of the

ESL students are from Portland

Community College

5 One reviewer asked about the inabil-

ity to see learnersrsquo eye gaze with

cameras embedded in the ceiling

While this is a problem when

students are sitting directly under

the two mobile cameras which

follow students wearing the wireless

microphones most often students

are sitting in a position where

studentsrsquo faces can be seen quite

directly For details of the data

collection see Reder et al (2003)

6 The Labsite Student Study (LSS)

conducts in-home interviews with a

subset of students in the lab school

(70 per year) in their home lan-

guages over the course of four

years regardless of whether the

student remains in lab school classes

or not The primary purpose of

the LSS study is to understand

language use and literacy develop-

ment outside the classroom context

and factors which influence program

persistence

7 All names used in this study are

pseudonyms

8 The teacher had different types of

books on a cart that she wheeled into

the room every class period She took

books off the cart and spread them

out on desks at the back of the room

9 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoselectsbookclass1]

10 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardohelping]

11 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoshowing]

12 Sarah Ouellette helped with the

Spanish transcription and provided

the translation to English Transcrip-

tion conventions are included in

Appendix A lsquoTrsquo indicates the class-

room teacher in all transcripts

13 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoexplaining]

400 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

14 At the time of this excerpt Eduardo

was a novice in Rederrsquos (1987) third

mode of literacy engagement

technical still struggling with basic

technical issues like decoding English

language lexicon

15 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Abbyreading]

16 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Abbynotetaking]

17 The classroom teachers noted the

frustration of doing mSSR with

students who have very low first

language literacy because of her

inability to help students organize

their reading in instances like note

taking (Banke and Brillanceau 2004)

18 A literacy assessment test (BEST

Literacy) was administered in the

classroom in terms one and two of

the mSSR program While the scores

increased for each learner for

Eduardo the increase is not as great

as Abbyrsquos Eduardorsquos overall literacy

score went from 35 in term one

to 42 in term two which is an

increase of one student performance

level (from 3 to 4) Abbyrsquos scores

increased from 45 in term one to

56 in term two which indicates

a jump from student performance

level 4 to 6 For information

on characteristics of student language

abilities at different student perfor-

mance levels (SPLs) see pp 5ndash6 of

wwwcalorgcaelaesl_resources

Part4-5pdf

19 One of the pedagogical advantages of

doing a dyadic re-telling in a lan-

guage classroom is that even if one

student doesnrsquot understand the

instructions for the task in an activity

like the mSSR the peerrsquos act of

posture shift moving a book into

a common space and looking

toward the partner strongly invite

collaboration in some interaction and

it is collaboration that is perhaps

the most important aspect of the

re-telling activity (Pilgreen 2000)

especially for language learners

20 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoopening1]

21 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoopening2]

22 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoorientsstorytelling]

23 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Abbyopening1]

24 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Abbypretasktalkterm2]

25 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Abbystartingretelling2]

26 While more empirical evidence is

warranted a provisional claim

can be mentioned here that such

re-telling activities and perhaps

in classroom pair activities in

general are organized with a two-

part move like that displayed in

(6) lsquoquery about readinessrsquo and

lsquoturn allocationrsquo before the first task

question

27 Notably absent from Abbyrsquos and

Eduardorsquos peer re-tellings are any

verbal greeting sequences Even

when one of the pair moves across

the room to sit with another student

Abby and Eduardo did not exchange

greetings with their partner for their

JOHN HELLERMANN 401

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

task This is something that other

students did as part of their openings

28 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoasksstudentforhelpfiling]

29 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoasksaboutfiling]

30 The assessment measures were the

BEST Plus and the Peabody Picture

Vocabulary tests

REFERENCES

Atkinson J M and J C Heritage 1984

Structures of Social Action Studies in Conversation

Analysis Cambridge Cambridge University Press

August G 2001 The Road to Second Language

Reading How do we get there Unpublished

PhD Dissertation City University of New York

New York

Banke S and D Brillanceu 2004 lsquoLiving

in Interventionrsquo Unpublished manuscript

Barton D (2001) lsquoDirections for literacy

research Analysing language and social practices

in a textually mediated worldrsquo Language and

Education 152ndash3 92ndash104

Bernhardt E B and M L Kamil 1995 lsquoInter-

preting relationships between L1 and L2 reading

Consolidating the linguistic threshold and the

linguistic interdependence hypothesesrsquo Applied

Linguistics 161 15ndash34

Bourdieu P 1991 Language and Symbolic Power

Cambridge MA Harvard University Press

Brandt D 1990 Literacy as Involvement The Acts

of Writers Readers and Texts Carbondale IL

Southern Illinois University Press

ButtonG andNCasey1984 lsquoGenerating topics

The use of topic initial elicitorsrsquo in J M Atkinson

and J C Heritage (eds) Structures of Social Action

Studies in Conversation Analysis Cambridge

Cambridge University Press

Canale M and M Swain 1980 lsquoTheoretical

bases of communicative approaches to second

language teaching and testingrsquoApplied Linguistics

1 1ndash47

Carrell P L 1991 lsquoSecond language reading

Reading ability or language proficiencyrsquo Applied

Linguistics 122 159ndash79

Chow P and C Chou 2000 Evaluating

Sustained Silent Reading in Reading Classes [Web]

I-TESL-J Available httpitesljorgArticlesChow-

mSSRhtml

Cole M J Gay J A Glick and D W Sharp

1971 The Cultural Context of Learning and Think-

ing An Exploration in Experimental Anthropology

New York Basic Books

Couper-Kuhlen E andMSelting 1996 Prosody

in Conversation Interactional Studies Cambridge

Cambridge University Press

Duff P 2002 lsquoThe discursive co-construction

of knowledge identity and difference An

ethnography of communication in the high

school mainstreamrsquo Applied Linguistics 233

289ndash322

Erickson F and J Schultz 1981 lsquoWhen is

a context Some issues and methods in the

analysis of social competencersquo in J Green and

C Wallat (eds) Ethnography and Language in

Educational Settings Norwood NJ Ablex

Felser C L Roberts T Marinis and R Gross

2003 lsquoThe processing of ambiguous sentences by

first and second language learners of Englishrsquo

Applied Psycholinguistics 243 453ndash89

Garfinkel H 1967 Studies in Ethnomethodology

Englewood Cliffs NJ Prentice Hall

Gee J P 1990 Social Linguistics and Literacies

Ideology in Discourses London Falmer Press

Goffman E 1959 The Presentation of Self

in Everyday Life New York Anchor Books

Doubleday

Goffman E 1961 Encounters Two Studies in

the Sociology of Interaction Indianapolis Bobbs-

Merrill

Goody J1977 TheDomestication of the SavageMind

Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Grabe W and F L Stoller 1997 lsquoReading and

vocabulary development in a second language

A case studyrsquo in J Coady and T Huckin (eds)

Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition A

Rationale for Pedagogy Cambridge Cambridge

University Press

402 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

Gumperz J J 1982 Discourse Strategies

Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Habermas J1976 lsquoSome distinctions in universal

pragmatics A working paperrsquo Theory and Society

32 155ndash67

Hall J K 1993 lsquoThe role of oral practices in

the accomplishment of our everyday lives

The sociocultural dimension of interaction

with implications for the learning of

another languagersquo Applied Linguistics 142

145ndash66

Hall J K 1995 lsquo lsquolsquoAw man where you goinrsquorsquorsquo

Classroom interaction and the development

of L2 interactional competencersquo Issues in Applied

Linguistics 62 37ndash62

Hall JK1997 lsquoA consideration of SLA as a theory

of practice A response to Firth and Wagnerrsquo

Modern Language Journal 813 301ndash306

He A W and R Young 1998 lsquoLanguage

proficiency interviews A discourse approachrsquo in

R Young and A W He (eds) Talking and Testing

Discourse Approaches to the Assessment of Oral

Proficiency Amsterdam John Benjamins

Heath S B 1982 lsquoWhat no bedtime story means

Narrative skills at home and schoolrsquo Language

in Society 11 49ndash76

Heath S B 1983 Ways with Words Language

Life and Work in Communities and Classrooms

Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Hellermann J 2004 lsquoPractices for opening dyadic

interactionrsquo paper presented at the annual

conference of the American Association for

Applied Linguistics Portland OR

Hellermann J forthcoming lsquoThe development of

practices for action in the classroom diadic

interaction focus on task openingsrsquo Modern

Language Journal

Hood S and H Joyce 1995 lsquoReading in the

adult ESL curriculum and classroomrsquo Prospect

102 52ndash64

Hymes D 1974 Foundations in Sociolinguistics

An Ethnographic Approach Philadelphia

University of Pennsylvania Press

Kramsch C 1986 lsquoFrom language proficiency

to interactional competencersquo Modern Language

Journal 70 372ndash66

Kramsch C 2002 lsquoHow can we tell the dancer

from the dancersquo in C Kramsch (ed) Language

Acquisition and Language Socialization An ecological

approach London Continuum

Lave J and E Wenger 1991 Situated Learning

Legitimate Peripheral Participation Cambridge

Cambridge University Press

Lerner G H 1995 lsquoTurn design and the organiza-

tion of participation in instructional activitiesrsquo

Discourse Processes 19 111ndash31

MacBethD2003 lsquoHugh MehanrsquosLearning Lessons

reconsidered On the differences between the

naturalistic and critical analysis of classroom

discoursersquo American Educational Research Journal

401 239ndash80

McCraken R A 1971 lsquoInitiating sustained silent

readingrsquo Journal of Reading 148 521ndash4 582ndash3

McDermott R and D Roth 1978 lsquoThe social

organization of behavior Interactional

approachesrsquo Annual Review of Anthropology 7

321ndash45

Markee N 2000 Conversation Analysis Marwah

NJ Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

Ochs E and B Schieffelin 1979 Developmental

Pragmatics New York Academic Press

Ochs E E A Schegloff and S A Thompson

1996 Interaction and Grammar Cambridge

Cambridge University Press

Ong W J 1982 Orality and Literacy The Technolo-

gizing of the Word London Routledge

Palacios I G 2002 An ESLLiteracy Center

A qualitative study of perspectives and practices

of immigrant adults and literacy facilitators

Unpublished PhD Dissertation Indiana

University Pennsylvania Indiana PA

Pilgreen J L 2000 The SSR Handbook How to

Organize and Manage a Sustained Silent Reading

Program Portsmouth NH BoyntonCook

Pulido D 2003 lsquoModeling the role of second

language proficiency and topic familiarity

in second language incidental vocabulary

acquisition through readingrsquo Language Learning

532 233ndash84

Reder S 1987 lsquoComparative aspects of functional

literacy development Three ethnic American

communitiesrsquo in D Wagner (ed) The Future

of Literacy in a Changing World Oxford Pergamon

Press

Reder S 1994 lsquoPractice engagement theory

A sociocultural approach to literacy across

languages and culturersquo in B M Ferdman

R M Weber and A G Ramırez (eds) Literacy

Across Languages and Cultures Albany NY State

University of New York Press

Reder S and E Davila (2005) lsquoContext

and literacy practicesrsquo Annual Review of Applied

Linguistics 25 170ndash87

Reder S K A Harris and K Setzler 2003

lsquoA multimedia adult learner corpusrsquo TESOL

Quarterly 373 546ndash57

JOHN HELLERMANN 403

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

Reder S K A Harris R Kurzet

D Brillanceau S Banke and JHellermann

forthcoming Using a modified Sustained Silent

Reading for low-level adult ESOL students

Boston National Center for the Study of Adult

Learning and Literacy

Sacks H E A Schegloff and G Jefferson

1974 lsquoA simplest systematics for the organiza-

tion of turn-taking for conversationsrsquo Language

504 696ndash735

Sagarra N 2000 The longitudinal role of working

memory on adult acquisition of L2 grammar

Unpublished PhD Dissertation University of

Illinois Urbana-Champaign

Schegloff E A 1968 lsquoSequencing in conversa-

tional openingsrsquo American Anthropologist 70

1075ndash95

Schegloff E A 1980 lsquoPreliminaries to prelimin-

aries lsquolsquoCan I ask you a questionrsquorsquo rsquo Sociological

Inquiry 50 104ndash52

Schegloff E A 1998 lsquoReflections on studying

prosody in talk-in-interactionrsquo Language and

Speech 413ndash4 235ndash63

Schegloff E A 2000 lsquoOverlapping talk and the

organization of turn-making for conversationrsquo

Language in Society 291 1ndash63

Schegloff E A 2002 lsquoOpening sequencingrsquo

in J E Katz and M Aakhus (eds) Perpetual

Contact Mobile Communication Private Talk Public

Performance Cambridge Cambridge University

Press

Schegloff E A and H Sacks 1973 lsquoOpening up

closingsrsquo Semiotica 8 289ndash327

Schieffelin B B and Ochs E (1986) lsquoLanguage

socializationrsquo Annual Review of Anthropology 15

163ndash91

Scribner S and M Cole 1981 The Psychology of

Literacy Cambridge MA Harvard University

Press

Segalowitz N C Poulsen and M Komoda

1991 lsquoLower level components of reading skill in

higher level bilinguals Implications for reading

instructionrsquo AILA Review 8 15ndash30

Streeck J 1983 Social Order in Child Communica-

tion Amsterdam John Benjamins

Streeck J and S Mihus 2005 lsquoMicroethno-

graphy The study of practicesrsquo In K L Fitch

and R E Sanders (eds) The Handbook of

Language and Social Interaction Marwah NJ

Lawrence Erlbaum

Street B 1998 lsquoNew literacies in theory

and practice What are the implications for

language in educationrsquo Linguistics and Education

10 1ndash24

Street B V 2001 Literacy and Development

Ethnographic perspectives London Routledge

Tang H 1997 lsquoThe relationship between reading

comprehension processes in L1 and L2rsquo Reading

Psychology 183 249ndash301

Treville M C 1996 lsquoLexical learning and reading

in L2 at the beginner level The advantage of

cognatesrsquo The Canadian Modern Language Review

531 173ndash90

Van Lier L 2000 lsquoFrom input to affordance

Social-interactive learning from an ecological

perspectiversquo in J Lantolf (ed) Sociocultural

Theory and Second Language Learning Oxford

Oxford University Press

van Lier L 2002 lsquoAn ecological-semiotic

perspective on language and linguisticsrsquo in

C Kramsch (ed) Language Acquisition and

Language Socialization An ecological approach

London Continuum

Wenger J 1998 Communities of Practice Learning

Meaning and Identity Cambridge Cambridge

University Press

Yang J 2000 lsquoOrthographic effect on word

recognition by learners of Chinese as a Foreign

Languagersquo Journal of the Chinese Language

Teachers Association 352 1ndash18

YoungR1999 lsquoSociolinguistic approaches toSLArsquo

Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 19 105ndash32

Young R 2000 lsquoInteractional competence

Challenges for validityrsquo Paper presented at the

annual conference of the American Association

for Applied Linguistics Vancouver BC

Young R F 2002 lsquoDiscourse approaches to oral

language assessmentrsquo Annual Review of Applied

Linguistics 22 243ndash62

404 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

Page 3: Classroom Interactive Practices for Developing L2 Literacy: A Microethnographic Study of Two Beginning Adult Learners of English

language socialization The perspective of language learning as language

socialization (Ochs and Schieffelin 1979 Schieffelin and Ochs 1986

Kramsch 2002) was established in linguistic anthropology where the first

research focused on children developing language as novices participating in

particular activities and contexts within communities of adults who were

experts in the language and culture of the community Adult learners in

a classroom setting can be seen as engaging in socialization into English and

specifically for this project into literacy events through their interaction with

classroom peers in activities designed by an expert instructor to promote

English literacy This process of socialization into literacy events in turn

allows for the development of learnersrsquo interactional competence in English

Repeated classroom tasks such as the literacy events require learners to

participate in interaction regularly within a classroom community of practice

(Wenger 1998) with one another and their teachers using particular

language forms for particular actions within those literacy events The

increased ability of learners to participate in these literacy events is an

important part of the development of interactional competence as well as

literacy The literacy practices perspective (Scribner and Cole 1981) I am taking

in this paper sees the development of interactional competence as an integral

part of literacy development Literacy becomes accessible to learners in part

through their interaction in classroom literacy events This interaction

guided by a teacher-expert allows the language practices in literacy events

to become contextualized and salient to the learners The reoccurrence of

interactions in and for literacy events with teacher guidance is the

socialization process in which interactional competence and literacy develop

These are interactions in which learners negotiate meanings with peers and

instructors as they move from peripheral to full participation in literacy

events (Lave and Wenger 1991 Wenger 1998)

LITERACY AND LITERACY EVENTS

This study focuses on adult learnersrsquo2 development of practices for interaction

in literacy events as part of a modified Sustained Silent Reading (mSSR)

method for the teaching of reading The theoretical perspective on literacy

which informs this research is a literacy practices perspective discussed first by

Scribner and Cole (1981) and developed in the work of the New Literacy

Studies movement (Gee 1990 Street 1998 Barton 2001 cf review by Reder

and Davila 2005) This perspective considers literacy in a holistic manner

as lsquosocially organized practices which make use of a symbol system and

technology for producing and disseminating itrsquo (Scribner and Cole 1981

236) linguistic processing thus is embedded within and inseparable from

social practices or routines in which individuals are engaged

While literacy (reading in particular) is considered the goal of the

classroom interactions which are part of the mSSR investigated for this

project the interactions themselves consisted of students doing literacy in

JOHN HELLERMANN 379

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

literacy events Literacy events may be understood as lsquoany occasion in which a

piece of writing is integral to the nature of participantsrsquo interactions and

their interpretive processesrsquo (Heath 1982 50) Heathrsquos definition captures

both the goal and process of the classroom interactions which are the focus

for this study The use of this term foregrounds literacy as the process of

individuals understanding their own literacy (Street 2001) through their

negotiation both with texts teachers and one another

The literacy events analyzed in this study are

1 book selection and silent reading

2 practices for opening pair interaction for story re-telling

3 filling in and filing reading logs3

THE DATA AND SETTING

The data for this research come from a five-year federally funded project4

which investigates language learning by low-level adult learners of English

The data were collected in two classrooms which were designed to obtain

high quality video recordings Each classroom has six cameras embedded in

the ceiling5 Every class period two learners and the teacher wear wireless

microphones and there are two microphones in the ceiling to capture the

audio from the entire classroom The classroom interactions are coded for

activity and participation and portions of one half of all the recorded class

sessions are transcribed Specially designed software allows for viewing

transcription and codes together with the six camera views of the classroom

simultaneously This allows the researcher as complete a picture of the

classroom environment as currently available using video recording

The entire corpus of learner interaction consists of (at the time of writing)

over 4000 hours of classroom video recordings For analysis I isolated

instances in which the two focal participants in this study were either

wearing or sitting next to a classmate wearing a wireless microphone This

narrowed the data for close analysis to 14 three-hour class periods for

each learner The other class periods in which the learners participated were

also reviewed in order to observe their interaction with other learners and

their teachers Examples of learnersrsquo writing and information gathered from

in-home bilingual interviews were also used to add context to the analysis6

THE FOCAL PARTICIPANTS

At the time these data were collected Eduardo7 was a 51-year-old divorced

man from Mexico where he had had two years of formal education He had

been living in the USA for 14 years with his daughter son-in-law and two

grandchildren and spoke Spanish at home He had not studied English

before coming to the Lab School In the course of five terms of study at the

380 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

Lab School Eduardo logged 182 hours of instruction time giving him a

70 per cent attendance rate

Abby was a 21-year-old single woman from China with 11 years of

education in her home country Like Eduardo she had not studied English

before coming to the Lab School She lived with her parents and spoke

Cantonese at home In her first four terms of study she tallied 190 hours

of class time a 90 per cent attendance rate

These two learners were chosen because of their participation in three

consecutive terms of the mSSR method because neither of them had studied

English before attending the Lab School and because of their different

educational backgrounds Each student was assessed at approximately the

same proficiency level (based on an oral proficiency interview) and started

in a class for beginners I expected (as did their classroom teachers) that

their different levels of education and first language literacy would result in

different levels of participation in the interactive practices for literacy events

in the classroom Describing these differences aids an understanding of

emerging L2 literacy as part of learnersrsquo interactional competence as fostered

by language socialization in classroom literacy events

METHODS FOR ANALYSIS

This studyrsquos emic perspective on classroom discourse language and social

systems is influenced by ethnomethodology interactional sociolinguistics

and conversation analysis This theoretical and methodological perspective

sees language social order and social systems as locally constituted and

re-constituted Participants in any interaction be that mundane conversation

or classroom interaction co-construct a local cultural expertise (Garfinkel

1967) and display that expertise to one another at every moment (Goffman

1959 1961) through their talk-in-interaction From this perspective on social

interaction research on adults who have well-developed skills for social

interaction but little linguistic skill in their lingua franca is a rich area for the

study of the local co-construction of classroom discourse (Macbeth 2003)

This study takes advantage of the recurrent nature of activity in classroom

discourse to understand how the local practices for social interaction of two

learners in similar interactional environments constitute socialization into

literacy over the course of three terms of study The background information

for each participant in the study the categories lsquoMexican-Spanish L1 male

with little educationrsquo or lsquoMandarin-Chinese L1 female with high school

educationrsquo are not used to predict or explain a priori particular interactional

patterns While these categories played a role in participant selection it will

be a task for analysis to uncover how the discursive practices for literacy

of the two participants may or may not differ

The research relies on audio and video recording technology to open

a window onto micro-level details of situations by repeated observation

The descriptive richness and depth of context of this microethnographic

JOHN HELLERMANN 381

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

analysis (McDermott and Roth 1978 Erickson and Schultz 1981 Streeck

1983 Streeck and Mihus 2005) is the result of a detailed description of

behaviors that are immediately observable and interpretable to the

participants in the interaction themselves the talk and other communicative

resources (contextualization cues Gumperz 1982) for the interaction These

constitutive cues for contextualization include body posture gesture gaze

the manipulation of objects in the immediate environment turn-taking

and the sound production of language (Couper-Kuhlen and Selting 1996

Ochs et al 1996) Conversation analysis (Sacks et al 1974 Atkinson and

Heritage 1984) is utilized in this microethnography to make detailed

descriptions of the sequential structure of talk-in-interaction and to highlight

the perspectives on the interaction of the participants themselves

SOCIALIZATION INTO CLASSROOM LITERACY PRACTICES

Book selection and silent reading

Considering reading and literacy as a social process (Scribner and Cole 1981

Heath 1983 Brandt 1990 Reder 1994) one basic achievement in the

development of practices for carrying out literacy events done in the

language classroom and in an L2 is the ability to participate in the assessment

of the material that one reads Such preliminary moves into reading and

literacy are taken for granted by those of us living and working in literacy-

saturated social and psychological worlds However for learners with few

literacy skills these beginning practices may represent a major shift in their

conceptual understanding of the world (Goody 1977 Ong 1982) The first

literacy event in the mSSR method is selecting a book that is at an

appropriate linguistic level and which might be interesting to the reader

For learners with low-level literacy in their first languages without guidance

from the instructor (as the Sustained Silent Reading protocol states) this

could be an especially daunting task

The first data excerpts focus on Eduardorsquos engagement with the literacy

events over the course of his first two terms in the mSSR method On the

first day of the mSSR activities after the teacher instructed learners about

doing silent reading in the classroom everyday she invited learners to go to

the book carts8 to choose something to read At this point most learners got

out of their seats and went to the back of the classroom to choose a book

Eduardo however remained seated As other learners selected books from

the carts and desks (adjacent to Eduardorsquos desk) he reached over to a basket

of books and selected a book without looking at it and then read this book

for the entire twenty-minute silent reading period9 For a learner with very

low level decoding skills in English and with little experience with a reading

practice like choosing a book it may be that for Eduardo the significant part

of the book selection activity was having a book in his temporary possession

at his desk Reaching over to the book collection while remaining seated at

382 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

his desk achieved that goal in an efficient way However by week 4 of the

mSSR activity during the book selection Eduardo got out of his seat to look

at the books without hesitation and began to take some time in the selection

process He looked through the collection of books before choosing one to

read and even changed books during the silent reading period showing the

development of an understanding of the discriminating part of the task of

choosing a book Throughout the second and third terms of the mSSR

Eduardo often looked through several different books at his desk during the

silent reading period and sometimes even selected a book to read that he had

brought to class Such a change in book selection practices may display

Eduardorsquos greater discernment of quality or appropriateness of reading

material in the L2 or at least his interest in particular material It also could

show how Eduardorsquos low-level reading skills made the task of staying with

one book and actually reading that one book (which the teacher asked

learners to try to do) somewhat tiresome

Eduardorsquos increased level of participation in this literacy event was made

possible by the daily recurrence of the activity and his hearing the

instructions repeated by the teacher on a daily basis while seeing his peers

perform the task of book selection in every class period By being part of

the interaction in the classroom community of practice Eduardo was able

to move from having somewhat limited participation in the event in the

beginning of the first term of the mSSR (selecting a book without looking

at it) to more complete participation by the end of the term

By the first day of the second term of the mSSR in a class which was

made up of a few newcomers to the school and to the mSSR activity we see

that Eduardo had become socialized into the practices for the mSSR and

displayed expert status in the mSSR activity by being the first learner to

stand up and select a book after the teacherrsquos invitation After arriving at the

book cart he even helped the teacher set out the books to aid in the

selection process10 As the teacher instructed the new learners to take just

one book Eduardo held up and pointed to a book to simultaneously model

the teacherrsquos instructions for the new learners11 When he returned to his

desk after selecting his own book he even explained to a new learner what

the book selection and the mSSR activity entailed While the first two

displays of expertise were non-verbal (helping the teacher display the books

and modeling the selection of one book) Excerpt (1) shows Eduardo

explaining the mSSR to a new learner

(1)12

[1-6ndash03 A 204 20315mdash20359 Term II week 1]13

1 E ((looking to new class member)) one book

2 (20)

3 E es que todos los dias trienta minutos eh ponse

itrsquos that every the day thirty minutes she puts

every day for thirty minutes she puts

JOHN HELLERMANN 383

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

4 pon allı is every day thirty minutes reading

put there

there

5 para leer para por lo que no entiendas o lo

for read for for the what no you understand or the

read for what you donrsquot understand or

6 que quieres tu saber ella te lo dice puedes notar

what you want you to know she to you it tell you can write

what you want to know she can tell it to you to write down

7 N ( )

8 E Sı especialmente para practicar si para la persona

yes especially for practice if for the person

yes especially to practice if for the person

9 para lo que no puedes entender

for the what no you can understand

for what you canrsquot understand

10 que quieres saber tu que es ella te dice mhm

that you want to know you what it she to you tells mhm

what you want to know is what she tells you

11 dice sin verguenza que preguntarle porque ella

she says without embarrassment that to ask her because she

she says to ask without embarrassment because she

12 la pagane y la verguenza por eso venimos

the they pay and the embarrassment is why we come

the they pay her and the embarrassment is why we come

13 porque no sabemos

because no we know

because we donrsquot know

Eduardorsquos display of expertise and his offering support to a newcomer to the

class (Wenger 1998 Duff 2002) shows the social nature of classroom literacy

events The practices for literacy of the mSSR are embedded in several social

contexts in this case the classroom (Eduardo as learner expert) and a

linguisticcultural (Eduardo as Spanish speaking peer) Eduardorsquos social

interaction for this literacy event was accomplished in two languages

Eduardo mentions the core features of the mSSR (one book everyday thirty

minutes and reading) in the language of instruction while his interpretation of

the activity and his understanding of the teacherrsquos role are given in the

language he shares with his peer (Spanish) Eduardorsquos use of English

oriented to the language of the task and purpose of the task itself while his

use of Spanish fit the immediate social context of the literacy activity

Eduardo helping a Spanish-speaking newcomer to the English language class

384 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

This example shows Eduardo working through two of Rederrsquos (1987) three

modes of engagement with literacy functional and social14 In this act of

offering help to a newcomer Eduardo displays his functional engagement

with the mSSR literacy event by helping the teacher set out books and

modeling the practice of choosing a book His awareness of the mSSR event

as beneficial and one in which the entire class engages motivates him to give

instructions to a newcomer to the classroom community in that learnerrsquos L1

with key terms for the task in English displaying a social engagement with

literacy

While these observations of book selection and reading behavior do not

make claims about the development of decoding skills lexical acquisition

or memory and cognitive skills enhanced by L2 literacy development this

micro-ethnographic approach does uncover the habitus (Bourdieu 1991) of

the L2 literacy development in the classroom that is the behavioral practices

which establish a context in which other code-related skills become possible

In the book selection literacy event we see evidence of Eduardo moving

from peripheral to full participation (Lave and Wenger 1991) in his greater

discrimination in book selection The ability for Eduardo to explain the mSSR

activity to a newcomer to the class also shows the concomitant developing

interactional competence through socialization into classroom literacy events

By the end of three terms of attending classes which included the mSSR

activity Eduardo has acquired some of the social processes within the

context of the classroom community that involve him (Brandt 1990) in

literacy

In contrast to Eduardo presumably because of the literate practices learned

in her first language and culture for Abby socialization into L2 book

selection and reading perseverance was something that required less time In

her first mSSR session after the teacherrsquos instructions about selecting a book

Abby was the first learner to get out of her seat and go to the book cart

At the book cart she picked out one book and skimmed through it before

returning it She selected a second book looked through it briefly took the

book back to her seat and kept it for the entire period At the end of the class

period after the teacher suggested that students could reserve their book for

the next class period by putting a name card in the book Abby did this

highlighting her ability to engage with a text from the first day of the mSSR

This type of engagement with the text (book selection and reserving the book

for the next class period) contrasts notably with Eduardorsquos indiscriminate

book selection on the first day of the mSSR

Other evidence that Abby was able to take advantage of her experience

with L1 literacy was her use of several strategies for reading that Eduardo

did not use during the silent reading period These included the use of an

electronic dictionary to help her understand unfamiliar words and quietly

reading to herself during the time for silent reading15 The use of the

dictionary was part of systematic note taking by Abby who wrote out

unfamiliar words in columns in her notebook with the Chinese equivalents

JOHN HELLERMANN 385

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

next to them16 These skills were done without instruction from the

teacher and displayed her self-directed strategies for acquiring the L2 lexicon

While Eduardo also wrote in his notebook he usually wrote out full

sentences and phrases Watching him writing and seeing his notebooks from

time to time on camera I observed that Eduardo did not display the

experience of taking notes nor the strategic language learning skills that

Abby exhibited Conversations with the classroom teachers also suggest that

Eduardorsquos notes were not helpful to him because of their unsystematic

nature17 While Eduardo did begin using a dictionary in term three

regarding the mechanics of decoding written text the evidence suggests that

Abbyrsquos educational background played a large role in allowing her to

participate more completely from the start in the silent reading than

Eduardo18

Opening the post-reading story re-telling

Research in conversation analysis has explored how conversationalists

start their social interactions through orderly practices in their talk

(Schegloff 1968 1998 2002 Schegloff and Sacks 1973 Button and Casey

1984) While this line of research has focused on native speaker interaction

adult learners of English face the same fundamental problem as native

speakersmdashhow to get an interaction underway Adult learners of English

may bring a repertoire of strategies for social interaction from their life

experiences in other languages and cultures but whether adult learners of a

language as socially competent adults bring a sense of universal pragmatics

(Habermas 1976) to the classroom is an ongoing empirical question The

study of interaction in the context of adult learners using a lingua franca to

start activities provides a rich environment for the exploration of basic turn-

taking and conversational practices used in institutional settings

After the thirty minutes of silent reading another regular task in the

mSSR activity was peer re-telling in which the teacher instructed learners

(sometimes supplying question prompts) to tell their deskmate something

about the book they had just been reading The evidence gathered from the

two adult learners of English in this analysis suggests that differences in a

level of interactional competence in the L2 can be seen in the way the

learners engage in basic conversational skills such as opening an interaction

Two notable differences between these two learners are seen in the overt

negotiation over interlocutor selection and turn allocation at the beginning of

a task and the orientation to other activities that they are in the process of

finishing up Abbyrsquos interactions are characterized by opening moves which

display a greater range of linguistic and pragmatic skills than Eduardorsquos

Her opening moves also display notable development over the course of

three terms in the mSSR classes

A crucial first step to interaction in this literacy event for learners without

a large repertoire of linguistic code skills is the achievement of mutual

386 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

physical orientation for doing dyadic interaction19 Highly proficient speakers

of a language have a range of speech acts which they can use to subtly gain

a partnerrsquos attention while beginning learners almost without exception

rely on mutual physical orientation and object manipulation to start

their dyadic interactions (Hellermann 2004 2005) Eduardo and Abby also

both accomplished these subtle alignments for opening their re-telling

activities unproblematically in most instances Coordinating a mutual

physical orientation for re-telling entails the participants shifting their

posture slightly toward one another moving their books into a shared

space for re-telling and pointing to items in their books The interactions

between Eduardo and Lai Min another student in Excerpts (2) and (3)

occur at the beginning of Eduardorsquos second term in the mSSR The excerpts

are presented to show Eduardorsquos perseverance in opening this particular

literacy event demonstrating how he sees the establishment of mutual

orientation to a space for re-telling to be a necessary part of the re-telling

(Excerpt 2) and highlighting his manipulation of the books themselves

(Excerpt 3) as objects which are fundamental to the accomplishment of this

literacy event

(2)

[A2ndash13ndash03 204 24800 Term II week 6]20

1 T you need to speak to Eduardo

2 E ((taps Lai Min on shoulder and waves his hands motioning her

3 to move toward him))

4 L yeah ((leans back turns head slightly toward Eduardo))

5 E ((pages through his book))

6 L ((looks down to her book looks around class looks over

7 at E leans a little bit toward E))

8 L ((looks away from E)) [((leans forward away from E))

9 E [((looks toward L)) ((puts down his

10 book takes off glasses))

In (2) after the teacherrsquos directive to Lai Min to do the re-telling activity

with Eduardo (line 1) Eduardo makes a clear non-verbal summons

(shoulder tap) and invitation (waving motion) to Lai Min to begin the

re-telling activity in lines 2ndash3 Lai Min makes a minimal verbal and non-

verbal response (line 4) as Eduardo looks in his book Then as Eduardo is

paging through his book Lai Min looks at her own book looks around the

class looks to Eduardo and then looks away Lai Min does not make any

verbal moves to start the interaction and her visual orientation to various

places does not focus on an interaction space Besides the slight head

turn (line 4) and slight lean toward Eduardo (line 7) there is no clear

postural alignment to the space between herself and Eduardo When

Eduardo stops paging through his book and looks to Lai Min in line 9

JOHN HELLERMANN 387

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

he sees that her posture is not aligned to a mutual re-telling space and

he takes off his glasses and puts down his book seemingly aborting the

re-telling sequence

(3)

[A2ndash13ndash03 204 24835 Term II week 6]21

11 L ((looks at Ersquos book looks at board)) tee shuh ss tee shup

12 E ((opens another book)) ((puts book mark in it and closes it))

13 L ((looks at E))

14 E ((puts on glasses))

15 L ((opens her book))

16 E ((opens the second book points to something in the book))

17 L ((looks toward E))

18 E ( )

19 L ((L leans in toward E looking at book))

20 E Saigon Saigone Saigone

21 L ((points to Ersquos book)) Saigon

22 E Saigon Vietnam

23 L uh

24 E Saigone Vietname S( ) Vietnam

25 L mm

26 E Saigone

27 L Saigon ((leans away from E))

28 E ((looks at Lrsquos book and reads something from it)) [(prayer)

29 L [((moves her

30 book toward E))

In (3) after this aborted opening Lai Min appears to read something from

the board out loud (line 11) while Eduardo handles another book on the

table in front of him After Lai Min glances at Eduardo in line 13 Eduardo

puts on his glasses opens the book he has just been handling and points to

something in the book (line 16) which Lai Min orients to by leaning

in toward Eduardo to look at the page to which he is pointing After some

back and forth repetition of the word Eduardo is pointing to (Saigon) Lai Min

ends the focus on Eduardorsquos book by leaning away from the common

interactional space (line 27) Eduardo takes this as a cue to switch roles and

to now share information from Lai Minrsquos book In line 28 Eduardo reads

something from Lai Minrsquos book and she moves it closer to him to aid his

reading

While Extracts (2) and (3) show Eduardo initiating openings for the

re-telling literacy event and non-verbally orienting to the interaction with his

peer he was usually not the most verbally-active participant in his dyadic

388 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

interactions for re-telling When he self-selected to start a re-telling it was

when there were long pauses or notable lack of initiation from his partner

(as in (2) and (3)) By the end of term two of the mSSR however there

is evidence of Eduardo making a reciprocal verbal elicitation for a re-telling

As Excerpt (4) shows after finishing his own re-telling and completing

a closing sequence to that telling (lines 4ndash7) Eduardo reciprocates in eliciting

a re-telling from his partner (line 8)

(4)

[B 5ndash13ndash03 23601 term III week 7]22

1 E fis

2 J flying fish ((flapping left hand like flying))

3 E this is flying fi[s() this (of the)

4 J [yeah yeah yeah yeah

5 J mm mm

6 E mm hmm

7 J mm hmm

8 E what is your

9 (20) ((J picks up his book))

10 J eh (started started) this story

11 E the mountain the mountain ((reads Jrsquos book cover))

While the elicitation in line 8 is abbreviated Eduardorsquos partner (Jin) orients

to line 8 as an elicitation by picking up his own book (line 9) and beginning

his re-telling (line 10) As Jin starts the re-telling Eduardo orients to the title

of the book as an important part of the re-telling event by reading the title of

Jinrsquos book (line 11)

Two aspects of the openings for the re-tellings that the other focal student

of this study Abby displayed but that did not occur in Eduardorsquos interactions

were her pre-activity talk checking on whether the peer was ready to do

the task and then talk about interlocutor assignment for the activity

Abby became more active in initiating these opening moves over the course

of the three terms of the mSSR Excerpts (5)ndash(7) show examples of this

development In (5) which comes from the very beginning of the second

term in the mSSR we see Abby interact with Fernando but not initiate the

interaction

(5)

[1-10ndash03 B 24452 Term II week 2]23

1 F whose talk to me

2 (10) ((Fernando facing Abby Abby turns to Fernando))

3 F ((to Abby)) you oh

4 (25)

JOHN HELLERMANN 389

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

5 F hhyeah okay

6 ((Abby sneezes))

7 F bless you () god bless you a[gain

8 A [thank you

9 F again [god bless you

10 A [huh hah hah [uh hih hih hih hih hhuh

11 F [eh huh heh heh heah

12 (20)

13 F what () is your book

14 A eh () my book is () my my book is easy () easy story press

15 F oh press [mm hmm

16 A [yeah ease story pres[s

17 F [eh

18 (35)

19 A what is (your) story

In line 1 Fernando makes the first verbal move to establish the peer

dyad and achieve mutual physical orientation asking about a partner

and after a sequence involving sneezing in line 13 Fernando asks the

first elicitation question for the activity Abby responds to each elicitation

non-verbally in line 2 and with the title of her book in line 14 Abby orients

to the activity of finding out about one anotherrsquos books by asking

the reciprocal question more specifically asking about Fernandorsquos lsquostoryrsquo in

line 19

The next example of one of Abbyrsquos opening move sequences comes from

the fifth week of the second term of the mSSR Excerpt (6) shows Abby

engaging in more pre-task opening talk (lines 3 and 6) interlocutor selection

(line 8) and the launch of the task (line 10)

(6)

[2703 B 204 24353 Term II week 5]24

1 T you need to talk ladies

2 (10)

3 Ab todayrsquos uh February ((looks to Ana then back to notebook))

4 An ((shifts posture toward Abby))

5 (70)

6 Ab seventh

7 (140) ((both ss write)

8 Ab I talk to you ((turning to Ana))

9 (250) ((Ana continues writing))

10 Ab my () my book uh life story one

11 (20)

12 An ((shifts posture a bit to A))

390 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

13 Ab are you finished

14 An go (go ahead) please () where is () where is your story

After the teacher exhorts the learners (line 1) to begin their pair task

(the story re-telling) Abby announces the date and after Ana shifts her

posture toward Abby proposes the pair assignment (line 8) Since the

learners sit at desks in pairs the pair assignment is somewhat of a given so

Abbyrsquos turn in line 8 may also act as a proposal for turn allocation If

interlocutor assignment is relatively self-evident the turn lsquoI talk to yoursquo is at

least a move to attempt to get Ana to enter the interaction and may be an

explicit move to tell Ana that she Abby is starting the activity There is no

uptake by Ana after this proposal and after a rather long pause (line 9) Abby

launches the task self-selecting to re-tell her story first When there is no

verbal uptake by Ana in line 11 after Abbyrsquos turn Abby orients to her

partnerrsquos preparation for the task and asks if Ana has finished (line 13) her

preparatory work (writing notes) Ana orients to Abbyrsquos question as a pre-

request to check whether Ana is ready to start her re-telling by encouraging

Abby to continue directly eliciting information about the location of her

story in line 14

The final excerpt from the third term of the mSSR illustrates Abbyrsquos further

development of interactional practices for opening the re-telling activity In (7)

while Inez is writing in her notebook Abby shifts her posture to Inez and asks

a question (line 2) which is preliminary to a question for the assigned activity

(7)

[5-9ndash03 B 206 24121 Term III week 7]25

((Teacherrsquos prompt for the interaction lsquoDo you like books about a story or

information what kind of book are you reading nowrsquo))

1 A ((shifts posture toward Inez))

2 I are you ready

3 (70) ((Inez is writing in her notebook))

4 I yeah sorry

5 (30)

6 I ((re-positions her posture to face Abby then gestures with

7 right hand pointing to Abby and back to herself))

8 (30)

9 A ((Abby looks at the board and reads the question)) what type

10 of a book are you reading now

11 ((Inez begins her re-telling))

While Abbyrsquos question in line 2 orients to the necessity of the completion of

the preparatory work for the re-telling literacy event it also works as part

of the opening for the re-telling task itself Inez finishes writing in her

notebook and orients to Abbyrsquos question as an opening to the assigned

JOHN HELLERMANN 391

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

re-telling task by answering Abbyrsquos question and apologizing for not starting

immediately (line 4) After Inez repositions her body and non-verbally

initiates a negotiation of turn allocation for the re-telling (lines 6 and 7)

Abby self-selects to elicit the re-telling from Inez by reading one of the

teacherrsquos prompts from the board (lines 9ndash10)

Abbyrsquos socialization to the mSSR re-telling activity can be seen in the

development of opening moves in the re-telling interactions with her peers

in Excerpts (5)ndash(7) The interaction from earlier in the mSSR (Excerpt (5))

shows Abby not actively initiating dyad assignment pre-task talk and task

launch In terms two and three the excerpts show her more actively

involved in starting these re-telling activities Her task-preliminary organiza-

tional talk and task launching later in the second and third terms of the

mSSR suggest that she is now more comfortable with the re-telling literacy

event and with the language as a whole

These excerpts of Abbyrsquos interaction in the re-telling literacy events show

two common moves by more advanced learners for opening dyadic

interactions (Hellermann 2004 forthcoming) the orientation to the previous

task completion (in Excerpt (6) lsquoare you finishedrsquo and Excerpt (7) lsquoare you

readyrsquo) and interlocutor selection (in Excerpt (6) lsquoI talk to yoursquo) As other

research in conversation shows such moves for opening talk enable

participants to work out basic features of talk-in-interaction such as avoiding

simultaneous talk and ensuring that the talk about to happen is the start of

something new not from the previous topic (Button and Casey 1984)26

The interactions by Abby and Eduardo in the re-telling literacy events also

show evidence for the learnersrsquo development of interactional competence

through their socialization into literacy events27 While both Abby and

Eduardo orient to the beginnings of the re-telling events creating spaces for

appropriate mutual participation for the event from the start of the mSSR

we see evidence for a change in their participation in the re-telling events

over the course of the three terms of the mSSR Eduardo uses a speech act

(lsquowhat is yourrsquo) in a more sophisticated modality (verbal rather than non-

verbal) to reciprocate an elicitation for a re-telling in his interaction with Jin

in Excerpt (4) In Abbyrsquos later interactions she explicitly orients to the

boundaries of the events by inquiring as to her partnersrsquo readiness to

participate (Excerpts (5) and (6)) and negotiates roles for participation

(Excerpt (6) lsquoI talk to yoursquo) and turn allocation (Excerpts (6) and (7))

Learner reading logs and filing of reading logs

A basic literacy skill activity that the teacher built into the mSSR classes was

having learners chart their reading activity in a reading log and then file their

own reading logs alphabetically in a file box at the end of every lesson In

the third class period of the first term some evidence of Eduardorsquos lack of

basic literacy skills appeared during the filing activity Near the end of this

class period the teacher asked learners to put their reading logs into a file

392 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

box organized by their first names Eduardo and another learner went to

the file box at the front of the room and stood by the box with their reading

logs looking for the appropriate place to put the logs After some time

Eduardo looked over to Carla (a learner from Brazil) and held out his right

hand palm up Carla oriented to this gesture as a request for help and got out

of her seat to help the two learners showing them the place in the files to

put their logs28 A bit later in this class period as the learners were packing

up to leave the class Eduardo solicited the teacherrsquos help in understanding

the name of the process of filing (Excerpt (8)) In so doing he is building on

the co-constructed filing practice with his classmate

(8)

[10-3ndash02 A 204 25149 Term I week 2]29

1 E want to ask (you something) ((walking to file box))

2 T yes you want to ask me something

3 E somebody ((puts hand in file box then touches head)) somebody

4 T file

5 E file file

6 T uh huh this is what () please file file you papers

In Exerpt (8) Eduardo is standing next to the teacher and utters a

pre-question (Schegloff 1980) in line 1 as he walks to the file box Once at

the box in line 3 he says lsquosomebodyrsquo a bare noun phrase which projects a

predicate Eduardo produces that predicate by modeling the relevant action

a hypothetical learner filing a paper This is followed by a gesture of his

hand to his head (which Eduardo commonly used to indicate that he did not

remember a particular word in English) and a repetition of the same bare

noun phrase In line 4 the teacher orients to Eduardorsquos talk as a request for

a word to name the action of putting the reading log into the box The fact

that this interaction is elicited by Eduardo shortly after his request for help

from Carla suggests that Carla may have helped him put the reading log

in the right place but did not give Eduardo the English word for that action

It is Eduardorsquos interactions with both a peer and with the teacher which

help him co-construct a name for this literacy event

While Eduardorsquos success in filing his reading log was sporadic throughout

the rest of this first term at the beginning of the next term on the first day

of class the teacher explained again that the reading logs were to be filed

alphabetically She explained and modeled this while standing next to the

file box to assist learners After explaining and modeling the procedure to the

class she reminded Eduardo again several minutes later lsquoyou need to put this

[reading log] away young manrsquo Several minutes after that Eduardo held up

his reading log showing it to the teacher as other learners were going to the

file box to file their logs She responded affirmatively and Eduardo went to

the file box The teacher said his name Eduardo said lsquoersquo (the first letter of his

JOHN HELLERMANN 393

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

first name) and put the reading log in the appropriate place in the file box

Having participated in one term of the mSSR and the literacy event of filling

in and filing reading logs (the term in which it was just noted that he was

given support by a peer and the teacher) the reinforcement of the rules the

modeling by the teacher as well as the personal reminder and reassurance

given by the teacher guided Eduardo into full participation in this literacy

event Later in this second term and in the third term as well Eduardo

was able to file the log independently By the beginning of the third term

(4103) he was also able to tell a newcomer to the class the purpose of the

reading log

Based on conversations with his teachers the evidence from his reading

logs and his interactions with other learners in the re-telling literacy event

Eduardo seemed to have developed a genuine interest in and enthusiasm for

reading In a more complex literacy skill involving the reading logs there is

evidence that Eduardo developed the ability to orally evaluate the books

he read adopting a term introduced by the teacher to describe several of

his books lsquoso-sorsquo In the later part of the first term of the mSSR Eduardorsquos

reading log was sporadically filled in and he wrote in Spanish for the

assessment portion of the log (Figure 1)

By the second term of the mSSR Eduardo was reading some books during

the silent reading period in class for four class periods in a row (an indication

of persistence and interest) and assessed one book (The Orange Grove) in his

reading log as lsquovery goodrsquo Through this assessment Eduardo displayed

part of a personal identity as a literate person in English But even by the

third term of the mSSR classes Eduardo did not elaborate on the assessments

of his books as the reading log prompted learners to do In a row at the top

of the reading log learners were to answer the question lsquoDid you like it

[the book]rsquo and then write why The teacher provided another written

prompt in the box that learners checked for a positive assessment lsquoYes

because rsquo In this place though Eduardo always indicated that he liked the

Figure 1 Part of Eduardorsquos reading log from the first term of the mSSR

394 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

books that he read he did not specify why he liked them giving evidence

of the limitations of his ability to evaluate his reading (as Figure 2 shows)

In contrast to Eduardo Abby did not have trouble filing her reading log

On the day the teacher explained to learners how they should file their

reading logs she used Abby as an example lsquoFor example Abby file your

paper under lsquolsquoArsquorsquo for Abbyrsquo In subsequent class periods Abby displayed

competence at filing her reading log in the appropriate slot in the file box

The content of Abbyrsquos reading logs also differed from Eduardorsquos in notable

ways Where Eduardo always checked the box marked lsquoeasyrsquo when

evaluating the level of difficulty of the books he read in most cases Abby

checked the lsquojust rightrsquo box and just a few times the box marked lsquoeasyrsquo for

the books she read Figure 3 shows one of her reading logs from the third

term of the mSSR

The notations in Abbyrsquos reading log in Figure 3 suggest that she was

choosing books that were appropriate to her ability (the box labeled

lsquojust rightrsquo is marked consistently) Also Abby was able to give some detail

(although limited) when prompted by the teacher for the reasons behind

her assessment of a book In response to the teacherrsquos written prompt on

the reading log lsquoyes I liked it because rsquo Abby had two responses she used

lsquoyes I did because interestingrsquo or lsquoyes I did because easyrsquo Abby indicated

Figure 2 Part of Eduardorsquos reading log from the third term of the mSSR

JOHN HELLERMANN 395

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

these more expanded assessments both in the second and third terms of the

mSSR classes

An important question for research on language socialization and

interactional competence in a classroom setting is to what degree these

processes result in increased engagement with literacy outside the classroom

A telling insight gained from the learnersrsquo in-home L1 interviews suggests

that for both these learners the socialization into literacy events in the

classroom lead to increased participation in literacy outside the classroom

In the interviews conducted with each learner before the start of the mSSR

treatment when asked what and how much they read in English for

pleasure Abby indicated that she read student picture books for ninety

minutes a week Eduardo reported reading newspapers for thirty minutes

a week In interviews conducted in June of 2004 after the learnersrsquo

completed their participation in the mSSR Abby reported reading

newspapers and books for 7 hours a week and Eduardo newspapers and

magazines for 2 hours a week Along with the development of interactive

practices in classroom literacy events highlighted in this paper these findings

show a remarkable increase in these learnersrsquo engagement with literacy

outside the classroom and evidence of their emerging identities as individuals

literate in English

Figure 3 Part of Abbyrsquos reading log from the third term of the mSSR

396 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

CONCLUSIONS

The findings uncovered in this study show two learnersrsquo development of

interactional competence through their socialization into classroom literacy

events This socialization occurred through the learnersrsquo engagement in

discursive practices in repeated literacy events which were part of a modified

sustained silent reading program The discursive practices for the literacy

events occurred within the context of the entire classroom community of

practice (Wenger 1998) and afforded learners the opportunities to move from

peripheral to more full participation in English literacy This community of

practice included (1) the teachers who provided instructions and support for

the activities through explicit instruction and modeling (2) learner peers

who also modeled appropriate interactive and language behavior and were

the interlocutors with whom some of the literacy practices were negotiated

and (3) the texts themselves which became a mediating object the third

part in a triadic dialogue for literacy (van Lier 2002) comprised of learnerndash

teacherndashtext or learnerndashlearnerndashtext

While neither learner had studied English formally before enrolling in

classes at the Lab School this study shows that Abby the learner with a high

school education from her home country was familiar with some of the

practices for literacy events including alphabetical filing book selection

and book assessment This research also showed that over the course of

three terms doing the mSSR activities Abby developed a wider range of

interactional practices for opening the dyadic interactions involved in the

story re-telling

Eduardo on the other hand began his participation in the mSSR activities

with much less experience with classroom literacy events having had just

two years of education in his home country The literacy events which were

part of the mSSR afforded Eduardo (van Lier 2000) the opportunity to

engage with literacy and by participating at first peripherally Eduardo

quickly understood and participated more fully in the book selection literacy

event Through interaction with his peers and the teacher in term two basic

literacy skills such as alphabetizing and filing his reading log developed

Though his teachersrsquo initial impressions suggested that he got very little

from his participation in the mSSR a review of his reading logs and his

participation in class show that Eduardo acquired knowledge of literacy

through a transformation (Lave and Wenger 1991) of his understanding of

and participation in literacy events

The development of these learnersrsquo interactional competence can be seen

in Eduardorsquos pursuit of understanding the practice of filing his reading log

which he accomplished through interaction with several members of the

classroom community This change in his participation in filing the logs

shows how learning is a situated practice accomplished through repeated

interactions with the entire classroom community In the analysis of the

story re-telling activities both Eduardo and Abby exhibited an increased

JOHN HELLERMANN 397

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

ability to use talk to initiate interaction by negotiating interlocutor

assignment and turn allocation to open their re-tellings Again the repeated

practice of the re-tellings afforded the learners opportunities to negotiate

a particular classroom and social action (opening a face-to-face interaction)

and both learners developed interactional skills that allowed them to

participate in the practice more fully

A quantitative analysis of standardized assessment measures30 for all the

learners at the Lab School shows that students who participated in the mSSR

method improved in their English language literacy skills to the same degree

as students who participated in classes which used a traditional skills-based

method for the teaching of reading (Reder et al forthcoming) This result

leads one to question what classroom practices might have contributed to

the increase in scores for each group Qualitative micro-analyses such as this

study are a first step toward understanding the discursive practices of the

mSSR classrooms which led to increases in those standardized tests of literacy

skills Also while we know that first-language education is a factor in

successful second language acquisition (Cole et al 1971) we know little

about how classroom interaction between experienced and inexperienced

learners differs In order to address this question this analysis used existing

social categorizations for participant selection (their degree of previous

education in their first language environment) and focused on two students

who would be categorized differently But the use of these macro-level

categorizations was not intended to reify the association of the characteristics

of each category to individual members Rather they were used to define

places from which to empirically examine the interactional language

behavior of members of each category This examination was done through

micro-analyses of the two studentsrsquo participation in the discursive practices

in mSSR literacy events that help L2 literacy develop The focus on the

day-to-day classroom interactions of the two learners allowed us to see

different paths to L2 literacy for learners who have different educational and

literacy experiences and uncover the complex interaction within a classroom

community of practice which results in the changes reported in traditional

language assessment measures

Final version received November 2005

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank the entire staff at the National Labsite for Adult ESOL at Portland State

University for their involvement in maintaining the Lab School as a place for adults to learn

English and as a state of the art research facility I would also like to thank Kathy Harris Sandra

Banke Reuel Kurzet Steve Reder Dominique Brillanceau and three anonymous readers for

their feedback on various versions of the paper

398 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

APPENDIX A

Some transcript conventions in conversation analysis (adapted from Schegloff

2000)

I Temporal and sequential relationships

[ Overlapping or simultaneous talk

frac14 lsquolatched utterancesrsquo no break or pause between utterances

(05) Numbers in parentheses indicate silence represented in tenths of a second

() A dot in parentheses indicates a lsquomicropausersquo

II Aspects of speech delivery including aspectsof intonation

period indicates a falling intonation contour not necessarily the end ofa sentence

question mark indicates rising intonation

a comma indicates lsquocontinuingrsquo intonation

Colons are used to indicate the prolongation or stretching of the soundjust preceding them The more colons the longer the stretching

- A hyphen after a word or part of a word indicates a cut-off or self-interruption word

Underlining is used to indicate some form of stress or emphasis either byincreased loudness or higher pitch The more underlining the greater theemphasis

The degree sign indicates that the talk following it was markedly quiet orsoft

The up and down arrows mark sharper rises or falls in pitch

45 The combination of lsquomore thanrsquo and lsquoless thanrsquo symbols indicates that thetalk between them is compressed or rushed

54 Used in the reverse order they can indicate that a stretch of talk ismarkedly slowed or drawn out

hhh Outbreath

hh Inbreath

(( )) Descriptions of events ((cough)) ((sniff)) ((telephone rings)) ((foot-steps))

(word) All or part of an utterance in parentheses indicates transcriber uncertainty

Creaky voice

NOTES

1 In order to get around the unwieldy

and theoretically-loaded terminology

for describing the use acquisition

and learning of a language that is

not the home or first language of the

participants of this study I will use

JOHN HELLERMANN 399

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

the abbreviation lsquoL2rsquo throughout the

paper to refer to a language that is

being attained through formal instruc-

tion For the students in this study

lsquoL2rsquo refers to English It may not be

however that English is these

studentsrsquo lsquosecondrsquo language as the

abbreviation implies

2 Students in the current study were in

lsquolevel Arsquo classes at the data collection

site SPL level 0ndash2

3 In Sustained Silent Reading

(McCracken 1971 Pilgreen 2000)

students are given a set time in the

classroom to read silently without

interruption by the teacher or other

students and without evaluation of

what is read and how it is read

The method was altered slightly at

the data collection site to meet the

needs of beginning adult language

learners and included activities

like post-reading re-telling activities

and studentsrsquo use of reading logs

to record their assessments of their

reading

4 The National Labsite for Adult ESOL

at Portland State University is sup-

ported in part by grant R309B6002

from the Institute for Education

Science US Dept of Education to

the National Center for the Study of

Adult Learning and Literacy The

Labsite is a partnership between

Portland State University and Portland

Community College The school

and research facilities are housed at

Portland State while the registration

curriculum and teachers of the

ESL students are from Portland

Community College

5 One reviewer asked about the inabil-

ity to see learnersrsquo eye gaze with

cameras embedded in the ceiling

While this is a problem when

students are sitting directly under

the two mobile cameras which

follow students wearing the wireless

microphones most often students

are sitting in a position where

studentsrsquo faces can be seen quite

directly For details of the data

collection see Reder et al (2003)

6 The Labsite Student Study (LSS)

conducts in-home interviews with a

subset of students in the lab school

(70 per year) in their home lan-

guages over the course of four

years regardless of whether the

student remains in lab school classes

or not The primary purpose of

the LSS study is to understand

language use and literacy develop-

ment outside the classroom context

and factors which influence program

persistence

7 All names used in this study are

pseudonyms

8 The teacher had different types of

books on a cart that she wheeled into

the room every class period She took

books off the cart and spread them

out on desks at the back of the room

9 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoselectsbookclass1]

10 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardohelping]

11 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoshowing]

12 Sarah Ouellette helped with the

Spanish transcription and provided

the translation to English Transcrip-

tion conventions are included in

Appendix A lsquoTrsquo indicates the class-

room teacher in all transcripts

13 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoexplaining]

400 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

14 At the time of this excerpt Eduardo

was a novice in Rederrsquos (1987) third

mode of literacy engagement

technical still struggling with basic

technical issues like decoding English

language lexicon

15 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Abbyreading]

16 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Abbynotetaking]

17 The classroom teachers noted the

frustration of doing mSSR with

students who have very low first

language literacy because of her

inability to help students organize

their reading in instances like note

taking (Banke and Brillanceau 2004)

18 A literacy assessment test (BEST

Literacy) was administered in the

classroom in terms one and two of

the mSSR program While the scores

increased for each learner for

Eduardo the increase is not as great

as Abbyrsquos Eduardorsquos overall literacy

score went from 35 in term one

to 42 in term two which is an

increase of one student performance

level (from 3 to 4) Abbyrsquos scores

increased from 45 in term one to

56 in term two which indicates

a jump from student performance

level 4 to 6 For information

on characteristics of student language

abilities at different student perfor-

mance levels (SPLs) see pp 5ndash6 of

wwwcalorgcaelaesl_resources

Part4-5pdf

19 One of the pedagogical advantages of

doing a dyadic re-telling in a lan-

guage classroom is that even if one

student doesnrsquot understand the

instructions for the task in an activity

like the mSSR the peerrsquos act of

posture shift moving a book into

a common space and looking

toward the partner strongly invite

collaboration in some interaction and

it is collaboration that is perhaps

the most important aspect of the

re-telling activity (Pilgreen 2000)

especially for language learners

20 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoopening1]

21 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoopening2]

22 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoorientsstorytelling]

23 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Abbyopening1]

24 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Abbypretasktalkterm2]

25 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Abbystartingretelling2]

26 While more empirical evidence is

warranted a provisional claim

can be mentioned here that such

re-telling activities and perhaps

in classroom pair activities in

general are organized with a two-

part move like that displayed in

(6) lsquoquery about readinessrsquo and

lsquoturn allocationrsquo before the first task

question

27 Notably absent from Abbyrsquos and

Eduardorsquos peer re-tellings are any

verbal greeting sequences Even

when one of the pair moves across

the room to sit with another student

Abby and Eduardo did not exchange

greetings with their partner for their

JOHN HELLERMANN 401

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

task This is something that other

students did as part of their openings

28 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoasksstudentforhelpfiling]

29 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoasksaboutfiling]

30 The assessment measures were the

BEST Plus and the Peabody Picture

Vocabulary tests

REFERENCES

Atkinson J M and J C Heritage 1984

Structures of Social Action Studies in Conversation

Analysis Cambridge Cambridge University Press

August G 2001 The Road to Second Language

Reading How do we get there Unpublished

PhD Dissertation City University of New York

New York

Banke S and D Brillanceu 2004 lsquoLiving

in Interventionrsquo Unpublished manuscript

Barton D (2001) lsquoDirections for literacy

research Analysing language and social practices

in a textually mediated worldrsquo Language and

Education 152ndash3 92ndash104

Bernhardt E B and M L Kamil 1995 lsquoInter-

preting relationships between L1 and L2 reading

Consolidating the linguistic threshold and the

linguistic interdependence hypothesesrsquo Applied

Linguistics 161 15ndash34

Bourdieu P 1991 Language and Symbolic Power

Cambridge MA Harvard University Press

Brandt D 1990 Literacy as Involvement The Acts

of Writers Readers and Texts Carbondale IL

Southern Illinois University Press

ButtonG andNCasey1984 lsquoGenerating topics

The use of topic initial elicitorsrsquo in J M Atkinson

and J C Heritage (eds) Structures of Social Action

Studies in Conversation Analysis Cambridge

Cambridge University Press

Canale M and M Swain 1980 lsquoTheoretical

bases of communicative approaches to second

language teaching and testingrsquoApplied Linguistics

1 1ndash47

Carrell P L 1991 lsquoSecond language reading

Reading ability or language proficiencyrsquo Applied

Linguistics 122 159ndash79

Chow P and C Chou 2000 Evaluating

Sustained Silent Reading in Reading Classes [Web]

I-TESL-J Available httpitesljorgArticlesChow-

mSSRhtml

Cole M J Gay J A Glick and D W Sharp

1971 The Cultural Context of Learning and Think-

ing An Exploration in Experimental Anthropology

New York Basic Books

Couper-Kuhlen E andMSelting 1996 Prosody

in Conversation Interactional Studies Cambridge

Cambridge University Press

Duff P 2002 lsquoThe discursive co-construction

of knowledge identity and difference An

ethnography of communication in the high

school mainstreamrsquo Applied Linguistics 233

289ndash322

Erickson F and J Schultz 1981 lsquoWhen is

a context Some issues and methods in the

analysis of social competencersquo in J Green and

C Wallat (eds) Ethnography and Language in

Educational Settings Norwood NJ Ablex

Felser C L Roberts T Marinis and R Gross

2003 lsquoThe processing of ambiguous sentences by

first and second language learners of Englishrsquo

Applied Psycholinguistics 243 453ndash89

Garfinkel H 1967 Studies in Ethnomethodology

Englewood Cliffs NJ Prentice Hall

Gee J P 1990 Social Linguistics and Literacies

Ideology in Discourses London Falmer Press

Goffman E 1959 The Presentation of Self

in Everyday Life New York Anchor Books

Doubleday

Goffman E 1961 Encounters Two Studies in

the Sociology of Interaction Indianapolis Bobbs-

Merrill

Goody J1977 TheDomestication of the SavageMind

Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Grabe W and F L Stoller 1997 lsquoReading and

vocabulary development in a second language

A case studyrsquo in J Coady and T Huckin (eds)

Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition A

Rationale for Pedagogy Cambridge Cambridge

University Press

402 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

Gumperz J J 1982 Discourse Strategies

Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Habermas J1976 lsquoSome distinctions in universal

pragmatics A working paperrsquo Theory and Society

32 155ndash67

Hall J K 1993 lsquoThe role of oral practices in

the accomplishment of our everyday lives

The sociocultural dimension of interaction

with implications for the learning of

another languagersquo Applied Linguistics 142

145ndash66

Hall J K 1995 lsquo lsquolsquoAw man where you goinrsquorsquorsquo

Classroom interaction and the development

of L2 interactional competencersquo Issues in Applied

Linguistics 62 37ndash62

Hall JK1997 lsquoA consideration of SLA as a theory

of practice A response to Firth and Wagnerrsquo

Modern Language Journal 813 301ndash306

He A W and R Young 1998 lsquoLanguage

proficiency interviews A discourse approachrsquo in

R Young and A W He (eds) Talking and Testing

Discourse Approaches to the Assessment of Oral

Proficiency Amsterdam John Benjamins

Heath S B 1982 lsquoWhat no bedtime story means

Narrative skills at home and schoolrsquo Language

in Society 11 49ndash76

Heath S B 1983 Ways with Words Language

Life and Work in Communities and Classrooms

Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Hellermann J 2004 lsquoPractices for opening dyadic

interactionrsquo paper presented at the annual

conference of the American Association for

Applied Linguistics Portland OR

Hellermann J forthcoming lsquoThe development of

practices for action in the classroom diadic

interaction focus on task openingsrsquo Modern

Language Journal

Hood S and H Joyce 1995 lsquoReading in the

adult ESL curriculum and classroomrsquo Prospect

102 52ndash64

Hymes D 1974 Foundations in Sociolinguistics

An Ethnographic Approach Philadelphia

University of Pennsylvania Press

Kramsch C 1986 lsquoFrom language proficiency

to interactional competencersquo Modern Language

Journal 70 372ndash66

Kramsch C 2002 lsquoHow can we tell the dancer

from the dancersquo in C Kramsch (ed) Language

Acquisition and Language Socialization An ecological

approach London Continuum

Lave J and E Wenger 1991 Situated Learning

Legitimate Peripheral Participation Cambridge

Cambridge University Press

Lerner G H 1995 lsquoTurn design and the organiza-

tion of participation in instructional activitiesrsquo

Discourse Processes 19 111ndash31

MacBethD2003 lsquoHugh MehanrsquosLearning Lessons

reconsidered On the differences between the

naturalistic and critical analysis of classroom

discoursersquo American Educational Research Journal

401 239ndash80

McCraken R A 1971 lsquoInitiating sustained silent

readingrsquo Journal of Reading 148 521ndash4 582ndash3

McDermott R and D Roth 1978 lsquoThe social

organization of behavior Interactional

approachesrsquo Annual Review of Anthropology 7

321ndash45

Markee N 2000 Conversation Analysis Marwah

NJ Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

Ochs E and B Schieffelin 1979 Developmental

Pragmatics New York Academic Press

Ochs E E A Schegloff and S A Thompson

1996 Interaction and Grammar Cambridge

Cambridge University Press

Ong W J 1982 Orality and Literacy The Technolo-

gizing of the Word London Routledge

Palacios I G 2002 An ESLLiteracy Center

A qualitative study of perspectives and practices

of immigrant adults and literacy facilitators

Unpublished PhD Dissertation Indiana

University Pennsylvania Indiana PA

Pilgreen J L 2000 The SSR Handbook How to

Organize and Manage a Sustained Silent Reading

Program Portsmouth NH BoyntonCook

Pulido D 2003 lsquoModeling the role of second

language proficiency and topic familiarity

in second language incidental vocabulary

acquisition through readingrsquo Language Learning

532 233ndash84

Reder S 1987 lsquoComparative aspects of functional

literacy development Three ethnic American

communitiesrsquo in D Wagner (ed) The Future

of Literacy in a Changing World Oxford Pergamon

Press

Reder S 1994 lsquoPractice engagement theory

A sociocultural approach to literacy across

languages and culturersquo in B M Ferdman

R M Weber and A G Ramırez (eds) Literacy

Across Languages and Cultures Albany NY State

University of New York Press

Reder S and E Davila (2005) lsquoContext

and literacy practicesrsquo Annual Review of Applied

Linguistics 25 170ndash87

Reder S K A Harris and K Setzler 2003

lsquoA multimedia adult learner corpusrsquo TESOL

Quarterly 373 546ndash57

JOHN HELLERMANN 403

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

Reder S K A Harris R Kurzet

D Brillanceau S Banke and JHellermann

forthcoming Using a modified Sustained Silent

Reading for low-level adult ESOL students

Boston National Center for the Study of Adult

Learning and Literacy

Sacks H E A Schegloff and G Jefferson

1974 lsquoA simplest systematics for the organiza-

tion of turn-taking for conversationsrsquo Language

504 696ndash735

Sagarra N 2000 The longitudinal role of working

memory on adult acquisition of L2 grammar

Unpublished PhD Dissertation University of

Illinois Urbana-Champaign

Schegloff E A 1968 lsquoSequencing in conversa-

tional openingsrsquo American Anthropologist 70

1075ndash95

Schegloff E A 1980 lsquoPreliminaries to prelimin-

aries lsquolsquoCan I ask you a questionrsquorsquo rsquo Sociological

Inquiry 50 104ndash52

Schegloff E A 1998 lsquoReflections on studying

prosody in talk-in-interactionrsquo Language and

Speech 413ndash4 235ndash63

Schegloff E A 2000 lsquoOverlapping talk and the

organization of turn-making for conversationrsquo

Language in Society 291 1ndash63

Schegloff E A 2002 lsquoOpening sequencingrsquo

in J E Katz and M Aakhus (eds) Perpetual

Contact Mobile Communication Private Talk Public

Performance Cambridge Cambridge University

Press

Schegloff E A and H Sacks 1973 lsquoOpening up

closingsrsquo Semiotica 8 289ndash327

Schieffelin B B and Ochs E (1986) lsquoLanguage

socializationrsquo Annual Review of Anthropology 15

163ndash91

Scribner S and M Cole 1981 The Psychology of

Literacy Cambridge MA Harvard University

Press

Segalowitz N C Poulsen and M Komoda

1991 lsquoLower level components of reading skill in

higher level bilinguals Implications for reading

instructionrsquo AILA Review 8 15ndash30

Streeck J 1983 Social Order in Child Communica-

tion Amsterdam John Benjamins

Streeck J and S Mihus 2005 lsquoMicroethno-

graphy The study of practicesrsquo In K L Fitch

and R E Sanders (eds) The Handbook of

Language and Social Interaction Marwah NJ

Lawrence Erlbaum

Street B 1998 lsquoNew literacies in theory

and practice What are the implications for

language in educationrsquo Linguistics and Education

10 1ndash24

Street B V 2001 Literacy and Development

Ethnographic perspectives London Routledge

Tang H 1997 lsquoThe relationship between reading

comprehension processes in L1 and L2rsquo Reading

Psychology 183 249ndash301

Treville M C 1996 lsquoLexical learning and reading

in L2 at the beginner level The advantage of

cognatesrsquo The Canadian Modern Language Review

531 173ndash90

Van Lier L 2000 lsquoFrom input to affordance

Social-interactive learning from an ecological

perspectiversquo in J Lantolf (ed) Sociocultural

Theory and Second Language Learning Oxford

Oxford University Press

van Lier L 2002 lsquoAn ecological-semiotic

perspective on language and linguisticsrsquo in

C Kramsch (ed) Language Acquisition and

Language Socialization An ecological approach

London Continuum

Wenger J 1998 Communities of Practice Learning

Meaning and Identity Cambridge Cambridge

University Press

Yang J 2000 lsquoOrthographic effect on word

recognition by learners of Chinese as a Foreign

Languagersquo Journal of the Chinese Language

Teachers Association 352 1ndash18

YoungR1999 lsquoSociolinguistic approaches toSLArsquo

Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 19 105ndash32

Young R 2000 lsquoInteractional competence

Challenges for validityrsquo Paper presented at the

annual conference of the American Association

for Applied Linguistics Vancouver BC

Young R F 2002 lsquoDiscourse approaches to oral

language assessmentrsquo Annual Review of Applied

Linguistics 22 243ndash62

404 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

Page 4: Classroom Interactive Practices for Developing L2 Literacy: A Microethnographic Study of Two Beginning Adult Learners of English

literacy events Literacy events may be understood as lsquoany occasion in which a

piece of writing is integral to the nature of participantsrsquo interactions and

their interpretive processesrsquo (Heath 1982 50) Heathrsquos definition captures

both the goal and process of the classroom interactions which are the focus

for this study The use of this term foregrounds literacy as the process of

individuals understanding their own literacy (Street 2001) through their

negotiation both with texts teachers and one another

The literacy events analyzed in this study are

1 book selection and silent reading

2 practices for opening pair interaction for story re-telling

3 filling in and filing reading logs3

THE DATA AND SETTING

The data for this research come from a five-year federally funded project4

which investigates language learning by low-level adult learners of English

The data were collected in two classrooms which were designed to obtain

high quality video recordings Each classroom has six cameras embedded in

the ceiling5 Every class period two learners and the teacher wear wireless

microphones and there are two microphones in the ceiling to capture the

audio from the entire classroom The classroom interactions are coded for

activity and participation and portions of one half of all the recorded class

sessions are transcribed Specially designed software allows for viewing

transcription and codes together with the six camera views of the classroom

simultaneously This allows the researcher as complete a picture of the

classroom environment as currently available using video recording

The entire corpus of learner interaction consists of (at the time of writing)

over 4000 hours of classroom video recordings For analysis I isolated

instances in which the two focal participants in this study were either

wearing or sitting next to a classmate wearing a wireless microphone This

narrowed the data for close analysis to 14 three-hour class periods for

each learner The other class periods in which the learners participated were

also reviewed in order to observe their interaction with other learners and

their teachers Examples of learnersrsquo writing and information gathered from

in-home bilingual interviews were also used to add context to the analysis6

THE FOCAL PARTICIPANTS

At the time these data were collected Eduardo7 was a 51-year-old divorced

man from Mexico where he had had two years of formal education He had

been living in the USA for 14 years with his daughter son-in-law and two

grandchildren and spoke Spanish at home He had not studied English

before coming to the Lab School In the course of five terms of study at the

380 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

Lab School Eduardo logged 182 hours of instruction time giving him a

70 per cent attendance rate

Abby was a 21-year-old single woman from China with 11 years of

education in her home country Like Eduardo she had not studied English

before coming to the Lab School She lived with her parents and spoke

Cantonese at home In her first four terms of study she tallied 190 hours

of class time a 90 per cent attendance rate

These two learners were chosen because of their participation in three

consecutive terms of the mSSR method because neither of them had studied

English before attending the Lab School and because of their different

educational backgrounds Each student was assessed at approximately the

same proficiency level (based on an oral proficiency interview) and started

in a class for beginners I expected (as did their classroom teachers) that

their different levels of education and first language literacy would result in

different levels of participation in the interactive practices for literacy events

in the classroom Describing these differences aids an understanding of

emerging L2 literacy as part of learnersrsquo interactional competence as fostered

by language socialization in classroom literacy events

METHODS FOR ANALYSIS

This studyrsquos emic perspective on classroom discourse language and social

systems is influenced by ethnomethodology interactional sociolinguistics

and conversation analysis This theoretical and methodological perspective

sees language social order and social systems as locally constituted and

re-constituted Participants in any interaction be that mundane conversation

or classroom interaction co-construct a local cultural expertise (Garfinkel

1967) and display that expertise to one another at every moment (Goffman

1959 1961) through their talk-in-interaction From this perspective on social

interaction research on adults who have well-developed skills for social

interaction but little linguistic skill in their lingua franca is a rich area for the

study of the local co-construction of classroom discourse (Macbeth 2003)

This study takes advantage of the recurrent nature of activity in classroom

discourse to understand how the local practices for social interaction of two

learners in similar interactional environments constitute socialization into

literacy over the course of three terms of study The background information

for each participant in the study the categories lsquoMexican-Spanish L1 male

with little educationrsquo or lsquoMandarin-Chinese L1 female with high school

educationrsquo are not used to predict or explain a priori particular interactional

patterns While these categories played a role in participant selection it will

be a task for analysis to uncover how the discursive practices for literacy

of the two participants may or may not differ

The research relies on audio and video recording technology to open

a window onto micro-level details of situations by repeated observation

The descriptive richness and depth of context of this microethnographic

JOHN HELLERMANN 381

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

analysis (McDermott and Roth 1978 Erickson and Schultz 1981 Streeck

1983 Streeck and Mihus 2005) is the result of a detailed description of

behaviors that are immediately observable and interpretable to the

participants in the interaction themselves the talk and other communicative

resources (contextualization cues Gumperz 1982) for the interaction These

constitutive cues for contextualization include body posture gesture gaze

the manipulation of objects in the immediate environment turn-taking

and the sound production of language (Couper-Kuhlen and Selting 1996

Ochs et al 1996) Conversation analysis (Sacks et al 1974 Atkinson and

Heritage 1984) is utilized in this microethnography to make detailed

descriptions of the sequential structure of talk-in-interaction and to highlight

the perspectives on the interaction of the participants themselves

SOCIALIZATION INTO CLASSROOM LITERACY PRACTICES

Book selection and silent reading

Considering reading and literacy as a social process (Scribner and Cole 1981

Heath 1983 Brandt 1990 Reder 1994) one basic achievement in the

development of practices for carrying out literacy events done in the

language classroom and in an L2 is the ability to participate in the assessment

of the material that one reads Such preliminary moves into reading and

literacy are taken for granted by those of us living and working in literacy-

saturated social and psychological worlds However for learners with few

literacy skills these beginning practices may represent a major shift in their

conceptual understanding of the world (Goody 1977 Ong 1982) The first

literacy event in the mSSR method is selecting a book that is at an

appropriate linguistic level and which might be interesting to the reader

For learners with low-level literacy in their first languages without guidance

from the instructor (as the Sustained Silent Reading protocol states) this

could be an especially daunting task

The first data excerpts focus on Eduardorsquos engagement with the literacy

events over the course of his first two terms in the mSSR method On the

first day of the mSSR activities after the teacher instructed learners about

doing silent reading in the classroom everyday she invited learners to go to

the book carts8 to choose something to read At this point most learners got

out of their seats and went to the back of the classroom to choose a book

Eduardo however remained seated As other learners selected books from

the carts and desks (adjacent to Eduardorsquos desk) he reached over to a basket

of books and selected a book without looking at it and then read this book

for the entire twenty-minute silent reading period9 For a learner with very

low level decoding skills in English and with little experience with a reading

practice like choosing a book it may be that for Eduardo the significant part

of the book selection activity was having a book in his temporary possession

at his desk Reaching over to the book collection while remaining seated at

382 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

his desk achieved that goal in an efficient way However by week 4 of the

mSSR activity during the book selection Eduardo got out of his seat to look

at the books without hesitation and began to take some time in the selection

process He looked through the collection of books before choosing one to

read and even changed books during the silent reading period showing the

development of an understanding of the discriminating part of the task of

choosing a book Throughout the second and third terms of the mSSR

Eduardo often looked through several different books at his desk during the

silent reading period and sometimes even selected a book to read that he had

brought to class Such a change in book selection practices may display

Eduardorsquos greater discernment of quality or appropriateness of reading

material in the L2 or at least his interest in particular material It also could

show how Eduardorsquos low-level reading skills made the task of staying with

one book and actually reading that one book (which the teacher asked

learners to try to do) somewhat tiresome

Eduardorsquos increased level of participation in this literacy event was made

possible by the daily recurrence of the activity and his hearing the

instructions repeated by the teacher on a daily basis while seeing his peers

perform the task of book selection in every class period By being part of

the interaction in the classroom community of practice Eduardo was able

to move from having somewhat limited participation in the event in the

beginning of the first term of the mSSR (selecting a book without looking

at it) to more complete participation by the end of the term

By the first day of the second term of the mSSR in a class which was

made up of a few newcomers to the school and to the mSSR activity we see

that Eduardo had become socialized into the practices for the mSSR and

displayed expert status in the mSSR activity by being the first learner to

stand up and select a book after the teacherrsquos invitation After arriving at the

book cart he even helped the teacher set out the books to aid in the

selection process10 As the teacher instructed the new learners to take just

one book Eduardo held up and pointed to a book to simultaneously model

the teacherrsquos instructions for the new learners11 When he returned to his

desk after selecting his own book he even explained to a new learner what

the book selection and the mSSR activity entailed While the first two

displays of expertise were non-verbal (helping the teacher display the books

and modeling the selection of one book) Excerpt (1) shows Eduardo

explaining the mSSR to a new learner

(1)12

[1-6ndash03 A 204 20315mdash20359 Term II week 1]13

1 E ((looking to new class member)) one book

2 (20)

3 E es que todos los dias trienta minutos eh ponse

itrsquos that every the day thirty minutes she puts

every day for thirty minutes she puts

JOHN HELLERMANN 383

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

4 pon allı is every day thirty minutes reading

put there

there

5 para leer para por lo que no entiendas o lo

for read for for the what no you understand or the

read for what you donrsquot understand or

6 que quieres tu saber ella te lo dice puedes notar

what you want you to know she to you it tell you can write

what you want to know she can tell it to you to write down

7 N ( )

8 E Sı especialmente para practicar si para la persona

yes especially for practice if for the person

yes especially to practice if for the person

9 para lo que no puedes entender

for the what no you can understand

for what you canrsquot understand

10 que quieres saber tu que es ella te dice mhm

that you want to know you what it she to you tells mhm

what you want to know is what she tells you

11 dice sin verguenza que preguntarle porque ella

she says without embarrassment that to ask her because she

she says to ask without embarrassment because she

12 la pagane y la verguenza por eso venimos

the they pay and the embarrassment is why we come

the they pay her and the embarrassment is why we come

13 porque no sabemos

because no we know

because we donrsquot know

Eduardorsquos display of expertise and his offering support to a newcomer to the

class (Wenger 1998 Duff 2002) shows the social nature of classroom literacy

events The practices for literacy of the mSSR are embedded in several social

contexts in this case the classroom (Eduardo as learner expert) and a

linguisticcultural (Eduardo as Spanish speaking peer) Eduardorsquos social

interaction for this literacy event was accomplished in two languages

Eduardo mentions the core features of the mSSR (one book everyday thirty

minutes and reading) in the language of instruction while his interpretation of

the activity and his understanding of the teacherrsquos role are given in the

language he shares with his peer (Spanish) Eduardorsquos use of English

oriented to the language of the task and purpose of the task itself while his

use of Spanish fit the immediate social context of the literacy activity

Eduardo helping a Spanish-speaking newcomer to the English language class

384 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

This example shows Eduardo working through two of Rederrsquos (1987) three

modes of engagement with literacy functional and social14 In this act of

offering help to a newcomer Eduardo displays his functional engagement

with the mSSR literacy event by helping the teacher set out books and

modeling the practice of choosing a book His awareness of the mSSR event

as beneficial and one in which the entire class engages motivates him to give

instructions to a newcomer to the classroom community in that learnerrsquos L1

with key terms for the task in English displaying a social engagement with

literacy

While these observations of book selection and reading behavior do not

make claims about the development of decoding skills lexical acquisition

or memory and cognitive skills enhanced by L2 literacy development this

micro-ethnographic approach does uncover the habitus (Bourdieu 1991) of

the L2 literacy development in the classroom that is the behavioral practices

which establish a context in which other code-related skills become possible

In the book selection literacy event we see evidence of Eduardo moving

from peripheral to full participation (Lave and Wenger 1991) in his greater

discrimination in book selection The ability for Eduardo to explain the mSSR

activity to a newcomer to the class also shows the concomitant developing

interactional competence through socialization into classroom literacy events

By the end of three terms of attending classes which included the mSSR

activity Eduardo has acquired some of the social processes within the

context of the classroom community that involve him (Brandt 1990) in

literacy

In contrast to Eduardo presumably because of the literate practices learned

in her first language and culture for Abby socialization into L2 book

selection and reading perseverance was something that required less time In

her first mSSR session after the teacherrsquos instructions about selecting a book

Abby was the first learner to get out of her seat and go to the book cart

At the book cart she picked out one book and skimmed through it before

returning it She selected a second book looked through it briefly took the

book back to her seat and kept it for the entire period At the end of the class

period after the teacher suggested that students could reserve their book for

the next class period by putting a name card in the book Abby did this

highlighting her ability to engage with a text from the first day of the mSSR

This type of engagement with the text (book selection and reserving the book

for the next class period) contrasts notably with Eduardorsquos indiscriminate

book selection on the first day of the mSSR

Other evidence that Abby was able to take advantage of her experience

with L1 literacy was her use of several strategies for reading that Eduardo

did not use during the silent reading period These included the use of an

electronic dictionary to help her understand unfamiliar words and quietly

reading to herself during the time for silent reading15 The use of the

dictionary was part of systematic note taking by Abby who wrote out

unfamiliar words in columns in her notebook with the Chinese equivalents

JOHN HELLERMANN 385

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

next to them16 These skills were done without instruction from the

teacher and displayed her self-directed strategies for acquiring the L2 lexicon

While Eduardo also wrote in his notebook he usually wrote out full

sentences and phrases Watching him writing and seeing his notebooks from

time to time on camera I observed that Eduardo did not display the

experience of taking notes nor the strategic language learning skills that

Abby exhibited Conversations with the classroom teachers also suggest that

Eduardorsquos notes were not helpful to him because of their unsystematic

nature17 While Eduardo did begin using a dictionary in term three

regarding the mechanics of decoding written text the evidence suggests that

Abbyrsquos educational background played a large role in allowing her to

participate more completely from the start in the silent reading than

Eduardo18

Opening the post-reading story re-telling

Research in conversation analysis has explored how conversationalists

start their social interactions through orderly practices in their talk

(Schegloff 1968 1998 2002 Schegloff and Sacks 1973 Button and Casey

1984) While this line of research has focused on native speaker interaction

adult learners of English face the same fundamental problem as native

speakersmdashhow to get an interaction underway Adult learners of English

may bring a repertoire of strategies for social interaction from their life

experiences in other languages and cultures but whether adult learners of a

language as socially competent adults bring a sense of universal pragmatics

(Habermas 1976) to the classroom is an ongoing empirical question The

study of interaction in the context of adult learners using a lingua franca to

start activities provides a rich environment for the exploration of basic turn-

taking and conversational practices used in institutional settings

After the thirty minutes of silent reading another regular task in the

mSSR activity was peer re-telling in which the teacher instructed learners

(sometimes supplying question prompts) to tell their deskmate something

about the book they had just been reading The evidence gathered from the

two adult learners of English in this analysis suggests that differences in a

level of interactional competence in the L2 can be seen in the way the

learners engage in basic conversational skills such as opening an interaction

Two notable differences between these two learners are seen in the overt

negotiation over interlocutor selection and turn allocation at the beginning of

a task and the orientation to other activities that they are in the process of

finishing up Abbyrsquos interactions are characterized by opening moves which

display a greater range of linguistic and pragmatic skills than Eduardorsquos

Her opening moves also display notable development over the course of

three terms in the mSSR classes

A crucial first step to interaction in this literacy event for learners without

a large repertoire of linguistic code skills is the achievement of mutual

386 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

physical orientation for doing dyadic interaction19 Highly proficient speakers

of a language have a range of speech acts which they can use to subtly gain

a partnerrsquos attention while beginning learners almost without exception

rely on mutual physical orientation and object manipulation to start

their dyadic interactions (Hellermann 2004 2005) Eduardo and Abby also

both accomplished these subtle alignments for opening their re-telling

activities unproblematically in most instances Coordinating a mutual

physical orientation for re-telling entails the participants shifting their

posture slightly toward one another moving their books into a shared

space for re-telling and pointing to items in their books The interactions

between Eduardo and Lai Min another student in Excerpts (2) and (3)

occur at the beginning of Eduardorsquos second term in the mSSR The excerpts

are presented to show Eduardorsquos perseverance in opening this particular

literacy event demonstrating how he sees the establishment of mutual

orientation to a space for re-telling to be a necessary part of the re-telling

(Excerpt 2) and highlighting his manipulation of the books themselves

(Excerpt 3) as objects which are fundamental to the accomplishment of this

literacy event

(2)

[A2ndash13ndash03 204 24800 Term II week 6]20

1 T you need to speak to Eduardo

2 E ((taps Lai Min on shoulder and waves his hands motioning her

3 to move toward him))

4 L yeah ((leans back turns head slightly toward Eduardo))

5 E ((pages through his book))

6 L ((looks down to her book looks around class looks over

7 at E leans a little bit toward E))

8 L ((looks away from E)) [((leans forward away from E))

9 E [((looks toward L)) ((puts down his

10 book takes off glasses))

In (2) after the teacherrsquos directive to Lai Min to do the re-telling activity

with Eduardo (line 1) Eduardo makes a clear non-verbal summons

(shoulder tap) and invitation (waving motion) to Lai Min to begin the

re-telling activity in lines 2ndash3 Lai Min makes a minimal verbal and non-

verbal response (line 4) as Eduardo looks in his book Then as Eduardo is

paging through his book Lai Min looks at her own book looks around the

class looks to Eduardo and then looks away Lai Min does not make any

verbal moves to start the interaction and her visual orientation to various

places does not focus on an interaction space Besides the slight head

turn (line 4) and slight lean toward Eduardo (line 7) there is no clear

postural alignment to the space between herself and Eduardo When

Eduardo stops paging through his book and looks to Lai Min in line 9

JOHN HELLERMANN 387

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

he sees that her posture is not aligned to a mutual re-telling space and

he takes off his glasses and puts down his book seemingly aborting the

re-telling sequence

(3)

[A2ndash13ndash03 204 24835 Term II week 6]21

11 L ((looks at Ersquos book looks at board)) tee shuh ss tee shup

12 E ((opens another book)) ((puts book mark in it and closes it))

13 L ((looks at E))

14 E ((puts on glasses))

15 L ((opens her book))

16 E ((opens the second book points to something in the book))

17 L ((looks toward E))

18 E ( )

19 L ((L leans in toward E looking at book))

20 E Saigon Saigone Saigone

21 L ((points to Ersquos book)) Saigon

22 E Saigon Vietnam

23 L uh

24 E Saigone Vietname S( ) Vietnam

25 L mm

26 E Saigone

27 L Saigon ((leans away from E))

28 E ((looks at Lrsquos book and reads something from it)) [(prayer)

29 L [((moves her

30 book toward E))

In (3) after this aborted opening Lai Min appears to read something from

the board out loud (line 11) while Eduardo handles another book on the

table in front of him After Lai Min glances at Eduardo in line 13 Eduardo

puts on his glasses opens the book he has just been handling and points to

something in the book (line 16) which Lai Min orients to by leaning

in toward Eduardo to look at the page to which he is pointing After some

back and forth repetition of the word Eduardo is pointing to (Saigon) Lai Min

ends the focus on Eduardorsquos book by leaning away from the common

interactional space (line 27) Eduardo takes this as a cue to switch roles and

to now share information from Lai Minrsquos book In line 28 Eduardo reads

something from Lai Minrsquos book and she moves it closer to him to aid his

reading

While Extracts (2) and (3) show Eduardo initiating openings for the

re-telling literacy event and non-verbally orienting to the interaction with his

peer he was usually not the most verbally-active participant in his dyadic

388 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

interactions for re-telling When he self-selected to start a re-telling it was

when there were long pauses or notable lack of initiation from his partner

(as in (2) and (3)) By the end of term two of the mSSR however there

is evidence of Eduardo making a reciprocal verbal elicitation for a re-telling

As Excerpt (4) shows after finishing his own re-telling and completing

a closing sequence to that telling (lines 4ndash7) Eduardo reciprocates in eliciting

a re-telling from his partner (line 8)

(4)

[B 5ndash13ndash03 23601 term III week 7]22

1 E fis

2 J flying fish ((flapping left hand like flying))

3 E this is flying fi[s() this (of the)

4 J [yeah yeah yeah yeah

5 J mm mm

6 E mm hmm

7 J mm hmm

8 E what is your

9 (20) ((J picks up his book))

10 J eh (started started) this story

11 E the mountain the mountain ((reads Jrsquos book cover))

While the elicitation in line 8 is abbreviated Eduardorsquos partner (Jin) orients

to line 8 as an elicitation by picking up his own book (line 9) and beginning

his re-telling (line 10) As Jin starts the re-telling Eduardo orients to the title

of the book as an important part of the re-telling event by reading the title of

Jinrsquos book (line 11)

Two aspects of the openings for the re-tellings that the other focal student

of this study Abby displayed but that did not occur in Eduardorsquos interactions

were her pre-activity talk checking on whether the peer was ready to do

the task and then talk about interlocutor assignment for the activity

Abby became more active in initiating these opening moves over the course

of the three terms of the mSSR Excerpts (5)ndash(7) show examples of this

development In (5) which comes from the very beginning of the second

term in the mSSR we see Abby interact with Fernando but not initiate the

interaction

(5)

[1-10ndash03 B 24452 Term II week 2]23

1 F whose talk to me

2 (10) ((Fernando facing Abby Abby turns to Fernando))

3 F ((to Abby)) you oh

4 (25)

JOHN HELLERMANN 389

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

5 F hhyeah okay

6 ((Abby sneezes))

7 F bless you () god bless you a[gain

8 A [thank you

9 F again [god bless you

10 A [huh hah hah [uh hih hih hih hih hhuh

11 F [eh huh heh heh heah

12 (20)

13 F what () is your book

14 A eh () my book is () my my book is easy () easy story press

15 F oh press [mm hmm

16 A [yeah ease story pres[s

17 F [eh

18 (35)

19 A what is (your) story

In line 1 Fernando makes the first verbal move to establish the peer

dyad and achieve mutual physical orientation asking about a partner

and after a sequence involving sneezing in line 13 Fernando asks the

first elicitation question for the activity Abby responds to each elicitation

non-verbally in line 2 and with the title of her book in line 14 Abby orients

to the activity of finding out about one anotherrsquos books by asking

the reciprocal question more specifically asking about Fernandorsquos lsquostoryrsquo in

line 19

The next example of one of Abbyrsquos opening move sequences comes from

the fifth week of the second term of the mSSR Excerpt (6) shows Abby

engaging in more pre-task opening talk (lines 3 and 6) interlocutor selection

(line 8) and the launch of the task (line 10)

(6)

[2703 B 204 24353 Term II week 5]24

1 T you need to talk ladies

2 (10)

3 Ab todayrsquos uh February ((looks to Ana then back to notebook))

4 An ((shifts posture toward Abby))

5 (70)

6 Ab seventh

7 (140) ((both ss write)

8 Ab I talk to you ((turning to Ana))

9 (250) ((Ana continues writing))

10 Ab my () my book uh life story one

11 (20)

12 An ((shifts posture a bit to A))

390 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

13 Ab are you finished

14 An go (go ahead) please () where is () where is your story

After the teacher exhorts the learners (line 1) to begin their pair task

(the story re-telling) Abby announces the date and after Ana shifts her

posture toward Abby proposes the pair assignment (line 8) Since the

learners sit at desks in pairs the pair assignment is somewhat of a given so

Abbyrsquos turn in line 8 may also act as a proposal for turn allocation If

interlocutor assignment is relatively self-evident the turn lsquoI talk to yoursquo is at

least a move to attempt to get Ana to enter the interaction and may be an

explicit move to tell Ana that she Abby is starting the activity There is no

uptake by Ana after this proposal and after a rather long pause (line 9) Abby

launches the task self-selecting to re-tell her story first When there is no

verbal uptake by Ana in line 11 after Abbyrsquos turn Abby orients to her

partnerrsquos preparation for the task and asks if Ana has finished (line 13) her

preparatory work (writing notes) Ana orients to Abbyrsquos question as a pre-

request to check whether Ana is ready to start her re-telling by encouraging

Abby to continue directly eliciting information about the location of her

story in line 14

The final excerpt from the third term of the mSSR illustrates Abbyrsquos further

development of interactional practices for opening the re-telling activity In (7)

while Inez is writing in her notebook Abby shifts her posture to Inez and asks

a question (line 2) which is preliminary to a question for the assigned activity

(7)

[5-9ndash03 B 206 24121 Term III week 7]25

((Teacherrsquos prompt for the interaction lsquoDo you like books about a story or

information what kind of book are you reading nowrsquo))

1 A ((shifts posture toward Inez))

2 I are you ready

3 (70) ((Inez is writing in her notebook))

4 I yeah sorry

5 (30)

6 I ((re-positions her posture to face Abby then gestures with

7 right hand pointing to Abby and back to herself))

8 (30)

9 A ((Abby looks at the board and reads the question)) what type

10 of a book are you reading now

11 ((Inez begins her re-telling))

While Abbyrsquos question in line 2 orients to the necessity of the completion of

the preparatory work for the re-telling literacy event it also works as part

of the opening for the re-telling task itself Inez finishes writing in her

notebook and orients to Abbyrsquos question as an opening to the assigned

JOHN HELLERMANN 391

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

re-telling task by answering Abbyrsquos question and apologizing for not starting

immediately (line 4) After Inez repositions her body and non-verbally

initiates a negotiation of turn allocation for the re-telling (lines 6 and 7)

Abby self-selects to elicit the re-telling from Inez by reading one of the

teacherrsquos prompts from the board (lines 9ndash10)

Abbyrsquos socialization to the mSSR re-telling activity can be seen in the

development of opening moves in the re-telling interactions with her peers

in Excerpts (5)ndash(7) The interaction from earlier in the mSSR (Excerpt (5))

shows Abby not actively initiating dyad assignment pre-task talk and task

launch In terms two and three the excerpts show her more actively

involved in starting these re-telling activities Her task-preliminary organiza-

tional talk and task launching later in the second and third terms of the

mSSR suggest that she is now more comfortable with the re-telling literacy

event and with the language as a whole

These excerpts of Abbyrsquos interaction in the re-telling literacy events show

two common moves by more advanced learners for opening dyadic

interactions (Hellermann 2004 forthcoming) the orientation to the previous

task completion (in Excerpt (6) lsquoare you finishedrsquo and Excerpt (7) lsquoare you

readyrsquo) and interlocutor selection (in Excerpt (6) lsquoI talk to yoursquo) As other

research in conversation shows such moves for opening talk enable

participants to work out basic features of talk-in-interaction such as avoiding

simultaneous talk and ensuring that the talk about to happen is the start of

something new not from the previous topic (Button and Casey 1984)26

The interactions by Abby and Eduardo in the re-telling literacy events also

show evidence for the learnersrsquo development of interactional competence

through their socialization into literacy events27 While both Abby and

Eduardo orient to the beginnings of the re-telling events creating spaces for

appropriate mutual participation for the event from the start of the mSSR

we see evidence for a change in their participation in the re-telling events

over the course of the three terms of the mSSR Eduardo uses a speech act

(lsquowhat is yourrsquo) in a more sophisticated modality (verbal rather than non-

verbal) to reciprocate an elicitation for a re-telling in his interaction with Jin

in Excerpt (4) In Abbyrsquos later interactions she explicitly orients to the

boundaries of the events by inquiring as to her partnersrsquo readiness to

participate (Excerpts (5) and (6)) and negotiates roles for participation

(Excerpt (6) lsquoI talk to yoursquo) and turn allocation (Excerpts (6) and (7))

Learner reading logs and filing of reading logs

A basic literacy skill activity that the teacher built into the mSSR classes was

having learners chart their reading activity in a reading log and then file their

own reading logs alphabetically in a file box at the end of every lesson In

the third class period of the first term some evidence of Eduardorsquos lack of

basic literacy skills appeared during the filing activity Near the end of this

class period the teacher asked learners to put their reading logs into a file

392 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

box organized by their first names Eduardo and another learner went to

the file box at the front of the room and stood by the box with their reading

logs looking for the appropriate place to put the logs After some time

Eduardo looked over to Carla (a learner from Brazil) and held out his right

hand palm up Carla oriented to this gesture as a request for help and got out

of her seat to help the two learners showing them the place in the files to

put their logs28 A bit later in this class period as the learners were packing

up to leave the class Eduardo solicited the teacherrsquos help in understanding

the name of the process of filing (Excerpt (8)) In so doing he is building on

the co-constructed filing practice with his classmate

(8)

[10-3ndash02 A 204 25149 Term I week 2]29

1 E want to ask (you something) ((walking to file box))

2 T yes you want to ask me something

3 E somebody ((puts hand in file box then touches head)) somebody

4 T file

5 E file file

6 T uh huh this is what () please file file you papers

In Exerpt (8) Eduardo is standing next to the teacher and utters a

pre-question (Schegloff 1980) in line 1 as he walks to the file box Once at

the box in line 3 he says lsquosomebodyrsquo a bare noun phrase which projects a

predicate Eduardo produces that predicate by modeling the relevant action

a hypothetical learner filing a paper This is followed by a gesture of his

hand to his head (which Eduardo commonly used to indicate that he did not

remember a particular word in English) and a repetition of the same bare

noun phrase In line 4 the teacher orients to Eduardorsquos talk as a request for

a word to name the action of putting the reading log into the box The fact

that this interaction is elicited by Eduardo shortly after his request for help

from Carla suggests that Carla may have helped him put the reading log

in the right place but did not give Eduardo the English word for that action

It is Eduardorsquos interactions with both a peer and with the teacher which

help him co-construct a name for this literacy event

While Eduardorsquos success in filing his reading log was sporadic throughout

the rest of this first term at the beginning of the next term on the first day

of class the teacher explained again that the reading logs were to be filed

alphabetically She explained and modeled this while standing next to the

file box to assist learners After explaining and modeling the procedure to the

class she reminded Eduardo again several minutes later lsquoyou need to put this

[reading log] away young manrsquo Several minutes after that Eduardo held up

his reading log showing it to the teacher as other learners were going to the

file box to file their logs She responded affirmatively and Eduardo went to

the file box The teacher said his name Eduardo said lsquoersquo (the first letter of his

JOHN HELLERMANN 393

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

first name) and put the reading log in the appropriate place in the file box

Having participated in one term of the mSSR and the literacy event of filling

in and filing reading logs (the term in which it was just noted that he was

given support by a peer and the teacher) the reinforcement of the rules the

modeling by the teacher as well as the personal reminder and reassurance

given by the teacher guided Eduardo into full participation in this literacy

event Later in this second term and in the third term as well Eduardo

was able to file the log independently By the beginning of the third term

(4103) he was also able to tell a newcomer to the class the purpose of the

reading log

Based on conversations with his teachers the evidence from his reading

logs and his interactions with other learners in the re-telling literacy event

Eduardo seemed to have developed a genuine interest in and enthusiasm for

reading In a more complex literacy skill involving the reading logs there is

evidence that Eduardo developed the ability to orally evaluate the books

he read adopting a term introduced by the teacher to describe several of

his books lsquoso-sorsquo In the later part of the first term of the mSSR Eduardorsquos

reading log was sporadically filled in and he wrote in Spanish for the

assessment portion of the log (Figure 1)

By the second term of the mSSR Eduardo was reading some books during

the silent reading period in class for four class periods in a row (an indication

of persistence and interest) and assessed one book (The Orange Grove) in his

reading log as lsquovery goodrsquo Through this assessment Eduardo displayed

part of a personal identity as a literate person in English But even by the

third term of the mSSR classes Eduardo did not elaborate on the assessments

of his books as the reading log prompted learners to do In a row at the top

of the reading log learners were to answer the question lsquoDid you like it

[the book]rsquo and then write why The teacher provided another written

prompt in the box that learners checked for a positive assessment lsquoYes

because rsquo In this place though Eduardo always indicated that he liked the

Figure 1 Part of Eduardorsquos reading log from the first term of the mSSR

394 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

books that he read he did not specify why he liked them giving evidence

of the limitations of his ability to evaluate his reading (as Figure 2 shows)

In contrast to Eduardo Abby did not have trouble filing her reading log

On the day the teacher explained to learners how they should file their

reading logs she used Abby as an example lsquoFor example Abby file your

paper under lsquolsquoArsquorsquo for Abbyrsquo In subsequent class periods Abby displayed

competence at filing her reading log in the appropriate slot in the file box

The content of Abbyrsquos reading logs also differed from Eduardorsquos in notable

ways Where Eduardo always checked the box marked lsquoeasyrsquo when

evaluating the level of difficulty of the books he read in most cases Abby

checked the lsquojust rightrsquo box and just a few times the box marked lsquoeasyrsquo for

the books she read Figure 3 shows one of her reading logs from the third

term of the mSSR

The notations in Abbyrsquos reading log in Figure 3 suggest that she was

choosing books that were appropriate to her ability (the box labeled

lsquojust rightrsquo is marked consistently) Also Abby was able to give some detail

(although limited) when prompted by the teacher for the reasons behind

her assessment of a book In response to the teacherrsquos written prompt on

the reading log lsquoyes I liked it because rsquo Abby had two responses she used

lsquoyes I did because interestingrsquo or lsquoyes I did because easyrsquo Abby indicated

Figure 2 Part of Eduardorsquos reading log from the third term of the mSSR

JOHN HELLERMANN 395

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

these more expanded assessments both in the second and third terms of the

mSSR classes

An important question for research on language socialization and

interactional competence in a classroom setting is to what degree these

processes result in increased engagement with literacy outside the classroom

A telling insight gained from the learnersrsquo in-home L1 interviews suggests

that for both these learners the socialization into literacy events in the

classroom lead to increased participation in literacy outside the classroom

In the interviews conducted with each learner before the start of the mSSR

treatment when asked what and how much they read in English for

pleasure Abby indicated that she read student picture books for ninety

minutes a week Eduardo reported reading newspapers for thirty minutes

a week In interviews conducted in June of 2004 after the learnersrsquo

completed their participation in the mSSR Abby reported reading

newspapers and books for 7 hours a week and Eduardo newspapers and

magazines for 2 hours a week Along with the development of interactive

practices in classroom literacy events highlighted in this paper these findings

show a remarkable increase in these learnersrsquo engagement with literacy

outside the classroom and evidence of their emerging identities as individuals

literate in English

Figure 3 Part of Abbyrsquos reading log from the third term of the mSSR

396 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

CONCLUSIONS

The findings uncovered in this study show two learnersrsquo development of

interactional competence through their socialization into classroom literacy

events This socialization occurred through the learnersrsquo engagement in

discursive practices in repeated literacy events which were part of a modified

sustained silent reading program The discursive practices for the literacy

events occurred within the context of the entire classroom community of

practice (Wenger 1998) and afforded learners the opportunities to move from

peripheral to more full participation in English literacy This community of

practice included (1) the teachers who provided instructions and support for

the activities through explicit instruction and modeling (2) learner peers

who also modeled appropriate interactive and language behavior and were

the interlocutors with whom some of the literacy practices were negotiated

and (3) the texts themselves which became a mediating object the third

part in a triadic dialogue for literacy (van Lier 2002) comprised of learnerndash

teacherndashtext or learnerndashlearnerndashtext

While neither learner had studied English formally before enrolling in

classes at the Lab School this study shows that Abby the learner with a high

school education from her home country was familiar with some of the

practices for literacy events including alphabetical filing book selection

and book assessment This research also showed that over the course of

three terms doing the mSSR activities Abby developed a wider range of

interactional practices for opening the dyadic interactions involved in the

story re-telling

Eduardo on the other hand began his participation in the mSSR activities

with much less experience with classroom literacy events having had just

two years of education in his home country The literacy events which were

part of the mSSR afforded Eduardo (van Lier 2000) the opportunity to

engage with literacy and by participating at first peripherally Eduardo

quickly understood and participated more fully in the book selection literacy

event Through interaction with his peers and the teacher in term two basic

literacy skills such as alphabetizing and filing his reading log developed

Though his teachersrsquo initial impressions suggested that he got very little

from his participation in the mSSR a review of his reading logs and his

participation in class show that Eduardo acquired knowledge of literacy

through a transformation (Lave and Wenger 1991) of his understanding of

and participation in literacy events

The development of these learnersrsquo interactional competence can be seen

in Eduardorsquos pursuit of understanding the practice of filing his reading log

which he accomplished through interaction with several members of the

classroom community This change in his participation in filing the logs

shows how learning is a situated practice accomplished through repeated

interactions with the entire classroom community In the analysis of the

story re-telling activities both Eduardo and Abby exhibited an increased

JOHN HELLERMANN 397

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

ability to use talk to initiate interaction by negotiating interlocutor

assignment and turn allocation to open their re-tellings Again the repeated

practice of the re-tellings afforded the learners opportunities to negotiate

a particular classroom and social action (opening a face-to-face interaction)

and both learners developed interactional skills that allowed them to

participate in the practice more fully

A quantitative analysis of standardized assessment measures30 for all the

learners at the Lab School shows that students who participated in the mSSR

method improved in their English language literacy skills to the same degree

as students who participated in classes which used a traditional skills-based

method for the teaching of reading (Reder et al forthcoming) This result

leads one to question what classroom practices might have contributed to

the increase in scores for each group Qualitative micro-analyses such as this

study are a first step toward understanding the discursive practices of the

mSSR classrooms which led to increases in those standardized tests of literacy

skills Also while we know that first-language education is a factor in

successful second language acquisition (Cole et al 1971) we know little

about how classroom interaction between experienced and inexperienced

learners differs In order to address this question this analysis used existing

social categorizations for participant selection (their degree of previous

education in their first language environment) and focused on two students

who would be categorized differently But the use of these macro-level

categorizations was not intended to reify the association of the characteristics

of each category to individual members Rather they were used to define

places from which to empirically examine the interactional language

behavior of members of each category This examination was done through

micro-analyses of the two studentsrsquo participation in the discursive practices

in mSSR literacy events that help L2 literacy develop The focus on the

day-to-day classroom interactions of the two learners allowed us to see

different paths to L2 literacy for learners who have different educational and

literacy experiences and uncover the complex interaction within a classroom

community of practice which results in the changes reported in traditional

language assessment measures

Final version received November 2005

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank the entire staff at the National Labsite for Adult ESOL at Portland State

University for their involvement in maintaining the Lab School as a place for adults to learn

English and as a state of the art research facility I would also like to thank Kathy Harris Sandra

Banke Reuel Kurzet Steve Reder Dominique Brillanceau and three anonymous readers for

their feedback on various versions of the paper

398 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

APPENDIX A

Some transcript conventions in conversation analysis (adapted from Schegloff

2000)

I Temporal and sequential relationships

[ Overlapping or simultaneous talk

frac14 lsquolatched utterancesrsquo no break or pause between utterances

(05) Numbers in parentheses indicate silence represented in tenths of a second

() A dot in parentheses indicates a lsquomicropausersquo

II Aspects of speech delivery including aspectsof intonation

period indicates a falling intonation contour not necessarily the end ofa sentence

question mark indicates rising intonation

a comma indicates lsquocontinuingrsquo intonation

Colons are used to indicate the prolongation or stretching of the soundjust preceding them The more colons the longer the stretching

- A hyphen after a word or part of a word indicates a cut-off or self-interruption word

Underlining is used to indicate some form of stress or emphasis either byincreased loudness or higher pitch The more underlining the greater theemphasis

The degree sign indicates that the talk following it was markedly quiet orsoft

The up and down arrows mark sharper rises or falls in pitch

45 The combination of lsquomore thanrsquo and lsquoless thanrsquo symbols indicates that thetalk between them is compressed or rushed

54 Used in the reverse order they can indicate that a stretch of talk ismarkedly slowed or drawn out

hhh Outbreath

hh Inbreath

(( )) Descriptions of events ((cough)) ((sniff)) ((telephone rings)) ((foot-steps))

(word) All or part of an utterance in parentheses indicates transcriber uncertainty

Creaky voice

NOTES

1 In order to get around the unwieldy

and theoretically-loaded terminology

for describing the use acquisition

and learning of a language that is

not the home or first language of the

participants of this study I will use

JOHN HELLERMANN 399

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

the abbreviation lsquoL2rsquo throughout the

paper to refer to a language that is

being attained through formal instruc-

tion For the students in this study

lsquoL2rsquo refers to English It may not be

however that English is these

studentsrsquo lsquosecondrsquo language as the

abbreviation implies

2 Students in the current study were in

lsquolevel Arsquo classes at the data collection

site SPL level 0ndash2

3 In Sustained Silent Reading

(McCracken 1971 Pilgreen 2000)

students are given a set time in the

classroom to read silently without

interruption by the teacher or other

students and without evaluation of

what is read and how it is read

The method was altered slightly at

the data collection site to meet the

needs of beginning adult language

learners and included activities

like post-reading re-telling activities

and studentsrsquo use of reading logs

to record their assessments of their

reading

4 The National Labsite for Adult ESOL

at Portland State University is sup-

ported in part by grant R309B6002

from the Institute for Education

Science US Dept of Education to

the National Center for the Study of

Adult Learning and Literacy The

Labsite is a partnership between

Portland State University and Portland

Community College The school

and research facilities are housed at

Portland State while the registration

curriculum and teachers of the

ESL students are from Portland

Community College

5 One reviewer asked about the inabil-

ity to see learnersrsquo eye gaze with

cameras embedded in the ceiling

While this is a problem when

students are sitting directly under

the two mobile cameras which

follow students wearing the wireless

microphones most often students

are sitting in a position where

studentsrsquo faces can be seen quite

directly For details of the data

collection see Reder et al (2003)

6 The Labsite Student Study (LSS)

conducts in-home interviews with a

subset of students in the lab school

(70 per year) in their home lan-

guages over the course of four

years regardless of whether the

student remains in lab school classes

or not The primary purpose of

the LSS study is to understand

language use and literacy develop-

ment outside the classroom context

and factors which influence program

persistence

7 All names used in this study are

pseudonyms

8 The teacher had different types of

books on a cart that she wheeled into

the room every class period She took

books off the cart and spread them

out on desks at the back of the room

9 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoselectsbookclass1]

10 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardohelping]

11 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoshowing]

12 Sarah Ouellette helped with the

Spanish transcription and provided

the translation to English Transcrip-

tion conventions are included in

Appendix A lsquoTrsquo indicates the class-

room teacher in all transcripts

13 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoexplaining]

400 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

14 At the time of this excerpt Eduardo

was a novice in Rederrsquos (1987) third

mode of literacy engagement

technical still struggling with basic

technical issues like decoding English

language lexicon

15 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Abbyreading]

16 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Abbynotetaking]

17 The classroom teachers noted the

frustration of doing mSSR with

students who have very low first

language literacy because of her

inability to help students organize

their reading in instances like note

taking (Banke and Brillanceau 2004)

18 A literacy assessment test (BEST

Literacy) was administered in the

classroom in terms one and two of

the mSSR program While the scores

increased for each learner for

Eduardo the increase is not as great

as Abbyrsquos Eduardorsquos overall literacy

score went from 35 in term one

to 42 in term two which is an

increase of one student performance

level (from 3 to 4) Abbyrsquos scores

increased from 45 in term one to

56 in term two which indicates

a jump from student performance

level 4 to 6 For information

on characteristics of student language

abilities at different student perfor-

mance levels (SPLs) see pp 5ndash6 of

wwwcalorgcaelaesl_resources

Part4-5pdf

19 One of the pedagogical advantages of

doing a dyadic re-telling in a lan-

guage classroom is that even if one

student doesnrsquot understand the

instructions for the task in an activity

like the mSSR the peerrsquos act of

posture shift moving a book into

a common space and looking

toward the partner strongly invite

collaboration in some interaction and

it is collaboration that is perhaps

the most important aspect of the

re-telling activity (Pilgreen 2000)

especially for language learners

20 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoopening1]

21 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoopening2]

22 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoorientsstorytelling]

23 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Abbyopening1]

24 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Abbypretasktalkterm2]

25 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Abbystartingretelling2]

26 While more empirical evidence is

warranted a provisional claim

can be mentioned here that such

re-telling activities and perhaps

in classroom pair activities in

general are organized with a two-

part move like that displayed in

(6) lsquoquery about readinessrsquo and

lsquoturn allocationrsquo before the first task

question

27 Notably absent from Abbyrsquos and

Eduardorsquos peer re-tellings are any

verbal greeting sequences Even

when one of the pair moves across

the room to sit with another student

Abby and Eduardo did not exchange

greetings with their partner for their

JOHN HELLERMANN 401

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

task This is something that other

students did as part of their openings

28 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoasksstudentforhelpfiling]

29 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoasksaboutfiling]

30 The assessment measures were the

BEST Plus and the Peabody Picture

Vocabulary tests

REFERENCES

Atkinson J M and J C Heritage 1984

Structures of Social Action Studies in Conversation

Analysis Cambridge Cambridge University Press

August G 2001 The Road to Second Language

Reading How do we get there Unpublished

PhD Dissertation City University of New York

New York

Banke S and D Brillanceu 2004 lsquoLiving

in Interventionrsquo Unpublished manuscript

Barton D (2001) lsquoDirections for literacy

research Analysing language and social practices

in a textually mediated worldrsquo Language and

Education 152ndash3 92ndash104

Bernhardt E B and M L Kamil 1995 lsquoInter-

preting relationships between L1 and L2 reading

Consolidating the linguistic threshold and the

linguistic interdependence hypothesesrsquo Applied

Linguistics 161 15ndash34

Bourdieu P 1991 Language and Symbolic Power

Cambridge MA Harvard University Press

Brandt D 1990 Literacy as Involvement The Acts

of Writers Readers and Texts Carbondale IL

Southern Illinois University Press

ButtonG andNCasey1984 lsquoGenerating topics

The use of topic initial elicitorsrsquo in J M Atkinson

and J C Heritage (eds) Structures of Social Action

Studies in Conversation Analysis Cambridge

Cambridge University Press

Canale M and M Swain 1980 lsquoTheoretical

bases of communicative approaches to second

language teaching and testingrsquoApplied Linguistics

1 1ndash47

Carrell P L 1991 lsquoSecond language reading

Reading ability or language proficiencyrsquo Applied

Linguistics 122 159ndash79

Chow P and C Chou 2000 Evaluating

Sustained Silent Reading in Reading Classes [Web]

I-TESL-J Available httpitesljorgArticlesChow-

mSSRhtml

Cole M J Gay J A Glick and D W Sharp

1971 The Cultural Context of Learning and Think-

ing An Exploration in Experimental Anthropology

New York Basic Books

Couper-Kuhlen E andMSelting 1996 Prosody

in Conversation Interactional Studies Cambridge

Cambridge University Press

Duff P 2002 lsquoThe discursive co-construction

of knowledge identity and difference An

ethnography of communication in the high

school mainstreamrsquo Applied Linguistics 233

289ndash322

Erickson F and J Schultz 1981 lsquoWhen is

a context Some issues and methods in the

analysis of social competencersquo in J Green and

C Wallat (eds) Ethnography and Language in

Educational Settings Norwood NJ Ablex

Felser C L Roberts T Marinis and R Gross

2003 lsquoThe processing of ambiguous sentences by

first and second language learners of Englishrsquo

Applied Psycholinguistics 243 453ndash89

Garfinkel H 1967 Studies in Ethnomethodology

Englewood Cliffs NJ Prentice Hall

Gee J P 1990 Social Linguistics and Literacies

Ideology in Discourses London Falmer Press

Goffman E 1959 The Presentation of Self

in Everyday Life New York Anchor Books

Doubleday

Goffman E 1961 Encounters Two Studies in

the Sociology of Interaction Indianapolis Bobbs-

Merrill

Goody J1977 TheDomestication of the SavageMind

Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Grabe W and F L Stoller 1997 lsquoReading and

vocabulary development in a second language

A case studyrsquo in J Coady and T Huckin (eds)

Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition A

Rationale for Pedagogy Cambridge Cambridge

University Press

402 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

Gumperz J J 1982 Discourse Strategies

Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Habermas J1976 lsquoSome distinctions in universal

pragmatics A working paperrsquo Theory and Society

32 155ndash67

Hall J K 1993 lsquoThe role of oral practices in

the accomplishment of our everyday lives

The sociocultural dimension of interaction

with implications for the learning of

another languagersquo Applied Linguistics 142

145ndash66

Hall J K 1995 lsquo lsquolsquoAw man where you goinrsquorsquorsquo

Classroom interaction and the development

of L2 interactional competencersquo Issues in Applied

Linguistics 62 37ndash62

Hall JK1997 lsquoA consideration of SLA as a theory

of practice A response to Firth and Wagnerrsquo

Modern Language Journal 813 301ndash306

He A W and R Young 1998 lsquoLanguage

proficiency interviews A discourse approachrsquo in

R Young and A W He (eds) Talking and Testing

Discourse Approaches to the Assessment of Oral

Proficiency Amsterdam John Benjamins

Heath S B 1982 lsquoWhat no bedtime story means

Narrative skills at home and schoolrsquo Language

in Society 11 49ndash76

Heath S B 1983 Ways with Words Language

Life and Work in Communities and Classrooms

Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Hellermann J 2004 lsquoPractices for opening dyadic

interactionrsquo paper presented at the annual

conference of the American Association for

Applied Linguistics Portland OR

Hellermann J forthcoming lsquoThe development of

practices for action in the classroom diadic

interaction focus on task openingsrsquo Modern

Language Journal

Hood S and H Joyce 1995 lsquoReading in the

adult ESL curriculum and classroomrsquo Prospect

102 52ndash64

Hymes D 1974 Foundations in Sociolinguistics

An Ethnographic Approach Philadelphia

University of Pennsylvania Press

Kramsch C 1986 lsquoFrom language proficiency

to interactional competencersquo Modern Language

Journal 70 372ndash66

Kramsch C 2002 lsquoHow can we tell the dancer

from the dancersquo in C Kramsch (ed) Language

Acquisition and Language Socialization An ecological

approach London Continuum

Lave J and E Wenger 1991 Situated Learning

Legitimate Peripheral Participation Cambridge

Cambridge University Press

Lerner G H 1995 lsquoTurn design and the organiza-

tion of participation in instructional activitiesrsquo

Discourse Processes 19 111ndash31

MacBethD2003 lsquoHugh MehanrsquosLearning Lessons

reconsidered On the differences between the

naturalistic and critical analysis of classroom

discoursersquo American Educational Research Journal

401 239ndash80

McCraken R A 1971 lsquoInitiating sustained silent

readingrsquo Journal of Reading 148 521ndash4 582ndash3

McDermott R and D Roth 1978 lsquoThe social

organization of behavior Interactional

approachesrsquo Annual Review of Anthropology 7

321ndash45

Markee N 2000 Conversation Analysis Marwah

NJ Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

Ochs E and B Schieffelin 1979 Developmental

Pragmatics New York Academic Press

Ochs E E A Schegloff and S A Thompson

1996 Interaction and Grammar Cambridge

Cambridge University Press

Ong W J 1982 Orality and Literacy The Technolo-

gizing of the Word London Routledge

Palacios I G 2002 An ESLLiteracy Center

A qualitative study of perspectives and practices

of immigrant adults and literacy facilitators

Unpublished PhD Dissertation Indiana

University Pennsylvania Indiana PA

Pilgreen J L 2000 The SSR Handbook How to

Organize and Manage a Sustained Silent Reading

Program Portsmouth NH BoyntonCook

Pulido D 2003 lsquoModeling the role of second

language proficiency and topic familiarity

in second language incidental vocabulary

acquisition through readingrsquo Language Learning

532 233ndash84

Reder S 1987 lsquoComparative aspects of functional

literacy development Three ethnic American

communitiesrsquo in D Wagner (ed) The Future

of Literacy in a Changing World Oxford Pergamon

Press

Reder S 1994 lsquoPractice engagement theory

A sociocultural approach to literacy across

languages and culturersquo in B M Ferdman

R M Weber and A G Ramırez (eds) Literacy

Across Languages and Cultures Albany NY State

University of New York Press

Reder S and E Davila (2005) lsquoContext

and literacy practicesrsquo Annual Review of Applied

Linguistics 25 170ndash87

Reder S K A Harris and K Setzler 2003

lsquoA multimedia adult learner corpusrsquo TESOL

Quarterly 373 546ndash57

JOHN HELLERMANN 403

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

Reder S K A Harris R Kurzet

D Brillanceau S Banke and JHellermann

forthcoming Using a modified Sustained Silent

Reading for low-level adult ESOL students

Boston National Center for the Study of Adult

Learning and Literacy

Sacks H E A Schegloff and G Jefferson

1974 lsquoA simplest systematics for the organiza-

tion of turn-taking for conversationsrsquo Language

504 696ndash735

Sagarra N 2000 The longitudinal role of working

memory on adult acquisition of L2 grammar

Unpublished PhD Dissertation University of

Illinois Urbana-Champaign

Schegloff E A 1968 lsquoSequencing in conversa-

tional openingsrsquo American Anthropologist 70

1075ndash95

Schegloff E A 1980 lsquoPreliminaries to prelimin-

aries lsquolsquoCan I ask you a questionrsquorsquo rsquo Sociological

Inquiry 50 104ndash52

Schegloff E A 1998 lsquoReflections on studying

prosody in talk-in-interactionrsquo Language and

Speech 413ndash4 235ndash63

Schegloff E A 2000 lsquoOverlapping talk and the

organization of turn-making for conversationrsquo

Language in Society 291 1ndash63

Schegloff E A 2002 lsquoOpening sequencingrsquo

in J E Katz and M Aakhus (eds) Perpetual

Contact Mobile Communication Private Talk Public

Performance Cambridge Cambridge University

Press

Schegloff E A and H Sacks 1973 lsquoOpening up

closingsrsquo Semiotica 8 289ndash327

Schieffelin B B and Ochs E (1986) lsquoLanguage

socializationrsquo Annual Review of Anthropology 15

163ndash91

Scribner S and M Cole 1981 The Psychology of

Literacy Cambridge MA Harvard University

Press

Segalowitz N C Poulsen and M Komoda

1991 lsquoLower level components of reading skill in

higher level bilinguals Implications for reading

instructionrsquo AILA Review 8 15ndash30

Streeck J 1983 Social Order in Child Communica-

tion Amsterdam John Benjamins

Streeck J and S Mihus 2005 lsquoMicroethno-

graphy The study of practicesrsquo In K L Fitch

and R E Sanders (eds) The Handbook of

Language and Social Interaction Marwah NJ

Lawrence Erlbaum

Street B 1998 lsquoNew literacies in theory

and practice What are the implications for

language in educationrsquo Linguistics and Education

10 1ndash24

Street B V 2001 Literacy and Development

Ethnographic perspectives London Routledge

Tang H 1997 lsquoThe relationship between reading

comprehension processes in L1 and L2rsquo Reading

Psychology 183 249ndash301

Treville M C 1996 lsquoLexical learning and reading

in L2 at the beginner level The advantage of

cognatesrsquo The Canadian Modern Language Review

531 173ndash90

Van Lier L 2000 lsquoFrom input to affordance

Social-interactive learning from an ecological

perspectiversquo in J Lantolf (ed) Sociocultural

Theory and Second Language Learning Oxford

Oxford University Press

van Lier L 2002 lsquoAn ecological-semiotic

perspective on language and linguisticsrsquo in

C Kramsch (ed) Language Acquisition and

Language Socialization An ecological approach

London Continuum

Wenger J 1998 Communities of Practice Learning

Meaning and Identity Cambridge Cambridge

University Press

Yang J 2000 lsquoOrthographic effect on word

recognition by learners of Chinese as a Foreign

Languagersquo Journal of the Chinese Language

Teachers Association 352 1ndash18

YoungR1999 lsquoSociolinguistic approaches toSLArsquo

Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 19 105ndash32

Young R 2000 lsquoInteractional competence

Challenges for validityrsquo Paper presented at the

annual conference of the American Association

for Applied Linguistics Vancouver BC

Young R F 2002 lsquoDiscourse approaches to oral

language assessmentrsquo Annual Review of Applied

Linguistics 22 243ndash62

404 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

Page 5: Classroom Interactive Practices for Developing L2 Literacy: A Microethnographic Study of Two Beginning Adult Learners of English

Lab School Eduardo logged 182 hours of instruction time giving him a

70 per cent attendance rate

Abby was a 21-year-old single woman from China with 11 years of

education in her home country Like Eduardo she had not studied English

before coming to the Lab School She lived with her parents and spoke

Cantonese at home In her first four terms of study she tallied 190 hours

of class time a 90 per cent attendance rate

These two learners were chosen because of their participation in three

consecutive terms of the mSSR method because neither of them had studied

English before attending the Lab School and because of their different

educational backgrounds Each student was assessed at approximately the

same proficiency level (based on an oral proficiency interview) and started

in a class for beginners I expected (as did their classroom teachers) that

their different levels of education and first language literacy would result in

different levels of participation in the interactive practices for literacy events

in the classroom Describing these differences aids an understanding of

emerging L2 literacy as part of learnersrsquo interactional competence as fostered

by language socialization in classroom literacy events

METHODS FOR ANALYSIS

This studyrsquos emic perspective on classroom discourse language and social

systems is influenced by ethnomethodology interactional sociolinguistics

and conversation analysis This theoretical and methodological perspective

sees language social order and social systems as locally constituted and

re-constituted Participants in any interaction be that mundane conversation

or classroom interaction co-construct a local cultural expertise (Garfinkel

1967) and display that expertise to one another at every moment (Goffman

1959 1961) through their talk-in-interaction From this perspective on social

interaction research on adults who have well-developed skills for social

interaction but little linguistic skill in their lingua franca is a rich area for the

study of the local co-construction of classroom discourse (Macbeth 2003)

This study takes advantage of the recurrent nature of activity in classroom

discourse to understand how the local practices for social interaction of two

learners in similar interactional environments constitute socialization into

literacy over the course of three terms of study The background information

for each participant in the study the categories lsquoMexican-Spanish L1 male

with little educationrsquo or lsquoMandarin-Chinese L1 female with high school

educationrsquo are not used to predict or explain a priori particular interactional

patterns While these categories played a role in participant selection it will

be a task for analysis to uncover how the discursive practices for literacy

of the two participants may or may not differ

The research relies on audio and video recording technology to open

a window onto micro-level details of situations by repeated observation

The descriptive richness and depth of context of this microethnographic

JOHN HELLERMANN 381

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

analysis (McDermott and Roth 1978 Erickson and Schultz 1981 Streeck

1983 Streeck and Mihus 2005) is the result of a detailed description of

behaviors that are immediately observable and interpretable to the

participants in the interaction themselves the talk and other communicative

resources (contextualization cues Gumperz 1982) for the interaction These

constitutive cues for contextualization include body posture gesture gaze

the manipulation of objects in the immediate environment turn-taking

and the sound production of language (Couper-Kuhlen and Selting 1996

Ochs et al 1996) Conversation analysis (Sacks et al 1974 Atkinson and

Heritage 1984) is utilized in this microethnography to make detailed

descriptions of the sequential structure of talk-in-interaction and to highlight

the perspectives on the interaction of the participants themselves

SOCIALIZATION INTO CLASSROOM LITERACY PRACTICES

Book selection and silent reading

Considering reading and literacy as a social process (Scribner and Cole 1981

Heath 1983 Brandt 1990 Reder 1994) one basic achievement in the

development of practices for carrying out literacy events done in the

language classroom and in an L2 is the ability to participate in the assessment

of the material that one reads Such preliminary moves into reading and

literacy are taken for granted by those of us living and working in literacy-

saturated social and psychological worlds However for learners with few

literacy skills these beginning practices may represent a major shift in their

conceptual understanding of the world (Goody 1977 Ong 1982) The first

literacy event in the mSSR method is selecting a book that is at an

appropriate linguistic level and which might be interesting to the reader

For learners with low-level literacy in their first languages without guidance

from the instructor (as the Sustained Silent Reading protocol states) this

could be an especially daunting task

The first data excerpts focus on Eduardorsquos engagement with the literacy

events over the course of his first two terms in the mSSR method On the

first day of the mSSR activities after the teacher instructed learners about

doing silent reading in the classroom everyday she invited learners to go to

the book carts8 to choose something to read At this point most learners got

out of their seats and went to the back of the classroom to choose a book

Eduardo however remained seated As other learners selected books from

the carts and desks (adjacent to Eduardorsquos desk) he reached over to a basket

of books and selected a book without looking at it and then read this book

for the entire twenty-minute silent reading period9 For a learner with very

low level decoding skills in English and with little experience with a reading

practice like choosing a book it may be that for Eduardo the significant part

of the book selection activity was having a book in his temporary possession

at his desk Reaching over to the book collection while remaining seated at

382 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

his desk achieved that goal in an efficient way However by week 4 of the

mSSR activity during the book selection Eduardo got out of his seat to look

at the books without hesitation and began to take some time in the selection

process He looked through the collection of books before choosing one to

read and even changed books during the silent reading period showing the

development of an understanding of the discriminating part of the task of

choosing a book Throughout the second and third terms of the mSSR

Eduardo often looked through several different books at his desk during the

silent reading period and sometimes even selected a book to read that he had

brought to class Such a change in book selection practices may display

Eduardorsquos greater discernment of quality or appropriateness of reading

material in the L2 or at least his interest in particular material It also could

show how Eduardorsquos low-level reading skills made the task of staying with

one book and actually reading that one book (which the teacher asked

learners to try to do) somewhat tiresome

Eduardorsquos increased level of participation in this literacy event was made

possible by the daily recurrence of the activity and his hearing the

instructions repeated by the teacher on a daily basis while seeing his peers

perform the task of book selection in every class period By being part of

the interaction in the classroom community of practice Eduardo was able

to move from having somewhat limited participation in the event in the

beginning of the first term of the mSSR (selecting a book without looking

at it) to more complete participation by the end of the term

By the first day of the second term of the mSSR in a class which was

made up of a few newcomers to the school and to the mSSR activity we see

that Eduardo had become socialized into the practices for the mSSR and

displayed expert status in the mSSR activity by being the first learner to

stand up and select a book after the teacherrsquos invitation After arriving at the

book cart he even helped the teacher set out the books to aid in the

selection process10 As the teacher instructed the new learners to take just

one book Eduardo held up and pointed to a book to simultaneously model

the teacherrsquos instructions for the new learners11 When he returned to his

desk after selecting his own book he even explained to a new learner what

the book selection and the mSSR activity entailed While the first two

displays of expertise were non-verbal (helping the teacher display the books

and modeling the selection of one book) Excerpt (1) shows Eduardo

explaining the mSSR to a new learner

(1)12

[1-6ndash03 A 204 20315mdash20359 Term II week 1]13

1 E ((looking to new class member)) one book

2 (20)

3 E es que todos los dias trienta minutos eh ponse

itrsquos that every the day thirty minutes she puts

every day for thirty minutes she puts

JOHN HELLERMANN 383

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

4 pon allı is every day thirty minutes reading

put there

there

5 para leer para por lo que no entiendas o lo

for read for for the what no you understand or the

read for what you donrsquot understand or

6 que quieres tu saber ella te lo dice puedes notar

what you want you to know she to you it tell you can write

what you want to know she can tell it to you to write down

7 N ( )

8 E Sı especialmente para practicar si para la persona

yes especially for practice if for the person

yes especially to practice if for the person

9 para lo que no puedes entender

for the what no you can understand

for what you canrsquot understand

10 que quieres saber tu que es ella te dice mhm

that you want to know you what it she to you tells mhm

what you want to know is what she tells you

11 dice sin verguenza que preguntarle porque ella

she says without embarrassment that to ask her because she

she says to ask without embarrassment because she

12 la pagane y la verguenza por eso venimos

the they pay and the embarrassment is why we come

the they pay her and the embarrassment is why we come

13 porque no sabemos

because no we know

because we donrsquot know

Eduardorsquos display of expertise and his offering support to a newcomer to the

class (Wenger 1998 Duff 2002) shows the social nature of classroom literacy

events The practices for literacy of the mSSR are embedded in several social

contexts in this case the classroom (Eduardo as learner expert) and a

linguisticcultural (Eduardo as Spanish speaking peer) Eduardorsquos social

interaction for this literacy event was accomplished in two languages

Eduardo mentions the core features of the mSSR (one book everyday thirty

minutes and reading) in the language of instruction while his interpretation of

the activity and his understanding of the teacherrsquos role are given in the

language he shares with his peer (Spanish) Eduardorsquos use of English

oriented to the language of the task and purpose of the task itself while his

use of Spanish fit the immediate social context of the literacy activity

Eduardo helping a Spanish-speaking newcomer to the English language class

384 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

This example shows Eduardo working through two of Rederrsquos (1987) three

modes of engagement with literacy functional and social14 In this act of

offering help to a newcomer Eduardo displays his functional engagement

with the mSSR literacy event by helping the teacher set out books and

modeling the practice of choosing a book His awareness of the mSSR event

as beneficial and one in which the entire class engages motivates him to give

instructions to a newcomer to the classroom community in that learnerrsquos L1

with key terms for the task in English displaying a social engagement with

literacy

While these observations of book selection and reading behavior do not

make claims about the development of decoding skills lexical acquisition

or memory and cognitive skills enhanced by L2 literacy development this

micro-ethnographic approach does uncover the habitus (Bourdieu 1991) of

the L2 literacy development in the classroom that is the behavioral practices

which establish a context in which other code-related skills become possible

In the book selection literacy event we see evidence of Eduardo moving

from peripheral to full participation (Lave and Wenger 1991) in his greater

discrimination in book selection The ability for Eduardo to explain the mSSR

activity to a newcomer to the class also shows the concomitant developing

interactional competence through socialization into classroom literacy events

By the end of three terms of attending classes which included the mSSR

activity Eduardo has acquired some of the social processes within the

context of the classroom community that involve him (Brandt 1990) in

literacy

In contrast to Eduardo presumably because of the literate practices learned

in her first language and culture for Abby socialization into L2 book

selection and reading perseverance was something that required less time In

her first mSSR session after the teacherrsquos instructions about selecting a book

Abby was the first learner to get out of her seat and go to the book cart

At the book cart she picked out one book and skimmed through it before

returning it She selected a second book looked through it briefly took the

book back to her seat and kept it for the entire period At the end of the class

period after the teacher suggested that students could reserve their book for

the next class period by putting a name card in the book Abby did this

highlighting her ability to engage with a text from the first day of the mSSR

This type of engagement with the text (book selection and reserving the book

for the next class period) contrasts notably with Eduardorsquos indiscriminate

book selection on the first day of the mSSR

Other evidence that Abby was able to take advantage of her experience

with L1 literacy was her use of several strategies for reading that Eduardo

did not use during the silent reading period These included the use of an

electronic dictionary to help her understand unfamiliar words and quietly

reading to herself during the time for silent reading15 The use of the

dictionary was part of systematic note taking by Abby who wrote out

unfamiliar words in columns in her notebook with the Chinese equivalents

JOHN HELLERMANN 385

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

next to them16 These skills were done without instruction from the

teacher and displayed her self-directed strategies for acquiring the L2 lexicon

While Eduardo also wrote in his notebook he usually wrote out full

sentences and phrases Watching him writing and seeing his notebooks from

time to time on camera I observed that Eduardo did not display the

experience of taking notes nor the strategic language learning skills that

Abby exhibited Conversations with the classroom teachers also suggest that

Eduardorsquos notes were not helpful to him because of their unsystematic

nature17 While Eduardo did begin using a dictionary in term three

regarding the mechanics of decoding written text the evidence suggests that

Abbyrsquos educational background played a large role in allowing her to

participate more completely from the start in the silent reading than

Eduardo18

Opening the post-reading story re-telling

Research in conversation analysis has explored how conversationalists

start their social interactions through orderly practices in their talk

(Schegloff 1968 1998 2002 Schegloff and Sacks 1973 Button and Casey

1984) While this line of research has focused on native speaker interaction

adult learners of English face the same fundamental problem as native

speakersmdashhow to get an interaction underway Adult learners of English

may bring a repertoire of strategies for social interaction from their life

experiences in other languages and cultures but whether adult learners of a

language as socially competent adults bring a sense of universal pragmatics

(Habermas 1976) to the classroom is an ongoing empirical question The

study of interaction in the context of adult learners using a lingua franca to

start activities provides a rich environment for the exploration of basic turn-

taking and conversational practices used in institutional settings

After the thirty minutes of silent reading another regular task in the

mSSR activity was peer re-telling in which the teacher instructed learners

(sometimes supplying question prompts) to tell their deskmate something

about the book they had just been reading The evidence gathered from the

two adult learners of English in this analysis suggests that differences in a

level of interactional competence in the L2 can be seen in the way the

learners engage in basic conversational skills such as opening an interaction

Two notable differences between these two learners are seen in the overt

negotiation over interlocutor selection and turn allocation at the beginning of

a task and the orientation to other activities that they are in the process of

finishing up Abbyrsquos interactions are characterized by opening moves which

display a greater range of linguistic and pragmatic skills than Eduardorsquos

Her opening moves also display notable development over the course of

three terms in the mSSR classes

A crucial first step to interaction in this literacy event for learners without

a large repertoire of linguistic code skills is the achievement of mutual

386 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

physical orientation for doing dyadic interaction19 Highly proficient speakers

of a language have a range of speech acts which they can use to subtly gain

a partnerrsquos attention while beginning learners almost without exception

rely on mutual physical orientation and object manipulation to start

their dyadic interactions (Hellermann 2004 2005) Eduardo and Abby also

both accomplished these subtle alignments for opening their re-telling

activities unproblematically in most instances Coordinating a mutual

physical orientation for re-telling entails the participants shifting their

posture slightly toward one another moving their books into a shared

space for re-telling and pointing to items in their books The interactions

between Eduardo and Lai Min another student in Excerpts (2) and (3)

occur at the beginning of Eduardorsquos second term in the mSSR The excerpts

are presented to show Eduardorsquos perseverance in opening this particular

literacy event demonstrating how he sees the establishment of mutual

orientation to a space for re-telling to be a necessary part of the re-telling

(Excerpt 2) and highlighting his manipulation of the books themselves

(Excerpt 3) as objects which are fundamental to the accomplishment of this

literacy event

(2)

[A2ndash13ndash03 204 24800 Term II week 6]20

1 T you need to speak to Eduardo

2 E ((taps Lai Min on shoulder and waves his hands motioning her

3 to move toward him))

4 L yeah ((leans back turns head slightly toward Eduardo))

5 E ((pages through his book))

6 L ((looks down to her book looks around class looks over

7 at E leans a little bit toward E))

8 L ((looks away from E)) [((leans forward away from E))

9 E [((looks toward L)) ((puts down his

10 book takes off glasses))

In (2) after the teacherrsquos directive to Lai Min to do the re-telling activity

with Eduardo (line 1) Eduardo makes a clear non-verbal summons

(shoulder tap) and invitation (waving motion) to Lai Min to begin the

re-telling activity in lines 2ndash3 Lai Min makes a minimal verbal and non-

verbal response (line 4) as Eduardo looks in his book Then as Eduardo is

paging through his book Lai Min looks at her own book looks around the

class looks to Eduardo and then looks away Lai Min does not make any

verbal moves to start the interaction and her visual orientation to various

places does not focus on an interaction space Besides the slight head

turn (line 4) and slight lean toward Eduardo (line 7) there is no clear

postural alignment to the space between herself and Eduardo When

Eduardo stops paging through his book and looks to Lai Min in line 9

JOHN HELLERMANN 387

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

he sees that her posture is not aligned to a mutual re-telling space and

he takes off his glasses and puts down his book seemingly aborting the

re-telling sequence

(3)

[A2ndash13ndash03 204 24835 Term II week 6]21

11 L ((looks at Ersquos book looks at board)) tee shuh ss tee shup

12 E ((opens another book)) ((puts book mark in it and closes it))

13 L ((looks at E))

14 E ((puts on glasses))

15 L ((opens her book))

16 E ((opens the second book points to something in the book))

17 L ((looks toward E))

18 E ( )

19 L ((L leans in toward E looking at book))

20 E Saigon Saigone Saigone

21 L ((points to Ersquos book)) Saigon

22 E Saigon Vietnam

23 L uh

24 E Saigone Vietname S( ) Vietnam

25 L mm

26 E Saigone

27 L Saigon ((leans away from E))

28 E ((looks at Lrsquos book and reads something from it)) [(prayer)

29 L [((moves her

30 book toward E))

In (3) after this aborted opening Lai Min appears to read something from

the board out loud (line 11) while Eduardo handles another book on the

table in front of him After Lai Min glances at Eduardo in line 13 Eduardo

puts on his glasses opens the book he has just been handling and points to

something in the book (line 16) which Lai Min orients to by leaning

in toward Eduardo to look at the page to which he is pointing After some

back and forth repetition of the word Eduardo is pointing to (Saigon) Lai Min

ends the focus on Eduardorsquos book by leaning away from the common

interactional space (line 27) Eduardo takes this as a cue to switch roles and

to now share information from Lai Minrsquos book In line 28 Eduardo reads

something from Lai Minrsquos book and she moves it closer to him to aid his

reading

While Extracts (2) and (3) show Eduardo initiating openings for the

re-telling literacy event and non-verbally orienting to the interaction with his

peer he was usually not the most verbally-active participant in his dyadic

388 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

interactions for re-telling When he self-selected to start a re-telling it was

when there were long pauses or notable lack of initiation from his partner

(as in (2) and (3)) By the end of term two of the mSSR however there

is evidence of Eduardo making a reciprocal verbal elicitation for a re-telling

As Excerpt (4) shows after finishing his own re-telling and completing

a closing sequence to that telling (lines 4ndash7) Eduardo reciprocates in eliciting

a re-telling from his partner (line 8)

(4)

[B 5ndash13ndash03 23601 term III week 7]22

1 E fis

2 J flying fish ((flapping left hand like flying))

3 E this is flying fi[s() this (of the)

4 J [yeah yeah yeah yeah

5 J mm mm

6 E mm hmm

7 J mm hmm

8 E what is your

9 (20) ((J picks up his book))

10 J eh (started started) this story

11 E the mountain the mountain ((reads Jrsquos book cover))

While the elicitation in line 8 is abbreviated Eduardorsquos partner (Jin) orients

to line 8 as an elicitation by picking up his own book (line 9) and beginning

his re-telling (line 10) As Jin starts the re-telling Eduardo orients to the title

of the book as an important part of the re-telling event by reading the title of

Jinrsquos book (line 11)

Two aspects of the openings for the re-tellings that the other focal student

of this study Abby displayed but that did not occur in Eduardorsquos interactions

were her pre-activity talk checking on whether the peer was ready to do

the task and then talk about interlocutor assignment for the activity

Abby became more active in initiating these opening moves over the course

of the three terms of the mSSR Excerpts (5)ndash(7) show examples of this

development In (5) which comes from the very beginning of the second

term in the mSSR we see Abby interact with Fernando but not initiate the

interaction

(5)

[1-10ndash03 B 24452 Term II week 2]23

1 F whose talk to me

2 (10) ((Fernando facing Abby Abby turns to Fernando))

3 F ((to Abby)) you oh

4 (25)

JOHN HELLERMANN 389

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

5 F hhyeah okay

6 ((Abby sneezes))

7 F bless you () god bless you a[gain

8 A [thank you

9 F again [god bless you

10 A [huh hah hah [uh hih hih hih hih hhuh

11 F [eh huh heh heh heah

12 (20)

13 F what () is your book

14 A eh () my book is () my my book is easy () easy story press

15 F oh press [mm hmm

16 A [yeah ease story pres[s

17 F [eh

18 (35)

19 A what is (your) story

In line 1 Fernando makes the first verbal move to establish the peer

dyad and achieve mutual physical orientation asking about a partner

and after a sequence involving sneezing in line 13 Fernando asks the

first elicitation question for the activity Abby responds to each elicitation

non-verbally in line 2 and with the title of her book in line 14 Abby orients

to the activity of finding out about one anotherrsquos books by asking

the reciprocal question more specifically asking about Fernandorsquos lsquostoryrsquo in

line 19

The next example of one of Abbyrsquos opening move sequences comes from

the fifth week of the second term of the mSSR Excerpt (6) shows Abby

engaging in more pre-task opening talk (lines 3 and 6) interlocutor selection

(line 8) and the launch of the task (line 10)

(6)

[2703 B 204 24353 Term II week 5]24

1 T you need to talk ladies

2 (10)

3 Ab todayrsquos uh February ((looks to Ana then back to notebook))

4 An ((shifts posture toward Abby))

5 (70)

6 Ab seventh

7 (140) ((both ss write)

8 Ab I talk to you ((turning to Ana))

9 (250) ((Ana continues writing))

10 Ab my () my book uh life story one

11 (20)

12 An ((shifts posture a bit to A))

390 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

13 Ab are you finished

14 An go (go ahead) please () where is () where is your story

After the teacher exhorts the learners (line 1) to begin their pair task

(the story re-telling) Abby announces the date and after Ana shifts her

posture toward Abby proposes the pair assignment (line 8) Since the

learners sit at desks in pairs the pair assignment is somewhat of a given so

Abbyrsquos turn in line 8 may also act as a proposal for turn allocation If

interlocutor assignment is relatively self-evident the turn lsquoI talk to yoursquo is at

least a move to attempt to get Ana to enter the interaction and may be an

explicit move to tell Ana that she Abby is starting the activity There is no

uptake by Ana after this proposal and after a rather long pause (line 9) Abby

launches the task self-selecting to re-tell her story first When there is no

verbal uptake by Ana in line 11 after Abbyrsquos turn Abby orients to her

partnerrsquos preparation for the task and asks if Ana has finished (line 13) her

preparatory work (writing notes) Ana orients to Abbyrsquos question as a pre-

request to check whether Ana is ready to start her re-telling by encouraging

Abby to continue directly eliciting information about the location of her

story in line 14

The final excerpt from the third term of the mSSR illustrates Abbyrsquos further

development of interactional practices for opening the re-telling activity In (7)

while Inez is writing in her notebook Abby shifts her posture to Inez and asks

a question (line 2) which is preliminary to a question for the assigned activity

(7)

[5-9ndash03 B 206 24121 Term III week 7]25

((Teacherrsquos prompt for the interaction lsquoDo you like books about a story or

information what kind of book are you reading nowrsquo))

1 A ((shifts posture toward Inez))

2 I are you ready

3 (70) ((Inez is writing in her notebook))

4 I yeah sorry

5 (30)

6 I ((re-positions her posture to face Abby then gestures with

7 right hand pointing to Abby and back to herself))

8 (30)

9 A ((Abby looks at the board and reads the question)) what type

10 of a book are you reading now

11 ((Inez begins her re-telling))

While Abbyrsquos question in line 2 orients to the necessity of the completion of

the preparatory work for the re-telling literacy event it also works as part

of the opening for the re-telling task itself Inez finishes writing in her

notebook and orients to Abbyrsquos question as an opening to the assigned

JOHN HELLERMANN 391

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

re-telling task by answering Abbyrsquos question and apologizing for not starting

immediately (line 4) After Inez repositions her body and non-verbally

initiates a negotiation of turn allocation for the re-telling (lines 6 and 7)

Abby self-selects to elicit the re-telling from Inez by reading one of the

teacherrsquos prompts from the board (lines 9ndash10)

Abbyrsquos socialization to the mSSR re-telling activity can be seen in the

development of opening moves in the re-telling interactions with her peers

in Excerpts (5)ndash(7) The interaction from earlier in the mSSR (Excerpt (5))

shows Abby not actively initiating dyad assignment pre-task talk and task

launch In terms two and three the excerpts show her more actively

involved in starting these re-telling activities Her task-preliminary organiza-

tional talk and task launching later in the second and third terms of the

mSSR suggest that she is now more comfortable with the re-telling literacy

event and with the language as a whole

These excerpts of Abbyrsquos interaction in the re-telling literacy events show

two common moves by more advanced learners for opening dyadic

interactions (Hellermann 2004 forthcoming) the orientation to the previous

task completion (in Excerpt (6) lsquoare you finishedrsquo and Excerpt (7) lsquoare you

readyrsquo) and interlocutor selection (in Excerpt (6) lsquoI talk to yoursquo) As other

research in conversation shows such moves for opening talk enable

participants to work out basic features of talk-in-interaction such as avoiding

simultaneous talk and ensuring that the talk about to happen is the start of

something new not from the previous topic (Button and Casey 1984)26

The interactions by Abby and Eduardo in the re-telling literacy events also

show evidence for the learnersrsquo development of interactional competence

through their socialization into literacy events27 While both Abby and

Eduardo orient to the beginnings of the re-telling events creating spaces for

appropriate mutual participation for the event from the start of the mSSR

we see evidence for a change in their participation in the re-telling events

over the course of the three terms of the mSSR Eduardo uses a speech act

(lsquowhat is yourrsquo) in a more sophisticated modality (verbal rather than non-

verbal) to reciprocate an elicitation for a re-telling in his interaction with Jin

in Excerpt (4) In Abbyrsquos later interactions she explicitly orients to the

boundaries of the events by inquiring as to her partnersrsquo readiness to

participate (Excerpts (5) and (6)) and negotiates roles for participation

(Excerpt (6) lsquoI talk to yoursquo) and turn allocation (Excerpts (6) and (7))

Learner reading logs and filing of reading logs

A basic literacy skill activity that the teacher built into the mSSR classes was

having learners chart their reading activity in a reading log and then file their

own reading logs alphabetically in a file box at the end of every lesson In

the third class period of the first term some evidence of Eduardorsquos lack of

basic literacy skills appeared during the filing activity Near the end of this

class period the teacher asked learners to put their reading logs into a file

392 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

box organized by their first names Eduardo and another learner went to

the file box at the front of the room and stood by the box with their reading

logs looking for the appropriate place to put the logs After some time

Eduardo looked over to Carla (a learner from Brazil) and held out his right

hand palm up Carla oriented to this gesture as a request for help and got out

of her seat to help the two learners showing them the place in the files to

put their logs28 A bit later in this class period as the learners were packing

up to leave the class Eduardo solicited the teacherrsquos help in understanding

the name of the process of filing (Excerpt (8)) In so doing he is building on

the co-constructed filing practice with his classmate

(8)

[10-3ndash02 A 204 25149 Term I week 2]29

1 E want to ask (you something) ((walking to file box))

2 T yes you want to ask me something

3 E somebody ((puts hand in file box then touches head)) somebody

4 T file

5 E file file

6 T uh huh this is what () please file file you papers

In Exerpt (8) Eduardo is standing next to the teacher and utters a

pre-question (Schegloff 1980) in line 1 as he walks to the file box Once at

the box in line 3 he says lsquosomebodyrsquo a bare noun phrase which projects a

predicate Eduardo produces that predicate by modeling the relevant action

a hypothetical learner filing a paper This is followed by a gesture of his

hand to his head (which Eduardo commonly used to indicate that he did not

remember a particular word in English) and a repetition of the same bare

noun phrase In line 4 the teacher orients to Eduardorsquos talk as a request for

a word to name the action of putting the reading log into the box The fact

that this interaction is elicited by Eduardo shortly after his request for help

from Carla suggests that Carla may have helped him put the reading log

in the right place but did not give Eduardo the English word for that action

It is Eduardorsquos interactions with both a peer and with the teacher which

help him co-construct a name for this literacy event

While Eduardorsquos success in filing his reading log was sporadic throughout

the rest of this first term at the beginning of the next term on the first day

of class the teacher explained again that the reading logs were to be filed

alphabetically She explained and modeled this while standing next to the

file box to assist learners After explaining and modeling the procedure to the

class she reminded Eduardo again several minutes later lsquoyou need to put this

[reading log] away young manrsquo Several minutes after that Eduardo held up

his reading log showing it to the teacher as other learners were going to the

file box to file their logs She responded affirmatively and Eduardo went to

the file box The teacher said his name Eduardo said lsquoersquo (the first letter of his

JOHN HELLERMANN 393

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

first name) and put the reading log in the appropriate place in the file box

Having participated in one term of the mSSR and the literacy event of filling

in and filing reading logs (the term in which it was just noted that he was

given support by a peer and the teacher) the reinforcement of the rules the

modeling by the teacher as well as the personal reminder and reassurance

given by the teacher guided Eduardo into full participation in this literacy

event Later in this second term and in the third term as well Eduardo

was able to file the log independently By the beginning of the third term

(4103) he was also able to tell a newcomer to the class the purpose of the

reading log

Based on conversations with his teachers the evidence from his reading

logs and his interactions with other learners in the re-telling literacy event

Eduardo seemed to have developed a genuine interest in and enthusiasm for

reading In a more complex literacy skill involving the reading logs there is

evidence that Eduardo developed the ability to orally evaluate the books

he read adopting a term introduced by the teacher to describe several of

his books lsquoso-sorsquo In the later part of the first term of the mSSR Eduardorsquos

reading log was sporadically filled in and he wrote in Spanish for the

assessment portion of the log (Figure 1)

By the second term of the mSSR Eduardo was reading some books during

the silent reading period in class for four class periods in a row (an indication

of persistence and interest) and assessed one book (The Orange Grove) in his

reading log as lsquovery goodrsquo Through this assessment Eduardo displayed

part of a personal identity as a literate person in English But even by the

third term of the mSSR classes Eduardo did not elaborate on the assessments

of his books as the reading log prompted learners to do In a row at the top

of the reading log learners were to answer the question lsquoDid you like it

[the book]rsquo and then write why The teacher provided another written

prompt in the box that learners checked for a positive assessment lsquoYes

because rsquo In this place though Eduardo always indicated that he liked the

Figure 1 Part of Eduardorsquos reading log from the first term of the mSSR

394 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

books that he read he did not specify why he liked them giving evidence

of the limitations of his ability to evaluate his reading (as Figure 2 shows)

In contrast to Eduardo Abby did not have trouble filing her reading log

On the day the teacher explained to learners how they should file their

reading logs she used Abby as an example lsquoFor example Abby file your

paper under lsquolsquoArsquorsquo for Abbyrsquo In subsequent class periods Abby displayed

competence at filing her reading log in the appropriate slot in the file box

The content of Abbyrsquos reading logs also differed from Eduardorsquos in notable

ways Where Eduardo always checked the box marked lsquoeasyrsquo when

evaluating the level of difficulty of the books he read in most cases Abby

checked the lsquojust rightrsquo box and just a few times the box marked lsquoeasyrsquo for

the books she read Figure 3 shows one of her reading logs from the third

term of the mSSR

The notations in Abbyrsquos reading log in Figure 3 suggest that she was

choosing books that were appropriate to her ability (the box labeled

lsquojust rightrsquo is marked consistently) Also Abby was able to give some detail

(although limited) when prompted by the teacher for the reasons behind

her assessment of a book In response to the teacherrsquos written prompt on

the reading log lsquoyes I liked it because rsquo Abby had two responses she used

lsquoyes I did because interestingrsquo or lsquoyes I did because easyrsquo Abby indicated

Figure 2 Part of Eduardorsquos reading log from the third term of the mSSR

JOHN HELLERMANN 395

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

these more expanded assessments both in the second and third terms of the

mSSR classes

An important question for research on language socialization and

interactional competence in a classroom setting is to what degree these

processes result in increased engagement with literacy outside the classroom

A telling insight gained from the learnersrsquo in-home L1 interviews suggests

that for both these learners the socialization into literacy events in the

classroom lead to increased participation in literacy outside the classroom

In the interviews conducted with each learner before the start of the mSSR

treatment when asked what and how much they read in English for

pleasure Abby indicated that she read student picture books for ninety

minutes a week Eduardo reported reading newspapers for thirty minutes

a week In interviews conducted in June of 2004 after the learnersrsquo

completed their participation in the mSSR Abby reported reading

newspapers and books for 7 hours a week and Eduardo newspapers and

magazines for 2 hours a week Along with the development of interactive

practices in classroom literacy events highlighted in this paper these findings

show a remarkable increase in these learnersrsquo engagement with literacy

outside the classroom and evidence of their emerging identities as individuals

literate in English

Figure 3 Part of Abbyrsquos reading log from the third term of the mSSR

396 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

CONCLUSIONS

The findings uncovered in this study show two learnersrsquo development of

interactional competence through their socialization into classroom literacy

events This socialization occurred through the learnersrsquo engagement in

discursive practices in repeated literacy events which were part of a modified

sustained silent reading program The discursive practices for the literacy

events occurred within the context of the entire classroom community of

practice (Wenger 1998) and afforded learners the opportunities to move from

peripheral to more full participation in English literacy This community of

practice included (1) the teachers who provided instructions and support for

the activities through explicit instruction and modeling (2) learner peers

who also modeled appropriate interactive and language behavior and were

the interlocutors with whom some of the literacy practices were negotiated

and (3) the texts themselves which became a mediating object the third

part in a triadic dialogue for literacy (van Lier 2002) comprised of learnerndash

teacherndashtext or learnerndashlearnerndashtext

While neither learner had studied English formally before enrolling in

classes at the Lab School this study shows that Abby the learner with a high

school education from her home country was familiar with some of the

practices for literacy events including alphabetical filing book selection

and book assessment This research also showed that over the course of

three terms doing the mSSR activities Abby developed a wider range of

interactional practices for opening the dyadic interactions involved in the

story re-telling

Eduardo on the other hand began his participation in the mSSR activities

with much less experience with classroom literacy events having had just

two years of education in his home country The literacy events which were

part of the mSSR afforded Eduardo (van Lier 2000) the opportunity to

engage with literacy and by participating at first peripherally Eduardo

quickly understood and participated more fully in the book selection literacy

event Through interaction with his peers and the teacher in term two basic

literacy skills such as alphabetizing and filing his reading log developed

Though his teachersrsquo initial impressions suggested that he got very little

from his participation in the mSSR a review of his reading logs and his

participation in class show that Eduardo acquired knowledge of literacy

through a transformation (Lave and Wenger 1991) of his understanding of

and participation in literacy events

The development of these learnersrsquo interactional competence can be seen

in Eduardorsquos pursuit of understanding the practice of filing his reading log

which he accomplished through interaction with several members of the

classroom community This change in his participation in filing the logs

shows how learning is a situated practice accomplished through repeated

interactions with the entire classroom community In the analysis of the

story re-telling activities both Eduardo and Abby exhibited an increased

JOHN HELLERMANN 397

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

ability to use talk to initiate interaction by negotiating interlocutor

assignment and turn allocation to open their re-tellings Again the repeated

practice of the re-tellings afforded the learners opportunities to negotiate

a particular classroom and social action (opening a face-to-face interaction)

and both learners developed interactional skills that allowed them to

participate in the practice more fully

A quantitative analysis of standardized assessment measures30 for all the

learners at the Lab School shows that students who participated in the mSSR

method improved in their English language literacy skills to the same degree

as students who participated in classes which used a traditional skills-based

method for the teaching of reading (Reder et al forthcoming) This result

leads one to question what classroom practices might have contributed to

the increase in scores for each group Qualitative micro-analyses such as this

study are a first step toward understanding the discursive practices of the

mSSR classrooms which led to increases in those standardized tests of literacy

skills Also while we know that first-language education is a factor in

successful second language acquisition (Cole et al 1971) we know little

about how classroom interaction between experienced and inexperienced

learners differs In order to address this question this analysis used existing

social categorizations for participant selection (their degree of previous

education in their first language environment) and focused on two students

who would be categorized differently But the use of these macro-level

categorizations was not intended to reify the association of the characteristics

of each category to individual members Rather they were used to define

places from which to empirically examine the interactional language

behavior of members of each category This examination was done through

micro-analyses of the two studentsrsquo participation in the discursive practices

in mSSR literacy events that help L2 literacy develop The focus on the

day-to-day classroom interactions of the two learners allowed us to see

different paths to L2 literacy for learners who have different educational and

literacy experiences and uncover the complex interaction within a classroom

community of practice which results in the changes reported in traditional

language assessment measures

Final version received November 2005

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank the entire staff at the National Labsite for Adult ESOL at Portland State

University for their involvement in maintaining the Lab School as a place for adults to learn

English and as a state of the art research facility I would also like to thank Kathy Harris Sandra

Banke Reuel Kurzet Steve Reder Dominique Brillanceau and three anonymous readers for

their feedback on various versions of the paper

398 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

APPENDIX A

Some transcript conventions in conversation analysis (adapted from Schegloff

2000)

I Temporal and sequential relationships

[ Overlapping or simultaneous talk

frac14 lsquolatched utterancesrsquo no break or pause between utterances

(05) Numbers in parentheses indicate silence represented in tenths of a second

() A dot in parentheses indicates a lsquomicropausersquo

II Aspects of speech delivery including aspectsof intonation

period indicates a falling intonation contour not necessarily the end ofa sentence

question mark indicates rising intonation

a comma indicates lsquocontinuingrsquo intonation

Colons are used to indicate the prolongation or stretching of the soundjust preceding them The more colons the longer the stretching

- A hyphen after a word or part of a word indicates a cut-off or self-interruption word

Underlining is used to indicate some form of stress or emphasis either byincreased loudness or higher pitch The more underlining the greater theemphasis

The degree sign indicates that the talk following it was markedly quiet orsoft

The up and down arrows mark sharper rises or falls in pitch

45 The combination of lsquomore thanrsquo and lsquoless thanrsquo symbols indicates that thetalk between them is compressed or rushed

54 Used in the reverse order they can indicate that a stretch of talk ismarkedly slowed or drawn out

hhh Outbreath

hh Inbreath

(( )) Descriptions of events ((cough)) ((sniff)) ((telephone rings)) ((foot-steps))

(word) All or part of an utterance in parentheses indicates transcriber uncertainty

Creaky voice

NOTES

1 In order to get around the unwieldy

and theoretically-loaded terminology

for describing the use acquisition

and learning of a language that is

not the home or first language of the

participants of this study I will use

JOHN HELLERMANN 399

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

the abbreviation lsquoL2rsquo throughout the

paper to refer to a language that is

being attained through formal instruc-

tion For the students in this study

lsquoL2rsquo refers to English It may not be

however that English is these

studentsrsquo lsquosecondrsquo language as the

abbreviation implies

2 Students in the current study were in

lsquolevel Arsquo classes at the data collection

site SPL level 0ndash2

3 In Sustained Silent Reading

(McCracken 1971 Pilgreen 2000)

students are given a set time in the

classroom to read silently without

interruption by the teacher or other

students and without evaluation of

what is read and how it is read

The method was altered slightly at

the data collection site to meet the

needs of beginning adult language

learners and included activities

like post-reading re-telling activities

and studentsrsquo use of reading logs

to record their assessments of their

reading

4 The National Labsite for Adult ESOL

at Portland State University is sup-

ported in part by grant R309B6002

from the Institute for Education

Science US Dept of Education to

the National Center for the Study of

Adult Learning and Literacy The

Labsite is a partnership between

Portland State University and Portland

Community College The school

and research facilities are housed at

Portland State while the registration

curriculum and teachers of the

ESL students are from Portland

Community College

5 One reviewer asked about the inabil-

ity to see learnersrsquo eye gaze with

cameras embedded in the ceiling

While this is a problem when

students are sitting directly under

the two mobile cameras which

follow students wearing the wireless

microphones most often students

are sitting in a position where

studentsrsquo faces can be seen quite

directly For details of the data

collection see Reder et al (2003)

6 The Labsite Student Study (LSS)

conducts in-home interviews with a

subset of students in the lab school

(70 per year) in their home lan-

guages over the course of four

years regardless of whether the

student remains in lab school classes

or not The primary purpose of

the LSS study is to understand

language use and literacy develop-

ment outside the classroom context

and factors which influence program

persistence

7 All names used in this study are

pseudonyms

8 The teacher had different types of

books on a cart that she wheeled into

the room every class period She took

books off the cart and spread them

out on desks at the back of the room

9 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoselectsbookclass1]

10 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardohelping]

11 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoshowing]

12 Sarah Ouellette helped with the

Spanish transcription and provided

the translation to English Transcrip-

tion conventions are included in

Appendix A lsquoTrsquo indicates the class-

room teacher in all transcripts

13 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoexplaining]

400 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

14 At the time of this excerpt Eduardo

was a novice in Rederrsquos (1987) third

mode of literacy engagement

technical still struggling with basic

technical issues like decoding English

language lexicon

15 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Abbyreading]

16 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Abbynotetaking]

17 The classroom teachers noted the

frustration of doing mSSR with

students who have very low first

language literacy because of her

inability to help students organize

their reading in instances like note

taking (Banke and Brillanceau 2004)

18 A literacy assessment test (BEST

Literacy) was administered in the

classroom in terms one and two of

the mSSR program While the scores

increased for each learner for

Eduardo the increase is not as great

as Abbyrsquos Eduardorsquos overall literacy

score went from 35 in term one

to 42 in term two which is an

increase of one student performance

level (from 3 to 4) Abbyrsquos scores

increased from 45 in term one to

56 in term two which indicates

a jump from student performance

level 4 to 6 For information

on characteristics of student language

abilities at different student perfor-

mance levels (SPLs) see pp 5ndash6 of

wwwcalorgcaelaesl_resources

Part4-5pdf

19 One of the pedagogical advantages of

doing a dyadic re-telling in a lan-

guage classroom is that even if one

student doesnrsquot understand the

instructions for the task in an activity

like the mSSR the peerrsquos act of

posture shift moving a book into

a common space and looking

toward the partner strongly invite

collaboration in some interaction and

it is collaboration that is perhaps

the most important aspect of the

re-telling activity (Pilgreen 2000)

especially for language learners

20 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoopening1]

21 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoopening2]

22 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoorientsstorytelling]

23 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Abbyopening1]

24 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Abbypretasktalkterm2]

25 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Abbystartingretelling2]

26 While more empirical evidence is

warranted a provisional claim

can be mentioned here that such

re-telling activities and perhaps

in classroom pair activities in

general are organized with a two-

part move like that displayed in

(6) lsquoquery about readinessrsquo and

lsquoturn allocationrsquo before the first task

question

27 Notably absent from Abbyrsquos and

Eduardorsquos peer re-tellings are any

verbal greeting sequences Even

when one of the pair moves across

the room to sit with another student

Abby and Eduardo did not exchange

greetings with their partner for their

JOHN HELLERMANN 401

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

task This is something that other

students did as part of their openings

28 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoasksstudentforhelpfiling]

29 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoasksaboutfiling]

30 The assessment measures were the

BEST Plus and the Peabody Picture

Vocabulary tests

REFERENCES

Atkinson J M and J C Heritage 1984

Structures of Social Action Studies in Conversation

Analysis Cambridge Cambridge University Press

August G 2001 The Road to Second Language

Reading How do we get there Unpublished

PhD Dissertation City University of New York

New York

Banke S and D Brillanceu 2004 lsquoLiving

in Interventionrsquo Unpublished manuscript

Barton D (2001) lsquoDirections for literacy

research Analysing language and social practices

in a textually mediated worldrsquo Language and

Education 152ndash3 92ndash104

Bernhardt E B and M L Kamil 1995 lsquoInter-

preting relationships between L1 and L2 reading

Consolidating the linguistic threshold and the

linguistic interdependence hypothesesrsquo Applied

Linguistics 161 15ndash34

Bourdieu P 1991 Language and Symbolic Power

Cambridge MA Harvard University Press

Brandt D 1990 Literacy as Involvement The Acts

of Writers Readers and Texts Carbondale IL

Southern Illinois University Press

ButtonG andNCasey1984 lsquoGenerating topics

The use of topic initial elicitorsrsquo in J M Atkinson

and J C Heritage (eds) Structures of Social Action

Studies in Conversation Analysis Cambridge

Cambridge University Press

Canale M and M Swain 1980 lsquoTheoretical

bases of communicative approaches to second

language teaching and testingrsquoApplied Linguistics

1 1ndash47

Carrell P L 1991 lsquoSecond language reading

Reading ability or language proficiencyrsquo Applied

Linguistics 122 159ndash79

Chow P and C Chou 2000 Evaluating

Sustained Silent Reading in Reading Classes [Web]

I-TESL-J Available httpitesljorgArticlesChow-

mSSRhtml

Cole M J Gay J A Glick and D W Sharp

1971 The Cultural Context of Learning and Think-

ing An Exploration in Experimental Anthropology

New York Basic Books

Couper-Kuhlen E andMSelting 1996 Prosody

in Conversation Interactional Studies Cambridge

Cambridge University Press

Duff P 2002 lsquoThe discursive co-construction

of knowledge identity and difference An

ethnography of communication in the high

school mainstreamrsquo Applied Linguistics 233

289ndash322

Erickson F and J Schultz 1981 lsquoWhen is

a context Some issues and methods in the

analysis of social competencersquo in J Green and

C Wallat (eds) Ethnography and Language in

Educational Settings Norwood NJ Ablex

Felser C L Roberts T Marinis and R Gross

2003 lsquoThe processing of ambiguous sentences by

first and second language learners of Englishrsquo

Applied Psycholinguistics 243 453ndash89

Garfinkel H 1967 Studies in Ethnomethodology

Englewood Cliffs NJ Prentice Hall

Gee J P 1990 Social Linguistics and Literacies

Ideology in Discourses London Falmer Press

Goffman E 1959 The Presentation of Self

in Everyday Life New York Anchor Books

Doubleday

Goffman E 1961 Encounters Two Studies in

the Sociology of Interaction Indianapolis Bobbs-

Merrill

Goody J1977 TheDomestication of the SavageMind

Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Grabe W and F L Stoller 1997 lsquoReading and

vocabulary development in a second language

A case studyrsquo in J Coady and T Huckin (eds)

Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition A

Rationale for Pedagogy Cambridge Cambridge

University Press

402 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

Gumperz J J 1982 Discourse Strategies

Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Habermas J1976 lsquoSome distinctions in universal

pragmatics A working paperrsquo Theory and Society

32 155ndash67

Hall J K 1993 lsquoThe role of oral practices in

the accomplishment of our everyday lives

The sociocultural dimension of interaction

with implications for the learning of

another languagersquo Applied Linguistics 142

145ndash66

Hall J K 1995 lsquo lsquolsquoAw man where you goinrsquorsquorsquo

Classroom interaction and the development

of L2 interactional competencersquo Issues in Applied

Linguistics 62 37ndash62

Hall JK1997 lsquoA consideration of SLA as a theory

of practice A response to Firth and Wagnerrsquo

Modern Language Journal 813 301ndash306

He A W and R Young 1998 lsquoLanguage

proficiency interviews A discourse approachrsquo in

R Young and A W He (eds) Talking and Testing

Discourse Approaches to the Assessment of Oral

Proficiency Amsterdam John Benjamins

Heath S B 1982 lsquoWhat no bedtime story means

Narrative skills at home and schoolrsquo Language

in Society 11 49ndash76

Heath S B 1983 Ways with Words Language

Life and Work in Communities and Classrooms

Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Hellermann J 2004 lsquoPractices for opening dyadic

interactionrsquo paper presented at the annual

conference of the American Association for

Applied Linguistics Portland OR

Hellermann J forthcoming lsquoThe development of

practices for action in the classroom diadic

interaction focus on task openingsrsquo Modern

Language Journal

Hood S and H Joyce 1995 lsquoReading in the

adult ESL curriculum and classroomrsquo Prospect

102 52ndash64

Hymes D 1974 Foundations in Sociolinguistics

An Ethnographic Approach Philadelphia

University of Pennsylvania Press

Kramsch C 1986 lsquoFrom language proficiency

to interactional competencersquo Modern Language

Journal 70 372ndash66

Kramsch C 2002 lsquoHow can we tell the dancer

from the dancersquo in C Kramsch (ed) Language

Acquisition and Language Socialization An ecological

approach London Continuum

Lave J and E Wenger 1991 Situated Learning

Legitimate Peripheral Participation Cambridge

Cambridge University Press

Lerner G H 1995 lsquoTurn design and the organiza-

tion of participation in instructional activitiesrsquo

Discourse Processes 19 111ndash31

MacBethD2003 lsquoHugh MehanrsquosLearning Lessons

reconsidered On the differences between the

naturalistic and critical analysis of classroom

discoursersquo American Educational Research Journal

401 239ndash80

McCraken R A 1971 lsquoInitiating sustained silent

readingrsquo Journal of Reading 148 521ndash4 582ndash3

McDermott R and D Roth 1978 lsquoThe social

organization of behavior Interactional

approachesrsquo Annual Review of Anthropology 7

321ndash45

Markee N 2000 Conversation Analysis Marwah

NJ Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

Ochs E and B Schieffelin 1979 Developmental

Pragmatics New York Academic Press

Ochs E E A Schegloff and S A Thompson

1996 Interaction and Grammar Cambridge

Cambridge University Press

Ong W J 1982 Orality and Literacy The Technolo-

gizing of the Word London Routledge

Palacios I G 2002 An ESLLiteracy Center

A qualitative study of perspectives and practices

of immigrant adults and literacy facilitators

Unpublished PhD Dissertation Indiana

University Pennsylvania Indiana PA

Pilgreen J L 2000 The SSR Handbook How to

Organize and Manage a Sustained Silent Reading

Program Portsmouth NH BoyntonCook

Pulido D 2003 lsquoModeling the role of second

language proficiency and topic familiarity

in second language incidental vocabulary

acquisition through readingrsquo Language Learning

532 233ndash84

Reder S 1987 lsquoComparative aspects of functional

literacy development Three ethnic American

communitiesrsquo in D Wagner (ed) The Future

of Literacy in a Changing World Oxford Pergamon

Press

Reder S 1994 lsquoPractice engagement theory

A sociocultural approach to literacy across

languages and culturersquo in B M Ferdman

R M Weber and A G Ramırez (eds) Literacy

Across Languages and Cultures Albany NY State

University of New York Press

Reder S and E Davila (2005) lsquoContext

and literacy practicesrsquo Annual Review of Applied

Linguistics 25 170ndash87

Reder S K A Harris and K Setzler 2003

lsquoA multimedia adult learner corpusrsquo TESOL

Quarterly 373 546ndash57

JOHN HELLERMANN 403

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

Reder S K A Harris R Kurzet

D Brillanceau S Banke and JHellermann

forthcoming Using a modified Sustained Silent

Reading for low-level adult ESOL students

Boston National Center for the Study of Adult

Learning and Literacy

Sacks H E A Schegloff and G Jefferson

1974 lsquoA simplest systematics for the organiza-

tion of turn-taking for conversationsrsquo Language

504 696ndash735

Sagarra N 2000 The longitudinal role of working

memory on adult acquisition of L2 grammar

Unpublished PhD Dissertation University of

Illinois Urbana-Champaign

Schegloff E A 1968 lsquoSequencing in conversa-

tional openingsrsquo American Anthropologist 70

1075ndash95

Schegloff E A 1980 lsquoPreliminaries to prelimin-

aries lsquolsquoCan I ask you a questionrsquorsquo rsquo Sociological

Inquiry 50 104ndash52

Schegloff E A 1998 lsquoReflections on studying

prosody in talk-in-interactionrsquo Language and

Speech 413ndash4 235ndash63

Schegloff E A 2000 lsquoOverlapping talk and the

organization of turn-making for conversationrsquo

Language in Society 291 1ndash63

Schegloff E A 2002 lsquoOpening sequencingrsquo

in J E Katz and M Aakhus (eds) Perpetual

Contact Mobile Communication Private Talk Public

Performance Cambridge Cambridge University

Press

Schegloff E A and H Sacks 1973 lsquoOpening up

closingsrsquo Semiotica 8 289ndash327

Schieffelin B B and Ochs E (1986) lsquoLanguage

socializationrsquo Annual Review of Anthropology 15

163ndash91

Scribner S and M Cole 1981 The Psychology of

Literacy Cambridge MA Harvard University

Press

Segalowitz N C Poulsen and M Komoda

1991 lsquoLower level components of reading skill in

higher level bilinguals Implications for reading

instructionrsquo AILA Review 8 15ndash30

Streeck J 1983 Social Order in Child Communica-

tion Amsterdam John Benjamins

Streeck J and S Mihus 2005 lsquoMicroethno-

graphy The study of practicesrsquo In K L Fitch

and R E Sanders (eds) The Handbook of

Language and Social Interaction Marwah NJ

Lawrence Erlbaum

Street B 1998 lsquoNew literacies in theory

and practice What are the implications for

language in educationrsquo Linguistics and Education

10 1ndash24

Street B V 2001 Literacy and Development

Ethnographic perspectives London Routledge

Tang H 1997 lsquoThe relationship between reading

comprehension processes in L1 and L2rsquo Reading

Psychology 183 249ndash301

Treville M C 1996 lsquoLexical learning and reading

in L2 at the beginner level The advantage of

cognatesrsquo The Canadian Modern Language Review

531 173ndash90

Van Lier L 2000 lsquoFrom input to affordance

Social-interactive learning from an ecological

perspectiversquo in J Lantolf (ed) Sociocultural

Theory and Second Language Learning Oxford

Oxford University Press

van Lier L 2002 lsquoAn ecological-semiotic

perspective on language and linguisticsrsquo in

C Kramsch (ed) Language Acquisition and

Language Socialization An ecological approach

London Continuum

Wenger J 1998 Communities of Practice Learning

Meaning and Identity Cambridge Cambridge

University Press

Yang J 2000 lsquoOrthographic effect on word

recognition by learners of Chinese as a Foreign

Languagersquo Journal of the Chinese Language

Teachers Association 352 1ndash18

YoungR1999 lsquoSociolinguistic approaches toSLArsquo

Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 19 105ndash32

Young R 2000 lsquoInteractional competence

Challenges for validityrsquo Paper presented at the

annual conference of the American Association

for Applied Linguistics Vancouver BC

Young R F 2002 lsquoDiscourse approaches to oral

language assessmentrsquo Annual Review of Applied

Linguistics 22 243ndash62

404 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

Page 6: Classroom Interactive Practices for Developing L2 Literacy: A Microethnographic Study of Two Beginning Adult Learners of English

analysis (McDermott and Roth 1978 Erickson and Schultz 1981 Streeck

1983 Streeck and Mihus 2005) is the result of a detailed description of

behaviors that are immediately observable and interpretable to the

participants in the interaction themselves the talk and other communicative

resources (contextualization cues Gumperz 1982) for the interaction These

constitutive cues for contextualization include body posture gesture gaze

the manipulation of objects in the immediate environment turn-taking

and the sound production of language (Couper-Kuhlen and Selting 1996

Ochs et al 1996) Conversation analysis (Sacks et al 1974 Atkinson and

Heritage 1984) is utilized in this microethnography to make detailed

descriptions of the sequential structure of talk-in-interaction and to highlight

the perspectives on the interaction of the participants themselves

SOCIALIZATION INTO CLASSROOM LITERACY PRACTICES

Book selection and silent reading

Considering reading and literacy as a social process (Scribner and Cole 1981

Heath 1983 Brandt 1990 Reder 1994) one basic achievement in the

development of practices for carrying out literacy events done in the

language classroom and in an L2 is the ability to participate in the assessment

of the material that one reads Such preliminary moves into reading and

literacy are taken for granted by those of us living and working in literacy-

saturated social and psychological worlds However for learners with few

literacy skills these beginning practices may represent a major shift in their

conceptual understanding of the world (Goody 1977 Ong 1982) The first

literacy event in the mSSR method is selecting a book that is at an

appropriate linguistic level and which might be interesting to the reader

For learners with low-level literacy in their first languages without guidance

from the instructor (as the Sustained Silent Reading protocol states) this

could be an especially daunting task

The first data excerpts focus on Eduardorsquos engagement with the literacy

events over the course of his first two terms in the mSSR method On the

first day of the mSSR activities after the teacher instructed learners about

doing silent reading in the classroom everyday she invited learners to go to

the book carts8 to choose something to read At this point most learners got

out of their seats and went to the back of the classroom to choose a book

Eduardo however remained seated As other learners selected books from

the carts and desks (adjacent to Eduardorsquos desk) he reached over to a basket

of books and selected a book without looking at it and then read this book

for the entire twenty-minute silent reading period9 For a learner with very

low level decoding skills in English and with little experience with a reading

practice like choosing a book it may be that for Eduardo the significant part

of the book selection activity was having a book in his temporary possession

at his desk Reaching over to the book collection while remaining seated at

382 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

his desk achieved that goal in an efficient way However by week 4 of the

mSSR activity during the book selection Eduardo got out of his seat to look

at the books without hesitation and began to take some time in the selection

process He looked through the collection of books before choosing one to

read and even changed books during the silent reading period showing the

development of an understanding of the discriminating part of the task of

choosing a book Throughout the second and third terms of the mSSR

Eduardo often looked through several different books at his desk during the

silent reading period and sometimes even selected a book to read that he had

brought to class Such a change in book selection practices may display

Eduardorsquos greater discernment of quality or appropriateness of reading

material in the L2 or at least his interest in particular material It also could

show how Eduardorsquos low-level reading skills made the task of staying with

one book and actually reading that one book (which the teacher asked

learners to try to do) somewhat tiresome

Eduardorsquos increased level of participation in this literacy event was made

possible by the daily recurrence of the activity and his hearing the

instructions repeated by the teacher on a daily basis while seeing his peers

perform the task of book selection in every class period By being part of

the interaction in the classroom community of practice Eduardo was able

to move from having somewhat limited participation in the event in the

beginning of the first term of the mSSR (selecting a book without looking

at it) to more complete participation by the end of the term

By the first day of the second term of the mSSR in a class which was

made up of a few newcomers to the school and to the mSSR activity we see

that Eduardo had become socialized into the practices for the mSSR and

displayed expert status in the mSSR activity by being the first learner to

stand up and select a book after the teacherrsquos invitation After arriving at the

book cart he even helped the teacher set out the books to aid in the

selection process10 As the teacher instructed the new learners to take just

one book Eduardo held up and pointed to a book to simultaneously model

the teacherrsquos instructions for the new learners11 When he returned to his

desk after selecting his own book he even explained to a new learner what

the book selection and the mSSR activity entailed While the first two

displays of expertise were non-verbal (helping the teacher display the books

and modeling the selection of one book) Excerpt (1) shows Eduardo

explaining the mSSR to a new learner

(1)12

[1-6ndash03 A 204 20315mdash20359 Term II week 1]13

1 E ((looking to new class member)) one book

2 (20)

3 E es que todos los dias trienta minutos eh ponse

itrsquos that every the day thirty minutes she puts

every day for thirty minutes she puts

JOHN HELLERMANN 383

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

4 pon allı is every day thirty minutes reading

put there

there

5 para leer para por lo que no entiendas o lo

for read for for the what no you understand or the

read for what you donrsquot understand or

6 que quieres tu saber ella te lo dice puedes notar

what you want you to know she to you it tell you can write

what you want to know she can tell it to you to write down

7 N ( )

8 E Sı especialmente para practicar si para la persona

yes especially for practice if for the person

yes especially to practice if for the person

9 para lo que no puedes entender

for the what no you can understand

for what you canrsquot understand

10 que quieres saber tu que es ella te dice mhm

that you want to know you what it she to you tells mhm

what you want to know is what she tells you

11 dice sin verguenza que preguntarle porque ella

she says without embarrassment that to ask her because she

she says to ask without embarrassment because she

12 la pagane y la verguenza por eso venimos

the they pay and the embarrassment is why we come

the they pay her and the embarrassment is why we come

13 porque no sabemos

because no we know

because we donrsquot know

Eduardorsquos display of expertise and his offering support to a newcomer to the

class (Wenger 1998 Duff 2002) shows the social nature of classroom literacy

events The practices for literacy of the mSSR are embedded in several social

contexts in this case the classroom (Eduardo as learner expert) and a

linguisticcultural (Eduardo as Spanish speaking peer) Eduardorsquos social

interaction for this literacy event was accomplished in two languages

Eduardo mentions the core features of the mSSR (one book everyday thirty

minutes and reading) in the language of instruction while his interpretation of

the activity and his understanding of the teacherrsquos role are given in the

language he shares with his peer (Spanish) Eduardorsquos use of English

oriented to the language of the task and purpose of the task itself while his

use of Spanish fit the immediate social context of the literacy activity

Eduardo helping a Spanish-speaking newcomer to the English language class

384 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

This example shows Eduardo working through two of Rederrsquos (1987) three

modes of engagement with literacy functional and social14 In this act of

offering help to a newcomer Eduardo displays his functional engagement

with the mSSR literacy event by helping the teacher set out books and

modeling the practice of choosing a book His awareness of the mSSR event

as beneficial and one in which the entire class engages motivates him to give

instructions to a newcomer to the classroom community in that learnerrsquos L1

with key terms for the task in English displaying a social engagement with

literacy

While these observations of book selection and reading behavior do not

make claims about the development of decoding skills lexical acquisition

or memory and cognitive skills enhanced by L2 literacy development this

micro-ethnographic approach does uncover the habitus (Bourdieu 1991) of

the L2 literacy development in the classroom that is the behavioral practices

which establish a context in which other code-related skills become possible

In the book selection literacy event we see evidence of Eduardo moving

from peripheral to full participation (Lave and Wenger 1991) in his greater

discrimination in book selection The ability for Eduardo to explain the mSSR

activity to a newcomer to the class also shows the concomitant developing

interactional competence through socialization into classroom literacy events

By the end of three terms of attending classes which included the mSSR

activity Eduardo has acquired some of the social processes within the

context of the classroom community that involve him (Brandt 1990) in

literacy

In contrast to Eduardo presumably because of the literate practices learned

in her first language and culture for Abby socialization into L2 book

selection and reading perseverance was something that required less time In

her first mSSR session after the teacherrsquos instructions about selecting a book

Abby was the first learner to get out of her seat and go to the book cart

At the book cart she picked out one book and skimmed through it before

returning it She selected a second book looked through it briefly took the

book back to her seat and kept it for the entire period At the end of the class

period after the teacher suggested that students could reserve their book for

the next class period by putting a name card in the book Abby did this

highlighting her ability to engage with a text from the first day of the mSSR

This type of engagement with the text (book selection and reserving the book

for the next class period) contrasts notably with Eduardorsquos indiscriminate

book selection on the first day of the mSSR

Other evidence that Abby was able to take advantage of her experience

with L1 literacy was her use of several strategies for reading that Eduardo

did not use during the silent reading period These included the use of an

electronic dictionary to help her understand unfamiliar words and quietly

reading to herself during the time for silent reading15 The use of the

dictionary was part of systematic note taking by Abby who wrote out

unfamiliar words in columns in her notebook with the Chinese equivalents

JOHN HELLERMANN 385

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

next to them16 These skills were done without instruction from the

teacher and displayed her self-directed strategies for acquiring the L2 lexicon

While Eduardo also wrote in his notebook he usually wrote out full

sentences and phrases Watching him writing and seeing his notebooks from

time to time on camera I observed that Eduardo did not display the

experience of taking notes nor the strategic language learning skills that

Abby exhibited Conversations with the classroom teachers also suggest that

Eduardorsquos notes were not helpful to him because of their unsystematic

nature17 While Eduardo did begin using a dictionary in term three

regarding the mechanics of decoding written text the evidence suggests that

Abbyrsquos educational background played a large role in allowing her to

participate more completely from the start in the silent reading than

Eduardo18

Opening the post-reading story re-telling

Research in conversation analysis has explored how conversationalists

start their social interactions through orderly practices in their talk

(Schegloff 1968 1998 2002 Schegloff and Sacks 1973 Button and Casey

1984) While this line of research has focused on native speaker interaction

adult learners of English face the same fundamental problem as native

speakersmdashhow to get an interaction underway Adult learners of English

may bring a repertoire of strategies for social interaction from their life

experiences in other languages and cultures but whether adult learners of a

language as socially competent adults bring a sense of universal pragmatics

(Habermas 1976) to the classroom is an ongoing empirical question The

study of interaction in the context of adult learners using a lingua franca to

start activities provides a rich environment for the exploration of basic turn-

taking and conversational practices used in institutional settings

After the thirty minutes of silent reading another regular task in the

mSSR activity was peer re-telling in which the teacher instructed learners

(sometimes supplying question prompts) to tell their deskmate something

about the book they had just been reading The evidence gathered from the

two adult learners of English in this analysis suggests that differences in a

level of interactional competence in the L2 can be seen in the way the

learners engage in basic conversational skills such as opening an interaction

Two notable differences between these two learners are seen in the overt

negotiation over interlocutor selection and turn allocation at the beginning of

a task and the orientation to other activities that they are in the process of

finishing up Abbyrsquos interactions are characterized by opening moves which

display a greater range of linguistic and pragmatic skills than Eduardorsquos

Her opening moves also display notable development over the course of

three terms in the mSSR classes

A crucial first step to interaction in this literacy event for learners without

a large repertoire of linguistic code skills is the achievement of mutual

386 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

physical orientation for doing dyadic interaction19 Highly proficient speakers

of a language have a range of speech acts which they can use to subtly gain

a partnerrsquos attention while beginning learners almost without exception

rely on mutual physical orientation and object manipulation to start

their dyadic interactions (Hellermann 2004 2005) Eduardo and Abby also

both accomplished these subtle alignments for opening their re-telling

activities unproblematically in most instances Coordinating a mutual

physical orientation for re-telling entails the participants shifting their

posture slightly toward one another moving their books into a shared

space for re-telling and pointing to items in their books The interactions

between Eduardo and Lai Min another student in Excerpts (2) and (3)

occur at the beginning of Eduardorsquos second term in the mSSR The excerpts

are presented to show Eduardorsquos perseverance in opening this particular

literacy event demonstrating how he sees the establishment of mutual

orientation to a space for re-telling to be a necessary part of the re-telling

(Excerpt 2) and highlighting his manipulation of the books themselves

(Excerpt 3) as objects which are fundamental to the accomplishment of this

literacy event

(2)

[A2ndash13ndash03 204 24800 Term II week 6]20

1 T you need to speak to Eduardo

2 E ((taps Lai Min on shoulder and waves his hands motioning her

3 to move toward him))

4 L yeah ((leans back turns head slightly toward Eduardo))

5 E ((pages through his book))

6 L ((looks down to her book looks around class looks over

7 at E leans a little bit toward E))

8 L ((looks away from E)) [((leans forward away from E))

9 E [((looks toward L)) ((puts down his

10 book takes off glasses))

In (2) after the teacherrsquos directive to Lai Min to do the re-telling activity

with Eduardo (line 1) Eduardo makes a clear non-verbal summons

(shoulder tap) and invitation (waving motion) to Lai Min to begin the

re-telling activity in lines 2ndash3 Lai Min makes a minimal verbal and non-

verbal response (line 4) as Eduardo looks in his book Then as Eduardo is

paging through his book Lai Min looks at her own book looks around the

class looks to Eduardo and then looks away Lai Min does not make any

verbal moves to start the interaction and her visual orientation to various

places does not focus on an interaction space Besides the slight head

turn (line 4) and slight lean toward Eduardo (line 7) there is no clear

postural alignment to the space between herself and Eduardo When

Eduardo stops paging through his book and looks to Lai Min in line 9

JOHN HELLERMANN 387

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

he sees that her posture is not aligned to a mutual re-telling space and

he takes off his glasses and puts down his book seemingly aborting the

re-telling sequence

(3)

[A2ndash13ndash03 204 24835 Term II week 6]21

11 L ((looks at Ersquos book looks at board)) tee shuh ss tee shup

12 E ((opens another book)) ((puts book mark in it and closes it))

13 L ((looks at E))

14 E ((puts on glasses))

15 L ((opens her book))

16 E ((opens the second book points to something in the book))

17 L ((looks toward E))

18 E ( )

19 L ((L leans in toward E looking at book))

20 E Saigon Saigone Saigone

21 L ((points to Ersquos book)) Saigon

22 E Saigon Vietnam

23 L uh

24 E Saigone Vietname S( ) Vietnam

25 L mm

26 E Saigone

27 L Saigon ((leans away from E))

28 E ((looks at Lrsquos book and reads something from it)) [(prayer)

29 L [((moves her

30 book toward E))

In (3) after this aborted opening Lai Min appears to read something from

the board out loud (line 11) while Eduardo handles another book on the

table in front of him After Lai Min glances at Eduardo in line 13 Eduardo

puts on his glasses opens the book he has just been handling and points to

something in the book (line 16) which Lai Min orients to by leaning

in toward Eduardo to look at the page to which he is pointing After some

back and forth repetition of the word Eduardo is pointing to (Saigon) Lai Min

ends the focus on Eduardorsquos book by leaning away from the common

interactional space (line 27) Eduardo takes this as a cue to switch roles and

to now share information from Lai Minrsquos book In line 28 Eduardo reads

something from Lai Minrsquos book and she moves it closer to him to aid his

reading

While Extracts (2) and (3) show Eduardo initiating openings for the

re-telling literacy event and non-verbally orienting to the interaction with his

peer he was usually not the most verbally-active participant in his dyadic

388 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

interactions for re-telling When he self-selected to start a re-telling it was

when there were long pauses or notable lack of initiation from his partner

(as in (2) and (3)) By the end of term two of the mSSR however there

is evidence of Eduardo making a reciprocal verbal elicitation for a re-telling

As Excerpt (4) shows after finishing his own re-telling and completing

a closing sequence to that telling (lines 4ndash7) Eduardo reciprocates in eliciting

a re-telling from his partner (line 8)

(4)

[B 5ndash13ndash03 23601 term III week 7]22

1 E fis

2 J flying fish ((flapping left hand like flying))

3 E this is flying fi[s() this (of the)

4 J [yeah yeah yeah yeah

5 J mm mm

6 E mm hmm

7 J mm hmm

8 E what is your

9 (20) ((J picks up his book))

10 J eh (started started) this story

11 E the mountain the mountain ((reads Jrsquos book cover))

While the elicitation in line 8 is abbreviated Eduardorsquos partner (Jin) orients

to line 8 as an elicitation by picking up his own book (line 9) and beginning

his re-telling (line 10) As Jin starts the re-telling Eduardo orients to the title

of the book as an important part of the re-telling event by reading the title of

Jinrsquos book (line 11)

Two aspects of the openings for the re-tellings that the other focal student

of this study Abby displayed but that did not occur in Eduardorsquos interactions

were her pre-activity talk checking on whether the peer was ready to do

the task and then talk about interlocutor assignment for the activity

Abby became more active in initiating these opening moves over the course

of the three terms of the mSSR Excerpts (5)ndash(7) show examples of this

development In (5) which comes from the very beginning of the second

term in the mSSR we see Abby interact with Fernando but not initiate the

interaction

(5)

[1-10ndash03 B 24452 Term II week 2]23

1 F whose talk to me

2 (10) ((Fernando facing Abby Abby turns to Fernando))

3 F ((to Abby)) you oh

4 (25)

JOHN HELLERMANN 389

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

5 F hhyeah okay

6 ((Abby sneezes))

7 F bless you () god bless you a[gain

8 A [thank you

9 F again [god bless you

10 A [huh hah hah [uh hih hih hih hih hhuh

11 F [eh huh heh heh heah

12 (20)

13 F what () is your book

14 A eh () my book is () my my book is easy () easy story press

15 F oh press [mm hmm

16 A [yeah ease story pres[s

17 F [eh

18 (35)

19 A what is (your) story

In line 1 Fernando makes the first verbal move to establish the peer

dyad and achieve mutual physical orientation asking about a partner

and after a sequence involving sneezing in line 13 Fernando asks the

first elicitation question for the activity Abby responds to each elicitation

non-verbally in line 2 and with the title of her book in line 14 Abby orients

to the activity of finding out about one anotherrsquos books by asking

the reciprocal question more specifically asking about Fernandorsquos lsquostoryrsquo in

line 19

The next example of one of Abbyrsquos opening move sequences comes from

the fifth week of the second term of the mSSR Excerpt (6) shows Abby

engaging in more pre-task opening talk (lines 3 and 6) interlocutor selection

(line 8) and the launch of the task (line 10)

(6)

[2703 B 204 24353 Term II week 5]24

1 T you need to talk ladies

2 (10)

3 Ab todayrsquos uh February ((looks to Ana then back to notebook))

4 An ((shifts posture toward Abby))

5 (70)

6 Ab seventh

7 (140) ((both ss write)

8 Ab I talk to you ((turning to Ana))

9 (250) ((Ana continues writing))

10 Ab my () my book uh life story one

11 (20)

12 An ((shifts posture a bit to A))

390 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

13 Ab are you finished

14 An go (go ahead) please () where is () where is your story

After the teacher exhorts the learners (line 1) to begin their pair task

(the story re-telling) Abby announces the date and after Ana shifts her

posture toward Abby proposes the pair assignment (line 8) Since the

learners sit at desks in pairs the pair assignment is somewhat of a given so

Abbyrsquos turn in line 8 may also act as a proposal for turn allocation If

interlocutor assignment is relatively self-evident the turn lsquoI talk to yoursquo is at

least a move to attempt to get Ana to enter the interaction and may be an

explicit move to tell Ana that she Abby is starting the activity There is no

uptake by Ana after this proposal and after a rather long pause (line 9) Abby

launches the task self-selecting to re-tell her story first When there is no

verbal uptake by Ana in line 11 after Abbyrsquos turn Abby orients to her

partnerrsquos preparation for the task and asks if Ana has finished (line 13) her

preparatory work (writing notes) Ana orients to Abbyrsquos question as a pre-

request to check whether Ana is ready to start her re-telling by encouraging

Abby to continue directly eliciting information about the location of her

story in line 14

The final excerpt from the third term of the mSSR illustrates Abbyrsquos further

development of interactional practices for opening the re-telling activity In (7)

while Inez is writing in her notebook Abby shifts her posture to Inez and asks

a question (line 2) which is preliminary to a question for the assigned activity

(7)

[5-9ndash03 B 206 24121 Term III week 7]25

((Teacherrsquos prompt for the interaction lsquoDo you like books about a story or

information what kind of book are you reading nowrsquo))

1 A ((shifts posture toward Inez))

2 I are you ready

3 (70) ((Inez is writing in her notebook))

4 I yeah sorry

5 (30)

6 I ((re-positions her posture to face Abby then gestures with

7 right hand pointing to Abby and back to herself))

8 (30)

9 A ((Abby looks at the board and reads the question)) what type

10 of a book are you reading now

11 ((Inez begins her re-telling))

While Abbyrsquos question in line 2 orients to the necessity of the completion of

the preparatory work for the re-telling literacy event it also works as part

of the opening for the re-telling task itself Inez finishes writing in her

notebook and orients to Abbyrsquos question as an opening to the assigned

JOHN HELLERMANN 391

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

re-telling task by answering Abbyrsquos question and apologizing for not starting

immediately (line 4) After Inez repositions her body and non-verbally

initiates a negotiation of turn allocation for the re-telling (lines 6 and 7)

Abby self-selects to elicit the re-telling from Inez by reading one of the

teacherrsquos prompts from the board (lines 9ndash10)

Abbyrsquos socialization to the mSSR re-telling activity can be seen in the

development of opening moves in the re-telling interactions with her peers

in Excerpts (5)ndash(7) The interaction from earlier in the mSSR (Excerpt (5))

shows Abby not actively initiating dyad assignment pre-task talk and task

launch In terms two and three the excerpts show her more actively

involved in starting these re-telling activities Her task-preliminary organiza-

tional talk and task launching later in the second and third terms of the

mSSR suggest that she is now more comfortable with the re-telling literacy

event and with the language as a whole

These excerpts of Abbyrsquos interaction in the re-telling literacy events show

two common moves by more advanced learners for opening dyadic

interactions (Hellermann 2004 forthcoming) the orientation to the previous

task completion (in Excerpt (6) lsquoare you finishedrsquo and Excerpt (7) lsquoare you

readyrsquo) and interlocutor selection (in Excerpt (6) lsquoI talk to yoursquo) As other

research in conversation shows such moves for opening talk enable

participants to work out basic features of talk-in-interaction such as avoiding

simultaneous talk and ensuring that the talk about to happen is the start of

something new not from the previous topic (Button and Casey 1984)26

The interactions by Abby and Eduardo in the re-telling literacy events also

show evidence for the learnersrsquo development of interactional competence

through their socialization into literacy events27 While both Abby and

Eduardo orient to the beginnings of the re-telling events creating spaces for

appropriate mutual participation for the event from the start of the mSSR

we see evidence for a change in their participation in the re-telling events

over the course of the three terms of the mSSR Eduardo uses a speech act

(lsquowhat is yourrsquo) in a more sophisticated modality (verbal rather than non-

verbal) to reciprocate an elicitation for a re-telling in his interaction with Jin

in Excerpt (4) In Abbyrsquos later interactions she explicitly orients to the

boundaries of the events by inquiring as to her partnersrsquo readiness to

participate (Excerpts (5) and (6)) and negotiates roles for participation

(Excerpt (6) lsquoI talk to yoursquo) and turn allocation (Excerpts (6) and (7))

Learner reading logs and filing of reading logs

A basic literacy skill activity that the teacher built into the mSSR classes was

having learners chart their reading activity in a reading log and then file their

own reading logs alphabetically in a file box at the end of every lesson In

the third class period of the first term some evidence of Eduardorsquos lack of

basic literacy skills appeared during the filing activity Near the end of this

class period the teacher asked learners to put their reading logs into a file

392 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

box organized by their first names Eduardo and another learner went to

the file box at the front of the room and stood by the box with their reading

logs looking for the appropriate place to put the logs After some time

Eduardo looked over to Carla (a learner from Brazil) and held out his right

hand palm up Carla oriented to this gesture as a request for help and got out

of her seat to help the two learners showing them the place in the files to

put their logs28 A bit later in this class period as the learners were packing

up to leave the class Eduardo solicited the teacherrsquos help in understanding

the name of the process of filing (Excerpt (8)) In so doing he is building on

the co-constructed filing practice with his classmate

(8)

[10-3ndash02 A 204 25149 Term I week 2]29

1 E want to ask (you something) ((walking to file box))

2 T yes you want to ask me something

3 E somebody ((puts hand in file box then touches head)) somebody

4 T file

5 E file file

6 T uh huh this is what () please file file you papers

In Exerpt (8) Eduardo is standing next to the teacher and utters a

pre-question (Schegloff 1980) in line 1 as he walks to the file box Once at

the box in line 3 he says lsquosomebodyrsquo a bare noun phrase which projects a

predicate Eduardo produces that predicate by modeling the relevant action

a hypothetical learner filing a paper This is followed by a gesture of his

hand to his head (which Eduardo commonly used to indicate that he did not

remember a particular word in English) and a repetition of the same bare

noun phrase In line 4 the teacher orients to Eduardorsquos talk as a request for

a word to name the action of putting the reading log into the box The fact

that this interaction is elicited by Eduardo shortly after his request for help

from Carla suggests that Carla may have helped him put the reading log

in the right place but did not give Eduardo the English word for that action

It is Eduardorsquos interactions with both a peer and with the teacher which

help him co-construct a name for this literacy event

While Eduardorsquos success in filing his reading log was sporadic throughout

the rest of this first term at the beginning of the next term on the first day

of class the teacher explained again that the reading logs were to be filed

alphabetically She explained and modeled this while standing next to the

file box to assist learners After explaining and modeling the procedure to the

class she reminded Eduardo again several minutes later lsquoyou need to put this

[reading log] away young manrsquo Several minutes after that Eduardo held up

his reading log showing it to the teacher as other learners were going to the

file box to file their logs She responded affirmatively and Eduardo went to

the file box The teacher said his name Eduardo said lsquoersquo (the first letter of his

JOHN HELLERMANN 393

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

first name) and put the reading log in the appropriate place in the file box

Having participated in one term of the mSSR and the literacy event of filling

in and filing reading logs (the term in which it was just noted that he was

given support by a peer and the teacher) the reinforcement of the rules the

modeling by the teacher as well as the personal reminder and reassurance

given by the teacher guided Eduardo into full participation in this literacy

event Later in this second term and in the third term as well Eduardo

was able to file the log independently By the beginning of the third term

(4103) he was also able to tell a newcomer to the class the purpose of the

reading log

Based on conversations with his teachers the evidence from his reading

logs and his interactions with other learners in the re-telling literacy event

Eduardo seemed to have developed a genuine interest in and enthusiasm for

reading In a more complex literacy skill involving the reading logs there is

evidence that Eduardo developed the ability to orally evaluate the books

he read adopting a term introduced by the teacher to describe several of

his books lsquoso-sorsquo In the later part of the first term of the mSSR Eduardorsquos

reading log was sporadically filled in and he wrote in Spanish for the

assessment portion of the log (Figure 1)

By the second term of the mSSR Eduardo was reading some books during

the silent reading period in class for four class periods in a row (an indication

of persistence and interest) and assessed one book (The Orange Grove) in his

reading log as lsquovery goodrsquo Through this assessment Eduardo displayed

part of a personal identity as a literate person in English But even by the

third term of the mSSR classes Eduardo did not elaborate on the assessments

of his books as the reading log prompted learners to do In a row at the top

of the reading log learners were to answer the question lsquoDid you like it

[the book]rsquo and then write why The teacher provided another written

prompt in the box that learners checked for a positive assessment lsquoYes

because rsquo In this place though Eduardo always indicated that he liked the

Figure 1 Part of Eduardorsquos reading log from the first term of the mSSR

394 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

books that he read he did not specify why he liked them giving evidence

of the limitations of his ability to evaluate his reading (as Figure 2 shows)

In contrast to Eduardo Abby did not have trouble filing her reading log

On the day the teacher explained to learners how they should file their

reading logs she used Abby as an example lsquoFor example Abby file your

paper under lsquolsquoArsquorsquo for Abbyrsquo In subsequent class periods Abby displayed

competence at filing her reading log in the appropriate slot in the file box

The content of Abbyrsquos reading logs also differed from Eduardorsquos in notable

ways Where Eduardo always checked the box marked lsquoeasyrsquo when

evaluating the level of difficulty of the books he read in most cases Abby

checked the lsquojust rightrsquo box and just a few times the box marked lsquoeasyrsquo for

the books she read Figure 3 shows one of her reading logs from the third

term of the mSSR

The notations in Abbyrsquos reading log in Figure 3 suggest that she was

choosing books that were appropriate to her ability (the box labeled

lsquojust rightrsquo is marked consistently) Also Abby was able to give some detail

(although limited) when prompted by the teacher for the reasons behind

her assessment of a book In response to the teacherrsquos written prompt on

the reading log lsquoyes I liked it because rsquo Abby had two responses she used

lsquoyes I did because interestingrsquo or lsquoyes I did because easyrsquo Abby indicated

Figure 2 Part of Eduardorsquos reading log from the third term of the mSSR

JOHN HELLERMANN 395

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

these more expanded assessments both in the second and third terms of the

mSSR classes

An important question for research on language socialization and

interactional competence in a classroom setting is to what degree these

processes result in increased engagement with literacy outside the classroom

A telling insight gained from the learnersrsquo in-home L1 interviews suggests

that for both these learners the socialization into literacy events in the

classroom lead to increased participation in literacy outside the classroom

In the interviews conducted with each learner before the start of the mSSR

treatment when asked what and how much they read in English for

pleasure Abby indicated that she read student picture books for ninety

minutes a week Eduardo reported reading newspapers for thirty minutes

a week In interviews conducted in June of 2004 after the learnersrsquo

completed their participation in the mSSR Abby reported reading

newspapers and books for 7 hours a week and Eduardo newspapers and

magazines for 2 hours a week Along with the development of interactive

practices in classroom literacy events highlighted in this paper these findings

show a remarkable increase in these learnersrsquo engagement with literacy

outside the classroom and evidence of their emerging identities as individuals

literate in English

Figure 3 Part of Abbyrsquos reading log from the third term of the mSSR

396 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

CONCLUSIONS

The findings uncovered in this study show two learnersrsquo development of

interactional competence through their socialization into classroom literacy

events This socialization occurred through the learnersrsquo engagement in

discursive practices in repeated literacy events which were part of a modified

sustained silent reading program The discursive practices for the literacy

events occurred within the context of the entire classroom community of

practice (Wenger 1998) and afforded learners the opportunities to move from

peripheral to more full participation in English literacy This community of

practice included (1) the teachers who provided instructions and support for

the activities through explicit instruction and modeling (2) learner peers

who also modeled appropriate interactive and language behavior and were

the interlocutors with whom some of the literacy practices were negotiated

and (3) the texts themselves which became a mediating object the third

part in a triadic dialogue for literacy (van Lier 2002) comprised of learnerndash

teacherndashtext or learnerndashlearnerndashtext

While neither learner had studied English formally before enrolling in

classes at the Lab School this study shows that Abby the learner with a high

school education from her home country was familiar with some of the

practices for literacy events including alphabetical filing book selection

and book assessment This research also showed that over the course of

three terms doing the mSSR activities Abby developed a wider range of

interactional practices for opening the dyadic interactions involved in the

story re-telling

Eduardo on the other hand began his participation in the mSSR activities

with much less experience with classroom literacy events having had just

two years of education in his home country The literacy events which were

part of the mSSR afforded Eduardo (van Lier 2000) the opportunity to

engage with literacy and by participating at first peripherally Eduardo

quickly understood and participated more fully in the book selection literacy

event Through interaction with his peers and the teacher in term two basic

literacy skills such as alphabetizing and filing his reading log developed

Though his teachersrsquo initial impressions suggested that he got very little

from his participation in the mSSR a review of his reading logs and his

participation in class show that Eduardo acquired knowledge of literacy

through a transformation (Lave and Wenger 1991) of his understanding of

and participation in literacy events

The development of these learnersrsquo interactional competence can be seen

in Eduardorsquos pursuit of understanding the practice of filing his reading log

which he accomplished through interaction with several members of the

classroom community This change in his participation in filing the logs

shows how learning is a situated practice accomplished through repeated

interactions with the entire classroom community In the analysis of the

story re-telling activities both Eduardo and Abby exhibited an increased

JOHN HELLERMANN 397

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

ability to use talk to initiate interaction by negotiating interlocutor

assignment and turn allocation to open their re-tellings Again the repeated

practice of the re-tellings afforded the learners opportunities to negotiate

a particular classroom and social action (opening a face-to-face interaction)

and both learners developed interactional skills that allowed them to

participate in the practice more fully

A quantitative analysis of standardized assessment measures30 for all the

learners at the Lab School shows that students who participated in the mSSR

method improved in their English language literacy skills to the same degree

as students who participated in classes which used a traditional skills-based

method for the teaching of reading (Reder et al forthcoming) This result

leads one to question what classroom practices might have contributed to

the increase in scores for each group Qualitative micro-analyses such as this

study are a first step toward understanding the discursive practices of the

mSSR classrooms which led to increases in those standardized tests of literacy

skills Also while we know that first-language education is a factor in

successful second language acquisition (Cole et al 1971) we know little

about how classroom interaction between experienced and inexperienced

learners differs In order to address this question this analysis used existing

social categorizations for participant selection (their degree of previous

education in their first language environment) and focused on two students

who would be categorized differently But the use of these macro-level

categorizations was not intended to reify the association of the characteristics

of each category to individual members Rather they were used to define

places from which to empirically examine the interactional language

behavior of members of each category This examination was done through

micro-analyses of the two studentsrsquo participation in the discursive practices

in mSSR literacy events that help L2 literacy develop The focus on the

day-to-day classroom interactions of the two learners allowed us to see

different paths to L2 literacy for learners who have different educational and

literacy experiences and uncover the complex interaction within a classroom

community of practice which results in the changes reported in traditional

language assessment measures

Final version received November 2005

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank the entire staff at the National Labsite for Adult ESOL at Portland State

University for their involvement in maintaining the Lab School as a place for adults to learn

English and as a state of the art research facility I would also like to thank Kathy Harris Sandra

Banke Reuel Kurzet Steve Reder Dominique Brillanceau and three anonymous readers for

their feedback on various versions of the paper

398 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

APPENDIX A

Some transcript conventions in conversation analysis (adapted from Schegloff

2000)

I Temporal and sequential relationships

[ Overlapping or simultaneous talk

frac14 lsquolatched utterancesrsquo no break or pause between utterances

(05) Numbers in parentheses indicate silence represented in tenths of a second

() A dot in parentheses indicates a lsquomicropausersquo

II Aspects of speech delivery including aspectsof intonation

period indicates a falling intonation contour not necessarily the end ofa sentence

question mark indicates rising intonation

a comma indicates lsquocontinuingrsquo intonation

Colons are used to indicate the prolongation or stretching of the soundjust preceding them The more colons the longer the stretching

- A hyphen after a word or part of a word indicates a cut-off or self-interruption word

Underlining is used to indicate some form of stress or emphasis either byincreased loudness or higher pitch The more underlining the greater theemphasis

The degree sign indicates that the talk following it was markedly quiet orsoft

The up and down arrows mark sharper rises or falls in pitch

45 The combination of lsquomore thanrsquo and lsquoless thanrsquo symbols indicates that thetalk between them is compressed or rushed

54 Used in the reverse order they can indicate that a stretch of talk ismarkedly slowed or drawn out

hhh Outbreath

hh Inbreath

(( )) Descriptions of events ((cough)) ((sniff)) ((telephone rings)) ((foot-steps))

(word) All or part of an utterance in parentheses indicates transcriber uncertainty

Creaky voice

NOTES

1 In order to get around the unwieldy

and theoretically-loaded terminology

for describing the use acquisition

and learning of a language that is

not the home or first language of the

participants of this study I will use

JOHN HELLERMANN 399

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

the abbreviation lsquoL2rsquo throughout the

paper to refer to a language that is

being attained through formal instruc-

tion For the students in this study

lsquoL2rsquo refers to English It may not be

however that English is these

studentsrsquo lsquosecondrsquo language as the

abbreviation implies

2 Students in the current study were in

lsquolevel Arsquo classes at the data collection

site SPL level 0ndash2

3 In Sustained Silent Reading

(McCracken 1971 Pilgreen 2000)

students are given a set time in the

classroom to read silently without

interruption by the teacher or other

students and without evaluation of

what is read and how it is read

The method was altered slightly at

the data collection site to meet the

needs of beginning adult language

learners and included activities

like post-reading re-telling activities

and studentsrsquo use of reading logs

to record their assessments of their

reading

4 The National Labsite for Adult ESOL

at Portland State University is sup-

ported in part by grant R309B6002

from the Institute for Education

Science US Dept of Education to

the National Center for the Study of

Adult Learning and Literacy The

Labsite is a partnership between

Portland State University and Portland

Community College The school

and research facilities are housed at

Portland State while the registration

curriculum and teachers of the

ESL students are from Portland

Community College

5 One reviewer asked about the inabil-

ity to see learnersrsquo eye gaze with

cameras embedded in the ceiling

While this is a problem when

students are sitting directly under

the two mobile cameras which

follow students wearing the wireless

microphones most often students

are sitting in a position where

studentsrsquo faces can be seen quite

directly For details of the data

collection see Reder et al (2003)

6 The Labsite Student Study (LSS)

conducts in-home interviews with a

subset of students in the lab school

(70 per year) in their home lan-

guages over the course of four

years regardless of whether the

student remains in lab school classes

or not The primary purpose of

the LSS study is to understand

language use and literacy develop-

ment outside the classroom context

and factors which influence program

persistence

7 All names used in this study are

pseudonyms

8 The teacher had different types of

books on a cart that she wheeled into

the room every class period She took

books off the cart and spread them

out on desks at the back of the room

9 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoselectsbookclass1]

10 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardohelping]

11 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoshowing]

12 Sarah Ouellette helped with the

Spanish transcription and provided

the translation to English Transcrip-

tion conventions are included in

Appendix A lsquoTrsquo indicates the class-

room teacher in all transcripts

13 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoexplaining]

400 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

14 At the time of this excerpt Eduardo

was a novice in Rederrsquos (1987) third

mode of literacy engagement

technical still struggling with basic

technical issues like decoding English

language lexicon

15 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Abbyreading]

16 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Abbynotetaking]

17 The classroom teachers noted the

frustration of doing mSSR with

students who have very low first

language literacy because of her

inability to help students organize

their reading in instances like note

taking (Banke and Brillanceau 2004)

18 A literacy assessment test (BEST

Literacy) was administered in the

classroom in terms one and two of

the mSSR program While the scores

increased for each learner for

Eduardo the increase is not as great

as Abbyrsquos Eduardorsquos overall literacy

score went from 35 in term one

to 42 in term two which is an

increase of one student performance

level (from 3 to 4) Abbyrsquos scores

increased from 45 in term one to

56 in term two which indicates

a jump from student performance

level 4 to 6 For information

on characteristics of student language

abilities at different student perfor-

mance levels (SPLs) see pp 5ndash6 of

wwwcalorgcaelaesl_resources

Part4-5pdf

19 One of the pedagogical advantages of

doing a dyadic re-telling in a lan-

guage classroom is that even if one

student doesnrsquot understand the

instructions for the task in an activity

like the mSSR the peerrsquos act of

posture shift moving a book into

a common space and looking

toward the partner strongly invite

collaboration in some interaction and

it is collaboration that is perhaps

the most important aspect of the

re-telling activity (Pilgreen 2000)

especially for language learners

20 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoopening1]

21 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoopening2]

22 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoorientsstorytelling]

23 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Abbyopening1]

24 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Abbypretasktalkterm2]

25 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Abbystartingretelling2]

26 While more empirical evidence is

warranted a provisional claim

can be mentioned here that such

re-telling activities and perhaps

in classroom pair activities in

general are organized with a two-

part move like that displayed in

(6) lsquoquery about readinessrsquo and

lsquoturn allocationrsquo before the first task

question

27 Notably absent from Abbyrsquos and

Eduardorsquos peer re-tellings are any

verbal greeting sequences Even

when one of the pair moves across

the room to sit with another student

Abby and Eduardo did not exchange

greetings with their partner for their

JOHN HELLERMANN 401

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

task This is something that other

students did as part of their openings

28 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoasksstudentforhelpfiling]

29 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoasksaboutfiling]

30 The assessment measures were the

BEST Plus and the Peabody Picture

Vocabulary tests

REFERENCES

Atkinson J M and J C Heritage 1984

Structures of Social Action Studies in Conversation

Analysis Cambridge Cambridge University Press

August G 2001 The Road to Second Language

Reading How do we get there Unpublished

PhD Dissertation City University of New York

New York

Banke S and D Brillanceu 2004 lsquoLiving

in Interventionrsquo Unpublished manuscript

Barton D (2001) lsquoDirections for literacy

research Analysing language and social practices

in a textually mediated worldrsquo Language and

Education 152ndash3 92ndash104

Bernhardt E B and M L Kamil 1995 lsquoInter-

preting relationships between L1 and L2 reading

Consolidating the linguistic threshold and the

linguistic interdependence hypothesesrsquo Applied

Linguistics 161 15ndash34

Bourdieu P 1991 Language and Symbolic Power

Cambridge MA Harvard University Press

Brandt D 1990 Literacy as Involvement The Acts

of Writers Readers and Texts Carbondale IL

Southern Illinois University Press

ButtonG andNCasey1984 lsquoGenerating topics

The use of topic initial elicitorsrsquo in J M Atkinson

and J C Heritage (eds) Structures of Social Action

Studies in Conversation Analysis Cambridge

Cambridge University Press

Canale M and M Swain 1980 lsquoTheoretical

bases of communicative approaches to second

language teaching and testingrsquoApplied Linguistics

1 1ndash47

Carrell P L 1991 lsquoSecond language reading

Reading ability or language proficiencyrsquo Applied

Linguistics 122 159ndash79

Chow P and C Chou 2000 Evaluating

Sustained Silent Reading in Reading Classes [Web]

I-TESL-J Available httpitesljorgArticlesChow-

mSSRhtml

Cole M J Gay J A Glick and D W Sharp

1971 The Cultural Context of Learning and Think-

ing An Exploration in Experimental Anthropology

New York Basic Books

Couper-Kuhlen E andMSelting 1996 Prosody

in Conversation Interactional Studies Cambridge

Cambridge University Press

Duff P 2002 lsquoThe discursive co-construction

of knowledge identity and difference An

ethnography of communication in the high

school mainstreamrsquo Applied Linguistics 233

289ndash322

Erickson F and J Schultz 1981 lsquoWhen is

a context Some issues and methods in the

analysis of social competencersquo in J Green and

C Wallat (eds) Ethnography and Language in

Educational Settings Norwood NJ Ablex

Felser C L Roberts T Marinis and R Gross

2003 lsquoThe processing of ambiguous sentences by

first and second language learners of Englishrsquo

Applied Psycholinguistics 243 453ndash89

Garfinkel H 1967 Studies in Ethnomethodology

Englewood Cliffs NJ Prentice Hall

Gee J P 1990 Social Linguistics and Literacies

Ideology in Discourses London Falmer Press

Goffman E 1959 The Presentation of Self

in Everyday Life New York Anchor Books

Doubleday

Goffman E 1961 Encounters Two Studies in

the Sociology of Interaction Indianapolis Bobbs-

Merrill

Goody J1977 TheDomestication of the SavageMind

Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Grabe W and F L Stoller 1997 lsquoReading and

vocabulary development in a second language

A case studyrsquo in J Coady and T Huckin (eds)

Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition A

Rationale for Pedagogy Cambridge Cambridge

University Press

402 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

Gumperz J J 1982 Discourse Strategies

Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Habermas J1976 lsquoSome distinctions in universal

pragmatics A working paperrsquo Theory and Society

32 155ndash67

Hall J K 1993 lsquoThe role of oral practices in

the accomplishment of our everyday lives

The sociocultural dimension of interaction

with implications for the learning of

another languagersquo Applied Linguistics 142

145ndash66

Hall J K 1995 lsquo lsquolsquoAw man where you goinrsquorsquorsquo

Classroom interaction and the development

of L2 interactional competencersquo Issues in Applied

Linguistics 62 37ndash62

Hall JK1997 lsquoA consideration of SLA as a theory

of practice A response to Firth and Wagnerrsquo

Modern Language Journal 813 301ndash306

He A W and R Young 1998 lsquoLanguage

proficiency interviews A discourse approachrsquo in

R Young and A W He (eds) Talking and Testing

Discourse Approaches to the Assessment of Oral

Proficiency Amsterdam John Benjamins

Heath S B 1982 lsquoWhat no bedtime story means

Narrative skills at home and schoolrsquo Language

in Society 11 49ndash76

Heath S B 1983 Ways with Words Language

Life and Work in Communities and Classrooms

Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Hellermann J 2004 lsquoPractices for opening dyadic

interactionrsquo paper presented at the annual

conference of the American Association for

Applied Linguistics Portland OR

Hellermann J forthcoming lsquoThe development of

practices for action in the classroom diadic

interaction focus on task openingsrsquo Modern

Language Journal

Hood S and H Joyce 1995 lsquoReading in the

adult ESL curriculum and classroomrsquo Prospect

102 52ndash64

Hymes D 1974 Foundations in Sociolinguistics

An Ethnographic Approach Philadelphia

University of Pennsylvania Press

Kramsch C 1986 lsquoFrom language proficiency

to interactional competencersquo Modern Language

Journal 70 372ndash66

Kramsch C 2002 lsquoHow can we tell the dancer

from the dancersquo in C Kramsch (ed) Language

Acquisition and Language Socialization An ecological

approach London Continuum

Lave J and E Wenger 1991 Situated Learning

Legitimate Peripheral Participation Cambridge

Cambridge University Press

Lerner G H 1995 lsquoTurn design and the organiza-

tion of participation in instructional activitiesrsquo

Discourse Processes 19 111ndash31

MacBethD2003 lsquoHugh MehanrsquosLearning Lessons

reconsidered On the differences between the

naturalistic and critical analysis of classroom

discoursersquo American Educational Research Journal

401 239ndash80

McCraken R A 1971 lsquoInitiating sustained silent

readingrsquo Journal of Reading 148 521ndash4 582ndash3

McDermott R and D Roth 1978 lsquoThe social

organization of behavior Interactional

approachesrsquo Annual Review of Anthropology 7

321ndash45

Markee N 2000 Conversation Analysis Marwah

NJ Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

Ochs E and B Schieffelin 1979 Developmental

Pragmatics New York Academic Press

Ochs E E A Schegloff and S A Thompson

1996 Interaction and Grammar Cambridge

Cambridge University Press

Ong W J 1982 Orality and Literacy The Technolo-

gizing of the Word London Routledge

Palacios I G 2002 An ESLLiteracy Center

A qualitative study of perspectives and practices

of immigrant adults and literacy facilitators

Unpublished PhD Dissertation Indiana

University Pennsylvania Indiana PA

Pilgreen J L 2000 The SSR Handbook How to

Organize and Manage a Sustained Silent Reading

Program Portsmouth NH BoyntonCook

Pulido D 2003 lsquoModeling the role of second

language proficiency and topic familiarity

in second language incidental vocabulary

acquisition through readingrsquo Language Learning

532 233ndash84

Reder S 1987 lsquoComparative aspects of functional

literacy development Three ethnic American

communitiesrsquo in D Wagner (ed) The Future

of Literacy in a Changing World Oxford Pergamon

Press

Reder S 1994 lsquoPractice engagement theory

A sociocultural approach to literacy across

languages and culturersquo in B M Ferdman

R M Weber and A G Ramırez (eds) Literacy

Across Languages and Cultures Albany NY State

University of New York Press

Reder S and E Davila (2005) lsquoContext

and literacy practicesrsquo Annual Review of Applied

Linguistics 25 170ndash87

Reder S K A Harris and K Setzler 2003

lsquoA multimedia adult learner corpusrsquo TESOL

Quarterly 373 546ndash57

JOHN HELLERMANN 403

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

Reder S K A Harris R Kurzet

D Brillanceau S Banke and JHellermann

forthcoming Using a modified Sustained Silent

Reading for low-level adult ESOL students

Boston National Center for the Study of Adult

Learning and Literacy

Sacks H E A Schegloff and G Jefferson

1974 lsquoA simplest systematics for the organiza-

tion of turn-taking for conversationsrsquo Language

504 696ndash735

Sagarra N 2000 The longitudinal role of working

memory on adult acquisition of L2 grammar

Unpublished PhD Dissertation University of

Illinois Urbana-Champaign

Schegloff E A 1968 lsquoSequencing in conversa-

tional openingsrsquo American Anthropologist 70

1075ndash95

Schegloff E A 1980 lsquoPreliminaries to prelimin-

aries lsquolsquoCan I ask you a questionrsquorsquo rsquo Sociological

Inquiry 50 104ndash52

Schegloff E A 1998 lsquoReflections on studying

prosody in talk-in-interactionrsquo Language and

Speech 413ndash4 235ndash63

Schegloff E A 2000 lsquoOverlapping talk and the

organization of turn-making for conversationrsquo

Language in Society 291 1ndash63

Schegloff E A 2002 lsquoOpening sequencingrsquo

in J E Katz and M Aakhus (eds) Perpetual

Contact Mobile Communication Private Talk Public

Performance Cambridge Cambridge University

Press

Schegloff E A and H Sacks 1973 lsquoOpening up

closingsrsquo Semiotica 8 289ndash327

Schieffelin B B and Ochs E (1986) lsquoLanguage

socializationrsquo Annual Review of Anthropology 15

163ndash91

Scribner S and M Cole 1981 The Psychology of

Literacy Cambridge MA Harvard University

Press

Segalowitz N C Poulsen and M Komoda

1991 lsquoLower level components of reading skill in

higher level bilinguals Implications for reading

instructionrsquo AILA Review 8 15ndash30

Streeck J 1983 Social Order in Child Communica-

tion Amsterdam John Benjamins

Streeck J and S Mihus 2005 lsquoMicroethno-

graphy The study of practicesrsquo In K L Fitch

and R E Sanders (eds) The Handbook of

Language and Social Interaction Marwah NJ

Lawrence Erlbaum

Street B 1998 lsquoNew literacies in theory

and practice What are the implications for

language in educationrsquo Linguistics and Education

10 1ndash24

Street B V 2001 Literacy and Development

Ethnographic perspectives London Routledge

Tang H 1997 lsquoThe relationship between reading

comprehension processes in L1 and L2rsquo Reading

Psychology 183 249ndash301

Treville M C 1996 lsquoLexical learning and reading

in L2 at the beginner level The advantage of

cognatesrsquo The Canadian Modern Language Review

531 173ndash90

Van Lier L 2000 lsquoFrom input to affordance

Social-interactive learning from an ecological

perspectiversquo in J Lantolf (ed) Sociocultural

Theory and Second Language Learning Oxford

Oxford University Press

van Lier L 2002 lsquoAn ecological-semiotic

perspective on language and linguisticsrsquo in

C Kramsch (ed) Language Acquisition and

Language Socialization An ecological approach

London Continuum

Wenger J 1998 Communities of Practice Learning

Meaning and Identity Cambridge Cambridge

University Press

Yang J 2000 lsquoOrthographic effect on word

recognition by learners of Chinese as a Foreign

Languagersquo Journal of the Chinese Language

Teachers Association 352 1ndash18

YoungR1999 lsquoSociolinguistic approaches toSLArsquo

Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 19 105ndash32

Young R 2000 lsquoInteractional competence

Challenges for validityrsquo Paper presented at the

annual conference of the American Association

for Applied Linguistics Vancouver BC

Young R F 2002 lsquoDiscourse approaches to oral

language assessmentrsquo Annual Review of Applied

Linguistics 22 243ndash62

404 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

Page 7: Classroom Interactive Practices for Developing L2 Literacy: A Microethnographic Study of Two Beginning Adult Learners of English

his desk achieved that goal in an efficient way However by week 4 of the

mSSR activity during the book selection Eduardo got out of his seat to look

at the books without hesitation and began to take some time in the selection

process He looked through the collection of books before choosing one to

read and even changed books during the silent reading period showing the

development of an understanding of the discriminating part of the task of

choosing a book Throughout the second and third terms of the mSSR

Eduardo often looked through several different books at his desk during the

silent reading period and sometimes even selected a book to read that he had

brought to class Such a change in book selection practices may display

Eduardorsquos greater discernment of quality or appropriateness of reading

material in the L2 or at least his interest in particular material It also could

show how Eduardorsquos low-level reading skills made the task of staying with

one book and actually reading that one book (which the teacher asked

learners to try to do) somewhat tiresome

Eduardorsquos increased level of participation in this literacy event was made

possible by the daily recurrence of the activity and his hearing the

instructions repeated by the teacher on a daily basis while seeing his peers

perform the task of book selection in every class period By being part of

the interaction in the classroom community of practice Eduardo was able

to move from having somewhat limited participation in the event in the

beginning of the first term of the mSSR (selecting a book without looking

at it) to more complete participation by the end of the term

By the first day of the second term of the mSSR in a class which was

made up of a few newcomers to the school and to the mSSR activity we see

that Eduardo had become socialized into the practices for the mSSR and

displayed expert status in the mSSR activity by being the first learner to

stand up and select a book after the teacherrsquos invitation After arriving at the

book cart he even helped the teacher set out the books to aid in the

selection process10 As the teacher instructed the new learners to take just

one book Eduardo held up and pointed to a book to simultaneously model

the teacherrsquos instructions for the new learners11 When he returned to his

desk after selecting his own book he even explained to a new learner what

the book selection and the mSSR activity entailed While the first two

displays of expertise were non-verbal (helping the teacher display the books

and modeling the selection of one book) Excerpt (1) shows Eduardo

explaining the mSSR to a new learner

(1)12

[1-6ndash03 A 204 20315mdash20359 Term II week 1]13

1 E ((looking to new class member)) one book

2 (20)

3 E es que todos los dias trienta minutos eh ponse

itrsquos that every the day thirty minutes she puts

every day for thirty minutes she puts

JOHN HELLERMANN 383

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

4 pon allı is every day thirty minutes reading

put there

there

5 para leer para por lo que no entiendas o lo

for read for for the what no you understand or the

read for what you donrsquot understand or

6 que quieres tu saber ella te lo dice puedes notar

what you want you to know she to you it tell you can write

what you want to know she can tell it to you to write down

7 N ( )

8 E Sı especialmente para practicar si para la persona

yes especially for practice if for the person

yes especially to practice if for the person

9 para lo que no puedes entender

for the what no you can understand

for what you canrsquot understand

10 que quieres saber tu que es ella te dice mhm

that you want to know you what it she to you tells mhm

what you want to know is what she tells you

11 dice sin verguenza que preguntarle porque ella

she says without embarrassment that to ask her because she

she says to ask without embarrassment because she

12 la pagane y la verguenza por eso venimos

the they pay and the embarrassment is why we come

the they pay her and the embarrassment is why we come

13 porque no sabemos

because no we know

because we donrsquot know

Eduardorsquos display of expertise and his offering support to a newcomer to the

class (Wenger 1998 Duff 2002) shows the social nature of classroom literacy

events The practices for literacy of the mSSR are embedded in several social

contexts in this case the classroom (Eduardo as learner expert) and a

linguisticcultural (Eduardo as Spanish speaking peer) Eduardorsquos social

interaction for this literacy event was accomplished in two languages

Eduardo mentions the core features of the mSSR (one book everyday thirty

minutes and reading) in the language of instruction while his interpretation of

the activity and his understanding of the teacherrsquos role are given in the

language he shares with his peer (Spanish) Eduardorsquos use of English

oriented to the language of the task and purpose of the task itself while his

use of Spanish fit the immediate social context of the literacy activity

Eduardo helping a Spanish-speaking newcomer to the English language class

384 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

This example shows Eduardo working through two of Rederrsquos (1987) three

modes of engagement with literacy functional and social14 In this act of

offering help to a newcomer Eduardo displays his functional engagement

with the mSSR literacy event by helping the teacher set out books and

modeling the practice of choosing a book His awareness of the mSSR event

as beneficial and one in which the entire class engages motivates him to give

instructions to a newcomer to the classroom community in that learnerrsquos L1

with key terms for the task in English displaying a social engagement with

literacy

While these observations of book selection and reading behavior do not

make claims about the development of decoding skills lexical acquisition

or memory and cognitive skills enhanced by L2 literacy development this

micro-ethnographic approach does uncover the habitus (Bourdieu 1991) of

the L2 literacy development in the classroom that is the behavioral practices

which establish a context in which other code-related skills become possible

In the book selection literacy event we see evidence of Eduardo moving

from peripheral to full participation (Lave and Wenger 1991) in his greater

discrimination in book selection The ability for Eduardo to explain the mSSR

activity to a newcomer to the class also shows the concomitant developing

interactional competence through socialization into classroom literacy events

By the end of three terms of attending classes which included the mSSR

activity Eduardo has acquired some of the social processes within the

context of the classroom community that involve him (Brandt 1990) in

literacy

In contrast to Eduardo presumably because of the literate practices learned

in her first language and culture for Abby socialization into L2 book

selection and reading perseverance was something that required less time In

her first mSSR session after the teacherrsquos instructions about selecting a book

Abby was the first learner to get out of her seat and go to the book cart

At the book cart she picked out one book and skimmed through it before

returning it She selected a second book looked through it briefly took the

book back to her seat and kept it for the entire period At the end of the class

period after the teacher suggested that students could reserve their book for

the next class period by putting a name card in the book Abby did this

highlighting her ability to engage with a text from the first day of the mSSR

This type of engagement with the text (book selection and reserving the book

for the next class period) contrasts notably with Eduardorsquos indiscriminate

book selection on the first day of the mSSR

Other evidence that Abby was able to take advantage of her experience

with L1 literacy was her use of several strategies for reading that Eduardo

did not use during the silent reading period These included the use of an

electronic dictionary to help her understand unfamiliar words and quietly

reading to herself during the time for silent reading15 The use of the

dictionary was part of systematic note taking by Abby who wrote out

unfamiliar words in columns in her notebook with the Chinese equivalents

JOHN HELLERMANN 385

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

next to them16 These skills were done without instruction from the

teacher and displayed her self-directed strategies for acquiring the L2 lexicon

While Eduardo also wrote in his notebook he usually wrote out full

sentences and phrases Watching him writing and seeing his notebooks from

time to time on camera I observed that Eduardo did not display the

experience of taking notes nor the strategic language learning skills that

Abby exhibited Conversations with the classroom teachers also suggest that

Eduardorsquos notes were not helpful to him because of their unsystematic

nature17 While Eduardo did begin using a dictionary in term three

regarding the mechanics of decoding written text the evidence suggests that

Abbyrsquos educational background played a large role in allowing her to

participate more completely from the start in the silent reading than

Eduardo18

Opening the post-reading story re-telling

Research in conversation analysis has explored how conversationalists

start their social interactions through orderly practices in their talk

(Schegloff 1968 1998 2002 Schegloff and Sacks 1973 Button and Casey

1984) While this line of research has focused on native speaker interaction

adult learners of English face the same fundamental problem as native

speakersmdashhow to get an interaction underway Adult learners of English

may bring a repertoire of strategies for social interaction from their life

experiences in other languages and cultures but whether adult learners of a

language as socially competent adults bring a sense of universal pragmatics

(Habermas 1976) to the classroom is an ongoing empirical question The

study of interaction in the context of adult learners using a lingua franca to

start activities provides a rich environment for the exploration of basic turn-

taking and conversational practices used in institutional settings

After the thirty minutes of silent reading another regular task in the

mSSR activity was peer re-telling in which the teacher instructed learners

(sometimes supplying question prompts) to tell their deskmate something

about the book they had just been reading The evidence gathered from the

two adult learners of English in this analysis suggests that differences in a

level of interactional competence in the L2 can be seen in the way the

learners engage in basic conversational skills such as opening an interaction

Two notable differences between these two learners are seen in the overt

negotiation over interlocutor selection and turn allocation at the beginning of

a task and the orientation to other activities that they are in the process of

finishing up Abbyrsquos interactions are characterized by opening moves which

display a greater range of linguistic and pragmatic skills than Eduardorsquos

Her opening moves also display notable development over the course of

three terms in the mSSR classes

A crucial first step to interaction in this literacy event for learners without

a large repertoire of linguistic code skills is the achievement of mutual

386 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

physical orientation for doing dyadic interaction19 Highly proficient speakers

of a language have a range of speech acts which they can use to subtly gain

a partnerrsquos attention while beginning learners almost without exception

rely on mutual physical orientation and object manipulation to start

their dyadic interactions (Hellermann 2004 2005) Eduardo and Abby also

both accomplished these subtle alignments for opening their re-telling

activities unproblematically in most instances Coordinating a mutual

physical orientation for re-telling entails the participants shifting their

posture slightly toward one another moving their books into a shared

space for re-telling and pointing to items in their books The interactions

between Eduardo and Lai Min another student in Excerpts (2) and (3)

occur at the beginning of Eduardorsquos second term in the mSSR The excerpts

are presented to show Eduardorsquos perseverance in opening this particular

literacy event demonstrating how he sees the establishment of mutual

orientation to a space for re-telling to be a necessary part of the re-telling

(Excerpt 2) and highlighting his manipulation of the books themselves

(Excerpt 3) as objects which are fundamental to the accomplishment of this

literacy event

(2)

[A2ndash13ndash03 204 24800 Term II week 6]20

1 T you need to speak to Eduardo

2 E ((taps Lai Min on shoulder and waves his hands motioning her

3 to move toward him))

4 L yeah ((leans back turns head slightly toward Eduardo))

5 E ((pages through his book))

6 L ((looks down to her book looks around class looks over

7 at E leans a little bit toward E))

8 L ((looks away from E)) [((leans forward away from E))

9 E [((looks toward L)) ((puts down his

10 book takes off glasses))

In (2) after the teacherrsquos directive to Lai Min to do the re-telling activity

with Eduardo (line 1) Eduardo makes a clear non-verbal summons

(shoulder tap) and invitation (waving motion) to Lai Min to begin the

re-telling activity in lines 2ndash3 Lai Min makes a minimal verbal and non-

verbal response (line 4) as Eduardo looks in his book Then as Eduardo is

paging through his book Lai Min looks at her own book looks around the

class looks to Eduardo and then looks away Lai Min does not make any

verbal moves to start the interaction and her visual orientation to various

places does not focus on an interaction space Besides the slight head

turn (line 4) and slight lean toward Eduardo (line 7) there is no clear

postural alignment to the space between herself and Eduardo When

Eduardo stops paging through his book and looks to Lai Min in line 9

JOHN HELLERMANN 387

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

he sees that her posture is not aligned to a mutual re-telling space and

he takes off his glasses and puts down his book seemingly aborting the

re-telling sequence

(3)

[A2ndash13ndash03 204 24835 Term II week 6]21

11 L ((looks at Ersquos book looks at board)) tee shuh ss tee shup

12 E ((opens another book)) ((puts book mark in it and closes it))

13 L ((looks at E))

14 E ((puts on glasses))

15 L ((opens her book))

16 E ((opens the second book points to something in the book))

17 L ((looks toward E))

18 E ( )

19 L ((L leans in toward E looking at book))

20 E Saigon Saigone Saigone

21 L ((points to Ersquos book)) Saigon

22 E Saigon Vietnam

23 L uh

24 E Saigone Vietname S( ) Vietnam

25 L mm

26 E Saigone

27 L Saigon ((leans away from E))

28 E ((looks at Lrsquos book and reads something from it)) [(prayer)

29 L [((moves her

30 book toward E))

In (3) after this aborted opening Lai Min appears to read something from

the board out loud (line 11) while Eduardo handles another book on the

table in front of him After Lai Min glances at Eduardo in line 13 Eduardo

puts on his glasses opens the book he has just been handling and points to

something in the book (line 16) which Lai Min orients to by leaning

in toward Eduardo to look at the page to which he is pointing After some

back and forth repetition of the word Eduardo is pointing to (Saigon) Lai Min

ends the focus on Eduardorsquos book by leaning away from the common

interactional space (line 27) Eduardo takes this as a cue to switch roles and

to now share information from Lai Minrsquos book In line 28 Eduardo reads

something from Lai Minrsquos book and she moves it closer to him to aid his

reading

While Extracts (2) and (3) show Eduardo initiating openings for the

re-telling literacy event and non-verbally orienting to the interaction with his

peer he was usually not the most verbally-active participant in his dyadic

388 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

interactions for re-telling When he self-selected to start a re-telling it was

when there were long pauses or notable lack of initiation from his partner

(as in (2) and (3)) By the end of term two of the mSSR however there

is evidence of Eduardo making a reciprocal verbal elicitation for a re-telling

As Excerpt (4) shows after finishing his own re-telling and completing

a closing sequence to that telling (lines 4ndash7) Eduardo reciprocates in eliciting

a re-telling from his partner (line 8)

(4)

[B 5ndash13ndash03 23601 term III week 7]22

1 E fis

2 J flying fish ((flapping left hand like flying))

3 E this is flying fi[s() this (of the)

4 J [yeah yeah yeah yeah

5 J mm mm

6 E mm hmm

7 J mm hmm

8 E what is your

9 (20) ((J picks up his book))

10 J eh (started started) this story

11 E the mountain the mountain ((reads Jrsquos book cover))

While the elicitation in line 8 is abbreviated Eduardorsquos partner (Jin) orients

to line 8 as an elicitation by picking up his own book (line 9) and beginning

his re-telling (line 10) As Jin starts the re-telling Eduardo orients to the title

of the book as an important part of the re-telling event by reading the title of

Jinrsquos book (line 11)

Two aspects of the openings for the re-tellings that the other focal student

of this study Abby displayed but that did not occur in Eduardorsquos interactions

were her pre-activity talk checking on whether the peer was ready to do

the task and then talk about interlocutor assignment for the activity

Abby became more active in initiating these opening moves over the course

of the three terms of the mSSR Excerpts (5)ndash(7) show examples of this

development In (5) which comes from the very beginning of the second

term in the mSSR we see Abby interact with Fernando but not initiate the

interaction

(5)

[1-10ndash03 B 24452 Term II week 2]23

1 F whose talk to me

2 (10) ((Fernando facing Abby Abby turns to Fernando))

3 F ((to Abby)) you oh

4 (25)

JOHN HELLERMANN 389

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

5 F hhyeah okay

6 ((Abby sneezes))

7 F bless you () god bless you a[gain

8 A [thank you

9 F again [god bless you

10 A [huh hah hah [uh hih hih hih hih hhuh

11 F [eh huh heh heh heah

12 (20)

13 F what () is your book

14 A eh () my book is () my my book is easy () easy story press

15 F oh press [mm hmm

16 A [yeah ease story pres[s

17 F [eh

18 (35)

19 A what is (your) story

In line 1 Fernando makes the first verbal move to establish the peer

dyad and achieve mutual physical orientation asking about a partner

and after a sequence involving sneezing in line 13 Fernando asks the

first elicitation question for the activity Abby responds to each elicitation

non-verbally in line 2 and with the title of her book in line 14 Abby orients

to the activity of finding out about one anotherrsquos books by asking

the reciprocal question more specifically asking about Fernandorsquos lsquostoryrsquo in

line 19

The next example of one of Abbyrsquos opening move sequences comes from

the fifth week of the second term of the mSSR Excerpt (6) shows Abby

engaging in more pre-task opening talk (lines 3 and 6) interlocutor selection

(line 8) and the launch of the task (line 10)

(6)

[2703 B 204 24353 Term II week 5]24

1 T you need to talk ladies

2 (10)

3 Ab todayrsquos uh February ((looks to Ana then back to notebook))

4 An ((shifts posture toward Abby))

5 (70)

6 Ab seventh

7 (140) ((both ss write)

8 Ab I talk to you ((turning to Ana))

9 (250) ((Ana continues writing))

10 Ab my () my book uh life story one

11 (20)

12 An ((shifts posture a bit to A))

390 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

13 Ab are you finished

14 An go (go ahead) please () where is () where is your story

After the teacher exhorts the learners (line 1) to begin their pair task

(the story re-telling) Abby announces the date and after Ana shifts her

posture toward Abby proposes the pair assignment (line 8) Since the

learners sit at desks in pairs the pair assignment is somewhat of a given so

Abbyrsquos turn in line 8 may also act as a proposal for turn allocation If

interlocutor assignment is relatively self-evident the turn lsquoI talk to yoursquo is at

least a move to attempt to get Ana to enter the interaction and may be an

explicit move to tell Ana that she Abby is starting the activity There is no

uptake by Ana after this proposal and after a rather long pause (line 9) Abby

launches the task self-selecting to re-tell her story first When there is no

verbal uptake by Ana in line 11 after Abbyrsquos turn Abby orients to her

partnerrsquos preparation for the task and asks if Ana has finished (line 13) her

preparatory work (writing notes) Ana orients to Abbyrsquos question as a pre-

request to check whether Ana is ready to start her re-telling by encouraging

Abby to continue directly eliciting information about the location of her

story in line 14

The final excerpt from the third term of the mSSR illustrates Abbyrsquos further

development of interactional practices for opening the re-telling activity In (7)

while Inez is writing in her notebook Abby shifts her posture to Inez and asks

a question (line 2) which is preliminary to a question for the assigned activity

(7)

[5-9ndash03 B 206 24121 Term III week 7]25

((Teacherrsquos prompt for the interaction lsquoDo you like books about a story or

information what kind of book are you reading nowrsquo))

1 A ((shifts posture toward Inez))

2 I are you ready

3 (70) ((Inez is writing in her notebook))

4 I yeah sorry

5 (30)

6 I ((re-positions her posture to face Abby then gestures with

7 right hand pointing to Abby and back to herself))

8 (30)

9 A ((Abby looks at the board and reads the question)) what type

10 of a book are you reading now

11 ((Inez begins her re-telling))

While Abbyrsquos question in line 2 orients to the necessity of the completion of

the preparatory work for the re-telling literacy event it also works as part

of the opening for the re-telling task itself Inez finishes writing in her

notebook and orients to Abbyrsquos question as an opening to the assigned

JOHN HELLERMANN 391

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

re-telling task by answering Abbyrsquos question and apologizing for not starting

immediately (line 4) After Inez repositions her body and non-verbally

initiates a negotiation of turn allocation for the re-telling (lines 6 and 7)

Abby self-selects to elicit the re-telling from Inez by reading one of the

teacherrsquos prompts from the board (lines 9ndash10)

Abbyrsquos socialization to the mSSR re-telling activity can be seen in the

development of opening moves in the re-telling interactions with her peers

in Excerpts (5)ndash(7) The interaction from earlier in the mSSR (Excerpt (5))

shows Abby not actively initiating dyad assignment pre-task talk and task

launch In terms two and three the excerpts show her more actively

involved in starting these re-telling activities Her task-preliminary organiza-

tional talk and task launching later in the second and third terms of the

mSSR suggest that she is now more comfortable with the re-telling literacy

event and with the language as a whole

These excerpts of Abbyrsquos interaction in the re-telling literacy events show

two common moves by more advanced learners for opening dyadic

interactions (Hellermann 2004 forthcoming) the orientation to the previous

task completion (in Excerpt (6) lsquoare you finishedrsquo and Excerpt (7) lsquoare you

readyrsquo) and interlocutor selection (in Excerpt (6) lsquoI talk to yoursquo) As other

research in conversation shows such moves for opening talk enable

participants to work out basic features of talk-in-interaction such as avoiding

simultaneous talk and ensuring that the talk about to happen is the start of

something new not from the previous topic (Button and Casey 1984)26

The interactions by Abby and Eduardo in the re-telling literacy events also

show evidence for the learnersrsquo development of interactional competence

through their socialization into literacy events27 While both Abby and

Eduardo orient to the beginnings of the re-telling events creating spaces for

appropriate mutual participation for the event from the start of the mSSR

we see evidence for a change in their participation in the re-telling events

over the course of the three terms of the mSSR Eduardo uses a speech act

(lsquowhat is yourrsquo) in a more sophisticated modality (verbal rather than non-

verbal) to reciprocate an elicitation for a re-telling in his interaction with Jin

in Excerpt (4) In Abbyrsquos later interactions she explicitly orients to the

boundaries of the events by inquiring as to her partnersrsquo readiness to

participate (Excerpts (5) and (6)) and negotiates roles for participation

(Excerpt (6) lsquoI talk to yoursquo) and turn allocation (Excerpts (6) and (7))

Learner reading logs and filing of reading logs

A basic literacy skill activity that the teacher built into the mSSR classes was

having learners chart their reading activity in a reading log and then file their

own reading logs alphabetically in a file box at the end of every lesson In

the third class period of the first term some evidence of Eduardorsquos lack of

basic literacy skills appeared during the filing activity Near the end of this

class period the teacher asked learners to put their reading logs into a file

392 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

box organized by their first names Eduardo and another learner went to

the file box at the front of the room and stood by the box with their reading

logs looking for the appropriate place to put the logs After some time

Eduardo looked over to Carla (a learner from Brazil) and held out his right

hand palm up Carla oriented to this gesture as a request for help and got out

of her seat to help the two learners showing them the place in the files to

put their logs28 A bit later in this class period as the learners were packing

up to leave the class Eduardo solicited the teacherrsquos help in understanding

the name of the process of filing (Excerpt (8)) In so doing he is building on

the co-constructed filing practice with his classmate

(8)

[10-3ndash02 A 204 25149 Term I week 2]29

1 E want to ask (you something) ((walking to file box))

2 T yes you want to ask me something

3 E somebody ((puts hand in file box then touches head)) somebody

4 T file

5 E file file

6 T uh huh this is what () please file file you papers

In Exerpt (8) Eduardo is standing next to the teacher and utters a

pre-question (Schegloff 1980) in line 1 as he walks to the file box Once at

the box in line 3 he says lsquosomebodyrsquo a bare noun phrase which projects a

predicate Eduardo produces that predicate by modeling the relevant action

a hypothetical learner filing a paper This is followed by a gesture of his

hand to his head (which Eduardo commonly used to indicate that he did not

remember a particular word in English) and a repetition of the same bare

noun phrase In line 4 the teacher orients to Eduardorsquos talk as a request for

a word to name the action of putting the reading log into the box The fact

that this interaction is elicited by Eduardo shortly after his request for help

from Carla suggests that Carla may have helped him put the reading log

in the right place but did not give Eduardo the English word for that action

It is Eduardorsquos interactions with both a peer and with the teacher which

help him co-construct a name for this literacy event

While Eduardorsquos success in filing his reading log was sporadic throughout

the rest of this first term at the beginning of the next term on the first day

of class the teacher explained again that the reading logs were to be filed

alphabetically She explained and modeled this while standing next to the

file box to assist learners After explaining and modeling the procedure to the

class she reminded Eduardo again several minutes later lsquoyou need to put this

[reading log] away young manrsquo Several minutes after that Eduardo held up

his reading log showing it to the teacher as other learners were going to the

file box to file their logs She responded affirmatively and Eduardo went to

the file box The teacher said his name Eduardo said lsquoersquo (the first letter of his

JOHN HELLERMANN 393

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

first name) and put the reading log in the appropriate place in the file box

Having participated in one term of the mSSR and the literacy event of filling

in and filing reading logs (the term in which it was just noted that he was

given support by a peer and the teacher) the reinforcement of the rules the

modeling by the teacher as well as the personal reminder and reassurance

given by the teacher guided Eduardo into full participation in this literacy

event Later in this second term and in the third term as well Eduardo

was able to file the log independently By the beginning of the third term

(4103) he was also able to tell a newcomer to the class the purpose of the

reading log

Based on conversations with his teachers the evidence from his reading

logs and his interactions with other learners in the re-telling literacy event

Eduardo seemed to have developed a genuine interest in and enthusiasm for

reading In a more complex literacy skill involving the reading logs there is

evidence that Eduardo developed the ability to orally evaluate the books

he read adopting a term introduced by the teacher to describe several of

his books lsquoso-sorsquo In the later part of the first term of the mSSR Eduardorsquos

reading log was sporadically filled in and he wrote in Spanish for the

assessment portion of the log (Figure 1)

By the second term of the mSSR Eduardo was reading some books during

the silent reading period in class for four class periods in a row (an indication

of persistence and interest) and assessed one book (The Orange Grove) in his

reading log as lsquovery goodrsquo Through this assessment Eduardo displayed

part of a personal identity as a literate person in English But even by the

third term of the mSSR classes Eduardo did not elaborate on the assessments

of his books as the reading log prompted learners to do In a row at the top

of the reading log learners were to answer the question lsquoDid you like it

[the book]rsquo and then write why The teacher provided another written

prompt in the box that learners checked for a positive assessment lsquoYes

because rsquo In this place though Eduardo always indicated that he liked the

Figure 1 Part of Eduardorsquos reading log from the first term of the mSSR

394 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

books that he read he did not specify why he liked them giving evidence

of the limitations of his ability to evaluate his reading (as Figure 2 shows)

In contrast to Eduardo Abby did not have trouble filing her reading log

On the day the teacher explained to learners how they should file their

reading logs she used Abby as an example lsquoFor example Abby file your

paper under lsquolsquoArsquorsquo for Abbyrsquo In subsequent class periods Abby displayed

competence at filing her reading log in the appropriate slot in the file box

The content of Abbyrsquos reading logs also differed from Eduardorsquos in notable

ways Where Eduardo always checked the box marked lsquoeasyrsquo when

evaluating the level of difficulty of the books he read in most cases Abby

checked the lsquojust rightrsquo box and just a few times the box marked lsquoeasyrsquo for

the books she read Figure 3 shows one of her reading logs from the third

term of the mSSR

The notations in Abbyrsquos reading log in Figure 3 suggest that she was

choosing books that were appropriate to her ability (the box labeled

lsquojust rightrsquo is marked consistently) Also Abby was able to give some detail

(although limited) when prompted by the teacher for the reasons behind

her assessment of a book In response to the teacherrsquos written prompt on

the reading log lsquoyes I liked it because rsquo Abby had two responses she used

lsquoyes I did because interestingrsquo or lsquoyes I did because easyrsquo Abby indicated

Figure 2 Part of Eduardorsquos reading log from the third term of the mSSR

JOHN HELLERMANN 395

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

these more expanded assessments both in the second and third terms of the

mSSR classes

An important question for research on language socialization and

interactional competence in a classroom setting is to what degree these

processes result in increased engagement with literacy outside the classroom

A telling insight gained from the learnersrsquo in-home L1 interviews suggests

that for both these learners the socialization into literacy events in the

classroom lead to increased participation in literacy outside the classroom

In the interviews conducted with each learner before the start of the mSSR

treatment when asked what and how much they read in English for

pleasure Abby indicated that she read student picture books for ninety

minutes a week Eduardo reported reading newspapers for thirty minutes

a week In interviews conducted in June of 2004 after the learnersrsquo

completed their participation in the mSSR Abby reported reading

newspapers and books for 7 hours a week and Eduardo newspapers and

magazines for 2 hours a week Along with the development of interactive

practices in classroom literacy events highlighted in this paper these findings

show a remarkable increase in these learnersrsquo engagement with literacy

outside the classroom and evidence of their emerging identities as individuals

literate in English

Figure 3 Part of Abbyrsquos reading log from the third term of the mSSR

396 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

CONCLUSIONS

The findings uncovered in this study show two learnersrsquo development of

interactional competence through their socialization into classroom literacy

events This socialization occurred through the learnersrsquo engagement in

discursive practices in repeated literacy events which were part of a modified

sustained silent reading program The discursive practices for the literacy

events occurred within the context of the entire classroom community of

practice (Wenger 1998) and afforded learners the opportunities to move from

peripheral to more full participation in English literacy This community of

practice included (1) the teachers who provided instructions and support for

the activities through explicit instruction and modeling (2) learner peers

who also modeled appropriate interactive and language behavior and were

the interlocutors with whom some of the literacy practices were negotiated

and (3) the texts themselves which became a mediating object the third

part in a triadic dialogue for literacy (van Lier 2002) comprised of learnerndash

teacherndashtext or learnerndashlearnerndashtext

While neither learner had studied English formally before enrolling in

classes at the Lab School this study shows that Abby the learner with a high

school education from her home country was familiar with some of the

practices for literacy events including alphabetical filing book selection

and book assessment This research also showed that over the course of

three terms doing the mSSR activities Abby developed a wider range of

interactional practices for opening the dyadic interactions involved in the

story re-telling

Eduardo on the other hand began his participation in the mSSR activities

with much less experience with classroom literacy events having had just

two years of education in his home country The literacy events which were

part of the mSSR afforded Eduardo (van Lier 2000) the opportunity to

engage with literacy and by participating at first peripherally Eduardo

quickly understood and participated more fully in the book selection literacy

event Through interaction with his peers and the teacher in term two basic

literacy skills such as alphabetizing and filing his reading log developed

Though his teachersrsquo initial impressions suggested that he got very little

from his participation in the mSSR a review of his reading logs and his

participation in class show that Eduardo acquired knowledge of literacy

through a transformation (Lave and Wenger 1991) of his understanding of

and participation in literacy events

The development of these learnersrsquo interactional competence can be seen

in Eduardorsquos pursuit of understanding the practice of filing his reading log

which he accomplished through interaction with several members of the

classroom community This change in his participation in filing the logs

shows how learning is a situated practice accomplished through repeated

interactions with the entire classroom community In the analysis of the

story re-telling activities both Eduardo and Abby exhibited an increased

JOHN HELLERMANN 397

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

ability to use talk to initiate interaction by negotiating interlocutor

assignment and turn allocation to open their re-tellings Again the repeated

practice of the re-tellings afforded the learners opportunities to negotiate

a particular classroom and social action (opening a face-to-face interaction)

and both learners developed interactional skills that allowed them to

participate in the practice more fully

A quantitative analysis of standardized assessment measures30 for all the

learners at the Lab School shows that students who participated in the mSSR

method improved in their English language literacy skills to the same degree

as students who participated in classes which used a traditional skills-based

method for the teaching of reading (Reder et al forthcoming) This result

leads one to question what classroom practices might have contributed to

the increase in scores for each group Qualitative micro-analyses such as this

study are a first step toward understanding the discursive practices of the

mSSR classrooms which led to increases in those standardized tests of literacy

skills Also while we know that first-language education is a factor in

successful second language acquisition (Cole et al 1971) we know little

about how classroom interaction between experienced and inexperienced

learners differs In order to address this question this analysis used existing

social categorizations for participant selection (their degree of previous

education in their first language environment) and focused on two students

who would be categorized differently But the use of these macro-level

categorizations was not intended to reify the association of the characteristics

of each category to individual members Rather they were used to define

places from which to empirically examine the interactional language

behavior of members of each category This examination was done through

micro-analyses of the two studentsrsquo participation in the discursive practices

in mSSR literacy events that help L2 literacy develop The focus on the

day-to-day classroom interactions of the two learners allowed us to see

different paths to L2 literacy for learners who have different educational and

literacy experiences and uncover the complex interaction within a classroom

community of practice which results in the changes reported in traditional

language assessment measures

Final version received November 2005

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank the entire staff at the National Labsite for Adult ESOL at Portland State

University for their involvement in maintaining the Lab School as a place for adults to learn

English and as a state of the art research facility I would also like to thank Kathy Harris Sandra

Banke Reuel Kurzet Steve Reder Dominique Brillanceau and three anonymous readers for

their feedback on various versions of the paper

398 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

APPENDIX A

Some transcript conventions in conversation analysis (adapted from Schegloff

2000)

I Temporal and sequential relationships

[ Overlapping or simultaneous talk

frac14 lsquolatched utterancesrsquo no break or pause between utterances

(05) Numbers in parentheses indicate silence represented in tenths of a second

() A dot in parentheses indicates a lsquomicropausersquo

II Aspects of speech delivery including aspectsof intonation

period indicates a falling intonation contour not necessarily the end ofa sentence

question mark indicates rising intonation

a comma indicates lsquocontinuingrsquo intonation

Colons are used to indicate the prolongation or stretching of the soundjust preceding them The more colons the longer the stretching

- A hyphen after a word or part of a word indicates a cut-off or self-interruption word

Underlining is used to indicate some form of stress or emphasis either byincreased loudness or higher pitch The more underlining the greater theemphasis

The degree sign indicates that the talk following it was markedly quiet orsoft

The up and down arrows mark sharper rises or falls in pitch

45 The combination of lsquomore thanrsquo and lsquoless thanrsquo symbols indicates that thetalk between them is compressed or rushed

54 Used in the reverse order they can indicate that a stretch of talk ismarkedly slowed or drawn out

hhh Outbreath

hh Inbreath

(( )) Descriptions of events ((cough)) ((sniff)) ((telephone rings)) ((foot-steps))

(word) All or part of an utterance in parentheses indicates transcriber uncertainty

Creaky voice

NOTES

1 In order to get around the unwieldy

and theoretically-loaded terminology

for describing the use acquisition

and learning of a language that is

not the home or first language of the

participants of this study I will use

JOHN HELLERMANN 399

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

the abbreviation lsquoL2rsquo throughout the

paper to refer to a language that is

being attained through formal instruc-

tion For the students in this study

lsquoL2rsquo refers to English It may not be

however that English is these

studentsrsquo lsquosecondrsquo language as the

abbreviation implies

2 Students in the current study were in

lsquolevel Arsquo classes at the data collection

site SPL level 0ndash2

3 In Sustained Silent Reading

(McCracken 1971 Pilgreen 2000)

students are given a set time in the

classroom to read silently without

interruption by the teacher or other

students and without evaluation of

what is read and how it is read

The method was altered slightly at

the data collection site to meet the

needs of beginning adult language

learners and included activities

like post-reading re-telling activities

and studentsrsquo use of reading logs

to record their assessments of their

reading

4 The National Labsite for Adult ESOL

at Portland State University is sup-

ported in part by grant R309B6002

from the Institute for Education

Science US Dept of Education to

the National Center for the Study of

Adult Learning and Literacy The

Labsite is a partnership between

Portland State University and Portland

Community College The school

and research facilities are housed at

Portland State while the registration

curriculum and teachers of the

ESL students are from Portland

Community College

5 One reviewer asked about the inabil-

ity to see learnersrsquo eye gaze with

cameras embedded in the ceiling

While this is a problem when

students are sitting directly under

the two mobile cameras which

follow students wearing the wireless

microphones most often students

are sitting in a position where

studentsrsquo faces can be seen quite

directly For details of the data

collection see Reder et al (2003)

6 The Labsite Student Study (LSS)

conducts in-home interviews with a

subset of students in the lab school

(70 per year) in their home lan-

guages over the course of four

years regardless of whether the

student remains in lab school classes

or not The primary purpose of

the LSS study is to understand

language use and literacy develop-

ment outside the classroom context

and factors which influence program

persistence

7 All names used in this study are

pseudonyms

8 The teacher had different types of

books on a cart that she wheeled into

the room every class period She took

books off the cart and spread them

out on desks at the back of the room

9 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoselectsbookclass1]

10 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardohelping]

11 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoshowing]

12 Sarah Ouellette helped with the

Spanish transcription and provided

the translation to English Transcrip-

tion conventions are included in

Appendix A lsquoTrsquo indicates the class-

room teacher in all transcripts

13 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoexplaining]

400 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

14 At the time of this excerpt Eduardo

was a novice in Rederrsquos (1987) third

mode of literacy engagement

technical still struggling with basic

technical issues like decoding English

language lexicon

15 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Abbyreading]

16 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Abbynotetaking]

17 The classroom teachers noted the

frustration of doing mSSR with

students who have very low first

language literacy because of her

inability to help students organize

their reading in instances like note

taking (Banke and Brillanceau 2004)

18 A literacy assessment test (BEST

Literacy) was administered in the

classroom in terms one and two of

the mSSR program While the scores

increased for each learner for

Eduardo the increase is not as great

as Abbyrsquos Eduardorsquos overall literacy

score went from 35 in term one

to 42 in term two which is an

increase of one student performance

level (from 3 to 4) Abbyrsquos scores

increased from 45 in term one to

56 in term two which indicates

a jump from student performance

level 4 to 6 For information

on characteristics of student language

abilities at different student perfor-

mance levels (SPLs) see pp 5ndash6 of

wwwcalorgcaelaesl_resources

Part4-5pdf

19 One of the pedagogical advantages of

doing a dyadic re-telling in a lan-

guage classroom is that even if one

student doesnrsquot understand the

instructions for the task in an activity

like the mSSR the peerrsquos act of

posture shift moving a book into

a common space and looking

toward the partner strongly invite

collaboration in some interaction and

it is collaboration that is perhaps

the most important aspect of the

re-telling activity (Pilgreen 2000)

especially for language learners

20 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoopening1]

21 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoopening2]

22 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoorientsstorytelling]

23 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Abbyopening1]

24 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Abbypretasktalkterm2]

25 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Abbystartingretelling2]

26 While more empirical evidence is

warranted a provisional claim

can be mentioned here that such

re-telling activities and perhaps

in classroom pair activities in

general are organized with a two-

part move like that displayed in

(6) lsquoquery about readinessrsquo and

lsquoturn allocationrsquo before the first task

question

27 Notably absent from Abbyrsquos and

Eduardorsquos peer re-tellings are any

verbal greeting sequences Even

when one of the pair moves across

the room to sit with another student

Abby and Eduardo did not exchange

greetings with their partner for their

JOHN HELLERMANN 401

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

task This is something that other

students did as part of their openings

28 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoasksstudentforhelpfiling]

29 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoasksaboutfiling]

30 The assessment measures were the

BEST Plus and the Peabody Picture

Vocabulary tests

REFERENCES

Atkinson J M and J C Heritage 1984

Structures of Social Action Studies in Conversation

Analysis Cambridge Cambridge University Press

August G 2001 The Road to Second Language

Reading How do we get there Unpublished

PhD Dissertation City University of New York

New York

Banke S and D Brillanceu 2004 lsquoLiving

in Interventionrsquo Unpublished manuscript

Barton D (2001) lsquoDirections for literacy

research Analysing language and social practices

in a textually mediated worldrsquo Language and

Education 152ndash3 92ndash104

Bernhardt E B and M L Kamil 1995 lsquoInter-

preting relationships between L1 and L2 reading

Consolidating the linguistic threshold and the

linguistic interdependence hypothesesrsquo Applied

Linguistics 161 15ndash34

Bourdieu P 1991 Language and Symbolic Power

Cambridge MA Harvard University Press

Brandt D 1990 Literacy as Involvement The Acts

of Writers Readers and Texts Carbondale IL

Southern Illinois University Press

ButtonG andNCasey1984 lsquoGenerating topics

The use of topic initial elicitorsrsquo in J M Atkinson

and J C Heritage (eds) Structures of Social Action

Studies in Conversation Analysis Cambridge

Cambridge University Press

Canale M and M Swain 1980 lsquoTheoretical

bases of communicative approaches to second

language teaching and testingrsquoApplied Linguistics

1 1ndash47

Carrell P L 1991 lsquoSecond language reading

Reading ability or language proficiencyrsquo Applied

Linguistics 122 159ndash79

Chow P and C Chou 2000 Evaluating

Sustained Silent Reading in Reading Classes [Web]

I-TESL-J Available httpitesljorgArticlesChow-

mSSRhtml

Cole M J Gay J A Glick and D W Sharp

1971 The Cultural Context of Learning and Think-

ing An Exploration in Experimental Anthropology

New York Basic Books

Couper-Kuhlen E andMSelting 1996 Prosody

in Conversation Interactional Studies Cambridge

Cambridge University Press

Duff P 2002 lsquoThe discursive co-construction

of knowledge identity and difference An

ethnography of communication in the high

school mainstreamrsquo Applied Linguistics 233

289ndash322

Erickson F and J Schultz 1981 lsquoWhen is

a context Some issues and methods in the

analysis of social competencersquo in J Green and

C Wallat (eds) Ethnography and Language in

Educational Settings Norwood NJ Ablex

Felser C L Roberts T Marinis and R Gross

2003 lsquoThe processing of ambiguous sentences by

first and second language learners of Englishrsquo

Applied Psycholinguistics 243 453ndash89

Garfinkel H 1967 Studies in Ethnomethodology

Englewood Cliffs NJ Prentice Hall

Gee J P 1990 Social Linguistics and Literacies

Ideology in Discourses London Falmer Press

Goffman E 1959 The Presentation of Self

in Everyday Life New York Anchor Books

Doubleday

Goffman E 1961 Encounters Two Studies in

the Sociology of Interaction Indianapolis Bobbs-

Merrill

Goody J1977 TheDomestication of the SavageMind

Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Grabe W and F L Stoller 1997 lsquoReading and

vocabulary development in a second language

A case studyrsquo in J Coady and T Huckin (eds)

Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition A

Rationale for Pedagogy Cambridge Cambridge

University Press

402 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

Gumperz J J 1982 Discourse Strategies

Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Habermas J1976 lsquoSome distinctions in universal

pragmatics A working paperrsquo Theory and Society

32 155ndash67

Hall J K 1993 lsquoThe role of oral practices in

the accomplishment of our everyday lives

The sociocultural dimension of interaction

with implications for the learning of

another languagersquo Applied Linguistics 142

145ndash66

Hall J K 1995 lsquo lsquolsquoAw man where you goinrsquorsquorsquo

Classroom interaction and the development

of L2 interactional competencersquo Issues in Applied

Linguistics 62 37ndash62

Hall JK1997 lsquoA consideration of SLA as a theory

of practice A response to Firth and Wagnerrsquo

Modern Language Journal 813 301ndash306

He A W and R Young 1998 lsquoLanguage

proficiency interviews A discourse approachrsquo in

R Young and A W He (eds) Talking and Testing

Discourse Approaches to the Assessment of Oral

Proficiency Amsterdam John Benjamins

Heath S B 1982 lsquoWhat no bedtime story means

Narrative skills at home and schoolrsquo Language

in Society 11 49ndash76

Heath S B 1983 Ways with Words Language

Life and Work in Communities and Classrooms

Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Hellermann J 2004 lsquoPractices for opening dyadic

interactionrsquo paper presented at the annual

conference of the American Association for

Applied Linguistics Portland OR

Hellermann J forthcoming lsquoThe development of

practices for action in the classroom diadic

interaction focus on task openingsrsquo Modern

Language Journal

Hood S and H Joyce 1995 lsquoReading in the

adult ESL curriculum and classroomrsquo Prospect

102 52ndash64

Hymes D 1974 Foundations in Sociolinguistics

An Ethnographic Approach Philadelphia

University of Pennsylvania Press

Kramsch C 1986 lsquoFrom language proficiency

to interactional competencersquo Modern Language

Journal 70 372ndash66

Kramsch C 2002 lsquoHow can we tell the dancer

from the dancersquo in C Kramsch (ed) Language

Acquisition and Language Socialization An ecological

approach London Continuum

Lave J and E Wenger 1991 Situated Learning

Legitimate Peripheral Participation Cambridge

Cambridge University Press

Lerner G H 1995 lsquoTurn design and the organiza-

tion of participation in instructional activitiesrsquo

Discourse Processes 19 111ndash31

MacBethD2003 lsquoHugh MehanrsquosLearning Lessons

reconsidered On the differences between the

naturalistic and critical analysis of classroom

discoursersquo American Educational Research Journal

401 239ndash80

McCraken R A 1971 lsquoInitiating sustained silent

readingrsquo Journal of Reading 148 521ndash4 582ndash3

McDermott R and D Roth 1978 lsquoThe social

organization of behavior Interactional

approachesrsquo Annual Review of Anthropology 7

321ndash45

Markee N 2000 Conversation Analysis Marwah

NJ Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

Ochs E and B Schieffelin 1979 Developmental

Pragmatics New York Academic Press

Ochs E E A Schegloff and S A Thompson

1996 Interaction and Grammar Cambridge

Cambridge University Press

Ong W J 1982 Orality and Literacy The Technolo-

gizing of the Word London Routledge

Palacios I G 2002 An ESLLiteracy Center

A qualitative study of perspectives and practices

of immigrant adults and literacy facilitators

Unpublished PhD Dissertation Indiana

University Pennsylvania Indiana PA

Pilgreen J L 2000 The SSR Handbook How to

Organize and Manage a Sustained Silent Reading

Program Portsmouth NH BoyntonCook

Pulido D 2003 lsquoModeling the role of second

language proficiency and topic familiarity

in second language incidental vocabulary

acquisition through readingrsquo Language Learning

532 233ndash84

Reder S 1987 lsquoComparative aspects of functional

literacy development Three ethnic American

communitiesrsquo in D Wagner (ed) The Future

of Literacy in a Changing World Oxford Pergamon

Press

Reder S 1994 lsquoPractice engagement theory

A sociocultural approach to literacy across

languages and culturersquo in B M Ferdman

R M Weber and A G Ramırez (eds) Literacy

Across Languages and Cultures Albany NY State

University of New York Press

Reder S and E Davila (2005) lsquoContext

and literacy practicesrsquo Annual Review of Applied

Linguistics 25 170ndash87

Reder S K A Harris and K Setzler 2003

lsquoA multimedia adult learner corpusrsquo TESOL

Quarterly 373 546ndash57

JOHN HELLERMANN 403

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

Reder S K A Harris R Kurzet

D Brillanceau S Banke and JHellermann

forthcoming Using a modified Sustained Silent

Reading for low-level adult ESOL students

Boston National Center for the Study of Adult

Learning and Literacy

Sacks H E A Schegloff and G Jefferson

1974 lsquoA simplest systematics for the organiza-

tion of turn-taking for conversationsrsquo Language

504 696ndash735

Sagarra N 2000 The longitudinal role of working

memory on adult acquisition of L2 grammar

Unpublished PhD Dissertation University of

Illinois Urbana-Champaign

Schegloff E A 1968 lsquoSequencing in conversa-

tional openingsrsquo American Anthropologist 70

1075ndash95

Schegloff E A 1980 lsquoPreliminaries to prelimin-

aries lsquolsquoCan I ask you a questionrsquorsquo rsquo Sociological

Inquiry 50 104ndash52

Schegloff E A 1998 lsquoReflections on studying

prosody in talk-in-interactionrsquo Language and

Speech 413ndash4 235ndash63

Schegloff E A 2000 lsquoOverlapping talk and the

organization of turn-making for conversationrsquo

Language in Society 291 1ndash63

Schegloff E A 2002 lsquoOpening sequencingrsquo

in J E Katz and M Aakhus (eds) Perpetual

Contact Mobile Communication Private Talk Public

Performance Cambridge Cambridge University

Press

Schegloff E A and H Sacks 1973 lsquoOpening up

closingsrsquo Semiotica 8 289ndash327

Schieffelin B B and Ochs E (1986) lsquoLanguage

socializationrsquo Annual Review of Anthropology 15

163ndash91

Scribner S and M Cole 1981 The Psychology of

Literacy Cambridge MA Harvard University

Press

Segalowitz N C Poulsen and M Komoda

1991 lsquoLower level components of reading skill in

higher level bilinguals Implications for reading

instructionrsquo AILA Review 8 15ndash30

Streeck J 1983 Social Order in Child Communica-

tion Amsterdam John Benjamins

Streeck J and S Mihus 2005 lsquoMicroethno-

graphy The study of practicesrsquo In K L Fitch

and R E Sanders (eds) The Handbook of

Language and Social Interaction Marwah NJ

Lawrence Erlbaum

Street B 1998 lsquoNew literacies in theory

and practice What are the implications for

language in educationrsquo Linguistics and Education

10 1ndash24

Street B V 2001 Literacy and Development

Ethnographic perspectives London Routledge

Tang H 1997 lsquoThe relationship between reading

comprehension processes in L1 and L2rsquo Reading

Psychology 183 249ndash301

Treville M C 1996 lsquoLexical learning and reading

in L2 at the beginner level The advantage of

cognatesrsquo The Canadian Modern Language Review

531 173ndash90

Van Lier L 2000 lsquoFrom input to affordance

Social-interactive learning from an ecological

perspectiversquo in J Lantolf (ed) Sociocultural

Theory and Second Language Learning Oxford

Oxford University Press

van Lier L 2002 lsquoAn ecological-semiotic

perspective on language and linguisticsrsquo in

C Kramsch (ed) Language Acquisition and

Language Socialization An ecological approach

London Continuum

Wenger J 1998 Communities of Practice Learning

Meaning and Identity Cambridge Cambridge

University Press

Yang J 2000 lsquoOrthographic effect on word

recognition by learners of Chinese as a Foreign

Languagersquo Journal of the Chinese Language

Teachers Association 352 1ndash18

YoungR1999 lsquoSociolinguistic approaches toSLArsquo

Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 19 105ndash32

Young R 2000 lsquoInteractional competence

Challenges for validityrsquo Paper presented at the

annual conference of the American Association

for Applied Linguistics Vancouver BC

Young R F 2002 lsquoDiscourse approaches to oral

language assessmentrsquo Annual Review of Applied

Linguistics 22 243ndash62

404 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

Page 8: Classroom Interactive Practices for Developing L2 Literacy: A Microethnographic Study of Two Beginning Adult Learners of English

4 pon allı is every day thirty minutes reading

put there

there

5 para leer para por lo que no entiendas o lo

for read for for the what no you understand or the

read for what you donrsquot understand or

6 que quieres tu saber ella te lo dice puedes notar

what you want you to know she to you it tell you can write

what you want to know she can tell it to you to write down

7 N ( )

8 E Sı especialmente para practicar si para la persona

yes especially for practice if for the person

yes especially to practice if for the person

9 para lo que no puedes entender

for the what no you can understand

for what you canrsquot understand

10 que quieres saber tu que es ella te dice mhm

that you want to know you what it she to you tells mhm

what you want to know is what she tells you

11 dice sin verguenza que preguntarle porque ella

she says without embarrassment that to ask her because she

she says to ask without embarrassment because she

12 la pagane y la verguenza por eso venimos

the they pay and the embarrassment is why we come

the they pay her and the embarrassment is why we come

13 porque no sabemos

because no we know

because we donrsquot know

Eduardorsquos display of expertise and his offering support to a newcomer to the

class (Wenger 1998 Duff 2002) shows the social nature of classroom literacy

events The practices for literacy of the mSSR are embedded in several social

contexts in this case the classroom (Eduardo as learner expert) and a

linguisticcultural (Eduardo as Spanish speaking peer) Eduardorsquos social

interaction for this literacy event was accomplished in two languages

Eduardo mentions the core features of the mSSR (one book everyday thirty

minutes and reading) in the language of instruction while his interpretation of

the activity and his understanding of the teacherrsquos role are given in the

language he shares with his peer (Spanish) Eduardorsquos use of English

oriented to the language of the task and purpose of the task itself while his

use of Spanish fit the immediate social context of the literacy activity

Eduardo helping a Spanish-speaking newcomer to the English language class

384 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

This example shows Eduardo working through two of Rederrsquos (1987) three

modes of engagement with literacy functional and social14 In this act of

offering help to a newcomer Eduardo displays his functional engagement

with the mSSR literacy event by helping the teacher set out books and

modeling the practice of choosing a book His awareness of the mSSR event

as beneficial and one in which the entire class engages motivates him to give

instructions to a newcomer to the classroom community in that learnerrsquos L1

with key terms for the task in English displaying a social engagement with

literacy

While these observations of book selection and reading behavior do not

make claims about the development of decoding skills lexical acquisition

or memory and cognitive skills enhanced by L2 literacy development this

micro-ethnographic approach does uncover the habitus (Bourdieu 1991) of

the L2 literacy development in the classroom that is the behavioral practices

which establish a context in which other code-related skills become possible

In the book selection literacy event we see evidence of Eduardo moving

from peripheral to full participation (Lave and Wenger 1991) in his greater

discrimination in book selection The ability for Eduardo to explain the mSSR

activity to a newcomer to the class also shows the concomitant developing

interactional competence through socialization into classroom literacy events

By the end of three terms of attending classes which included the mSSR

activity Eduardo has acquired some of the social processes within the

context of the classroom community that involve him (Brandt 1990) in

literacy

In contrast to Eduardo presumably because of the literate practices learned

in her first language and culture for Abby socialization into L2 book

selection and reading perseverance was something that required less time In

her first mSSR session after the teacherrsquos instructions about selecting a book

Abby was the first learner to get out of her seat and go to the book cart

At the book cart she picked out one book and skimmed through it before

returning it She selected a second book looked through it briefly took the

book back to her seat and kept it for the entire period At the end of the class

period after the teacher suggested that students could reserve their book for

the next class period by putting a name card in the book Abby did this

highlighting her ability to engage with a text from the first day of the mSSR

This type of engagement with the text (book selection and reserving the book

for the next class period) contrasts notably with Eduardorsquos indiscriminate

book selection on the first day of the mSSR

Other evidence that Abby was able to take advantage of her experience

with L1 literacy was her use of several strategies for reading that Eduardo

did not use during the silent reading period These included the use of an

electronic dictionary to help her understand unfamiliar words and quietly

reading to herself during the time for silent reading15 The use of the

dictionary was part of systematic note taking by Abby who wrote out

unfamiliar words in columns in her notebook with the Chinese equivalents

JOHN HELLERMANN 385

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

next to them16 These skills were done without instruction from the

teacher and displayed her self-directed strategies for acquiring the L2 lexicon

While Eduardo also wrote in his notebook he usually wrote out full

sentences and phrases Watching him writing and seeing his notebooks from

time to time on camera I observed that Eduardo did not display the

experience of taking notes nor the strategic language learning skills that

Abby exhibited Conversations with the classroom teachers also suggest that

Eduardorsquos notes were not helpful to him because of their unsystematic

nature17 While Eduardo did begin using a dictionary in term three

regarding the mechanics of decoding written text the evidence suggests that

Abbyrsquos educational background played a large role in allowing her to

participate more completely from the start in the silent reading than

Eduardo18

Opening the post-reading story re-telling

Research in conversation analysis has explored how conversationalists

start their social interactions through orderly practices in their talk

(Schegloff 1968 1998 2002 Schegloff and Sacks 1973 Button and Casey

1984) While this line of research has focused on native speaker interaction

adult learners of English face the same fundamental problem as native

speakersmdashhow to get an interaction underway Adult learners of English

may bring a repertoire of strategies for social interaction from their life

experiences in other languages and cultures but whether adult learners of a

language as socially competent adults bring a sense of universal pragmatics

(Habermas 1976) to the classroom is an ongoing empirical question The

study of interaction in the context of adult learners using a lingua franca to

start activities provides a rich environment for the exploration of basic turn-

taking and conversational practices used in institutional settings

After the thirty minutes of silent reading another regular task in the

mSSR activity was peer re-telling in which the teacher instructed learners

(sometimes supplying question prompts) to tell their deskmate something

about the book they had just been reading The evidence gathered from the

two adult learners of English in this analysis suggests that differences in a

level of interactional competence in the L2 can be seen in the way the

learners engage in basic conversational skills such as opening an interaction

Two notable differences between these two learners are seen in the overt

negotiation over interlocutor selection and turn allocation at the beginning of

a task and the orientation to other activities that they are in the process of

finishing up Abbyrsquos interactions are characterized by opening moves which

display a greater range of linguistic and pragmatic skills than Eduardorsquos

Her opening moves also display notable development over the course of

three terms in the mSSR classes

A crucial first step to interaction in this literacy event for learners without

a large repertoire of linguistic code skills is the achievement of mutual

386 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

physical orientation for doing dyadic interaction19 Highly proficient speakers

of a language have a range of speech acts which they can use to subtly gain

a partnerrsquos attention while beginning learners almost without exception

rely on mutual physical orientation and object manipulation to start

their dyadic interactions (Hellermann 2004 2005) Eduardo and Abby also

both accomplished these subtle alignments for opening their re-telling

activities unproblematically in most instances Coordinating a mutual

physical orientation for re-telling entails the participants shifting their

posture slightly toward one another moving their books into a shared

space for re-telling and pointing to items in their books The interactions

between Eduardo and Lai Min another student in Excerpts (2) and (3)

occur at the beginning of Eduardorsquos second term in the mSSR The excerpts

are presented to show Eduardorsquos perseverance in opening this particular

literacy event demonstrating how he sees the establishment of mutual

orientation to a space for re-telling to be a necessary part of the re-telling

(Excerpt 2) and highlighting his manipulation of the books themselves

(Excerpt 3) as objects which are fundamental to the accomplishment of this

literacy event

(2)

[A2ndash13ndash03 204 24800 Term II week 6]20

1 T you need to speak to Eduardo

2 E ((taps Lai Min on shoulder and waves his hands motioning her

3 to move toward him))

4 L yeah ((leans back turns head slightly toward Eduardo))

5 E ((pages through his book))

6 L ((looks down to her book looks around class looks over

7 at E leans a little bit toward E))

8 L ((looks away from E)) [((leans forward away from E))

9 E [((looks toward L)) ((puts down his

10 book takes off glasses))

In (2) after the teacherrsquos directive to Lai Min to do the re-telling activity

with Eduardo (line 1) Eduardo makes a clear non-verbal summons

(shoulder tap) and invitation (waving motion) to Lai Min to begin the

re-telling activity in lines 2ndash3 Lai Min makes a minimal verbal and non-

verbal response (line 4) as Eduardo looks in his book Then as Eduardo is

paging through his book Lai Min looks at her own book looks around the

class looks to Eduardo and then looks away Lai Min does not make any

verbal moves to start the interaction and her visual orientation to various

places does not focus on an interaction space Besides the slight head

turn (line 4) and slight lean toward Eduardo (line 7) there is no clear

postural alignment to the space between herself and Eduardo When

Eduardo stops paging through his book and looks to Lai Min in line 9

JOHN HELLERMANN 387

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

he sees that her posture is not aligned to a mutual re-telling space and

he takes off his glasses and puts down his book seemingly aborting the

re-telling sequence

(3)

[A2ndash13ndash03 204 24835 Term II week 6]21

11 L ((looks at Ersquos book looks at board)) tee shuh ss tee shup

12 E ((opens another book)) ((puts book mark in it and closes it))

13 L ((looks at E))

14 E ((puts on glasses))

15 L ((opens her book))

16 E ((opens the second book points to something in the book))

17 L ((looks toward E))

18 E ( )

19 L ((L leans in toward E looking at book))

20 E Saigon Saigone Saigone

21 L ((points to Ersquos book)) Saigon

22 E Saigon Vietnam

23 L uh

24 E Saigone Vietname S( ) Vietnam

25 L mm

26 E Saigone

27 L Saigon ((leans away from E))

28 E ((looks at Lrsquos book and reads something from it)) [(prayer)

29 L [((moves her

30 book toward E))

In (3) after this aborted opening Lai Min appears to read something from

the board out loud (line 11) while Eduardo handles another book on the

table in front of him After Lai Min glances at Eduardo in line 13 Eduardo

puts on his glasses opens the book he has just been handling and points to

something in the book (line 16) which Lai Min orients to by leaning

in toward Eduardo to look at the page to which he is pointing After some

back and forth repetition of the word Eduardo is pointing to (Saigon) Lai Min

ends the focus on Eduardorsquos book by leaning away from the common

interactional space (line 27) Eduardo takes this as a cue to switch roles and

to now share information from Lai Minrsquos book In line 28 Eduardo reads

something from Lai Minrsquos book and she moves it closer to him to aid his

reading

While Extracts (2) and (3) show Eduardo initiating openings for the

re-telling literacy event and non-verbally orienting to the interaction with his

peer he was usually not the most verbally-active participant in his dyadic

388 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

interactions for re-telling When he self-selected to start a re-telling it was

when there were long pauses or notable lack of initiation from his partner

(as in (2) and (3)) By the end of term two of the mSSR however there

is evidence of Eduardo making a reciprocal verbal elicitation for a re-telling

As Excerpt (4) shows after finishing his own re-telling and completing

a closing sequence to that telling (lines 4ndash7) Eduardo reciprocates in eliciting

a re-telling from his partner (line 8)

(4)

[B 5ndash13ndash03 23601 term III week 7]22

1 E fis

2 J flying fish ((flapping left hand like flying))

3 E this is flying fi[s() this (of the)

4 J [yeah yeah yeah yeah

5 J mm mm

6 E mm hmm

7 J mm hmm

8 E what is your

9 (20) ((J picks up his book))

10 J eh (started started) this story

11 E the mountain the mountain ((reads Jrsquos book cover))

While the elicitation in line 8 is abbreviated Eduardorsquos partner (Jin) orients

to line 8 as an elicitation by picking up his own book (line 9) and beginning

his re-telling (line 10) As Jin starts the re-telling Eduardo orients to the title

of the book as an important part of the re-telling event by reading the title of

Jinrsquos book (line 11)

Two aspects of the openings for the re-tellings that the other focal student

of this study Abby displayed but that did not occur in Eduardorsquos interactions

were her pre-activity talk checking on whether the peer was ready to do

the task and then talk about interlocutor assignment for the activity

Abby became more active in initiating these opening moves over the course

of the three terms of the mSSR Excerpts (5)ndash(7) show examples of this

development In (5) which comes from the very beginning of the second

term in the mSSR we see Abby interact with Fernando but not initiate the

interaction

(5)

[1-10ndash03 B 24452 Term II week 2]23

1 F whose talk to me

2 (10) ((Fernando facing Abby Abby turns to Fernando))

3 F ((to Abby)) you oh

4 (25)

JOHN HELLERMANN 389

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

5 F hhyeah okay

6 ((Abby sneezes))

7 F bless you () god bless you a[gain

8 A [thank you

9 F again [god bless you

10 A [huh hah hah [uh hih hih hih hih hhuh

11 F [eh huh heh heh heah

12 (20)

13 F what () is your book

14 A eh () my book is () my my book is easy () easy story press

15 F oh press [mm hmm

16 A [yeah ease story pres[s

17 F [eh

18 (35)

19 A what is (your) story

In line 1 Fernando makes the first verbal move to establish the peer

dyad and achieve mutual physical orientation asking about a partner

and after a sequence involving sneezing in line 13 Fernando asks the

first elicitation question for the activity Abby responds to each elicitation

non-verbally in line 2 and with the title of her book in line 14 Abby orients

to the activity of finding out about one anotherrsquos books by asking

the reciprocal question more specifically asking about Fernandorsquos lsquostoryrsquo in

line 19

The next example of one of Abbyrsquos opening move sequences comes from

the fifth week of the second term of the mSSR Excerpt (6) shows Abby

engaging in more pre-task opening talk (lines 3 and 6) interlocutor selection

(line 8) and the launch of the task (line 10)

(6)

[2703 B 204 24353 Term II week 5]24

1 T you need to talk ladies

2 (10)

3 Ab todayrsquos uh February ((looks to Ana then back to notebook))

4 An ((shifts posture toward Abby))

5 (70)

6 Ab seventh

7 (140) ((both ss write)

8 Ab I talk to you ((turning to Ana))

9 (250) ((Ana continues writing))

10 Ab my () my book uh life story one

11 (20)

12 An ((shifts posture a bit to A))

390 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

13 Ab are you finished

14 An go (go ahead) please () where is () where is your story

After the teacher exhorts the learners (line 1) to begin their pair task

(the story re-telling) Abby announces the date and after Ana shifts her

posture toward Abby proposes the pair assignment (line 8) Since the

learners sit at desks in pairs the pair assignment is somewhat of a given so

Abbyrsquos turn in line 8 may also act as a proposal for turn allocation If

interlocutor assignment is relatively self-evident the turn lsquoI talk to yoursquo is at

least a move to attempt to get Ana to enter the interaction and may be an

explicit move to tell Ana that she Abby is starting the activity There is no

uptake by Ana after this proposal and after a rather long pause (line 9) Abby

launches the task self-selecting to re-tell her story first When there is no

verbal uptake by Ana in line 11 after Abbyrsquos turn Abby orients to her

partnerrsquos preparation for the task and asks if Ana has finished (line 13) her

preparatory work (writing notes) Ana orients to Abbyrsquos question as a pre-

request to check whether Ana is ready to start her re-telling by encouraging

Abby to continue directly eliciting information about the location of her

story in line 14

The final excerpt from the third term of the mSSR illustrates Abbyrsquos further

development of interactional practices for opening the re-telling activity In (7)

while Inez is writing in her notebook Abby shifts her posture to Inez and asks

a question (line 2) which is preliminary to a question for the assigned activity

(7)

[5-9ndash03 B 206 24121 Term III week 7]25

((Teacherrsquos prompt for the interaction lsquoDo you like books about a story or

information what kind of book are you reading nowrsquo))

1 A ((shifts posture toward Inez))

2 I are you ready

3 (70) ((Inez is writing in her notebook))

4 I yeah sorry

5 (30)

6 I ((re-positions her posture to face Abby then gestures with

7 right hand pointing to Abby and back to herself))

8 (30)

9 A ((Abby looks at the board and reads the question)) what type

10 of a book are you reading now

11 ((Inez begins her re-telling))

While Abbyrsquos question in line 2 orients to the necessity of the completion of

the preparatory work for the re-telling literacy event it also works as part

of the opening for the re-telling task itself Inez finishes writing in her

notebook and orients to Abbyrsquos question as an opening to the assigned

JOHN HELLERMANN 391

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

re-telling task by answering Abbyrsquos question and apologizing for not starting

immediately (line 4) After Inez repositions her body and non-verbally

initiates a negotiation of turn allocation for the re-telling (lines 6 and 7)

Abby self-selects to elicit the re-telling from Inez by reading one of the

teacherrsquos prompts from the board (lines 9ndash10)

Abbyrsquos socialization to the mSSR re-telling activity can be seen in the

development of opening moves in the re-telling interactions with her peers

in Excerpts (5)ndash(7) The interaction from earlier in the mSSR (Excerpt (5))

shows Abby not actively initiating dyad assignment pre-task talk and task

launch In terms two and three the excerpts show her more actively

involved in starting these re-telling activities Her task-preliminary organiza-

tional talk and task launching later in the second and third terms of the

mSSR suggest that she is now more comfortable with the re-telling literacy

event and with the language as a whole

These excerpts of Abbyrsquos interaction in the re-telling literacy events show

two common moves by more advanced learners for opening dyadic

interactions (Hellermann 2004 forthcoming) the orientation to the previous

task completion (in Excerpt (6) lsquoare you finishedrsquo and Excerpt (7) lsquoare you

readyrsquo) and interlocutor selection (in Excerpt (6) lsquoI talk to yoursquo) As other

research in conversation shows such moves for opening talk enable

participants to work out basic features of talk-in-interaction such as avoiding

simultaneous talk and ensuring that the talk about to happen is the start of

something new not from the previous topic (Button and Casey 1984)26

The interactions by Abby and Eduardo in the re-telling literacy events also

show evidence for the learnersrsquo development of interactional competence

through their socialization into literacy events27 While both Abby and

Eduardo orient to the beginnings of the re-telling events creating spaces for

appropriate mutual participation for the event from the start of the mSSR

we see evidence for a change in their participation in the re-telling events

over the course of the three terms of the mSSR Eduardo uses a speech act

(lsquowhat is yourrsquo) in a more sophisticated modality (verbal rather than non-

verbal) to reciprocate an elicitation for a re-telling in his interaction with Jin

in Excerpt (4) In Abbyrsquos later interactions she explicitly orients to the

boundaries of the events by inquiring as to her partnersrsquo readiness to

participate (Excerpts (5) and (6)) and negotiates roles for participation

(Excerpt (6) lsquoI talk to yoursquo) and turn allocation (Excerpts (6) and (7))

Learner reading logs and filing of reading logs

A basic literacy skill activity that the teacher built into the mSSR classes was

having learners chart their reading activity in a reading log and then file their

own reading logs alphabetically in a file box at the end of every lesson In

the third class period of the first term some evidence of Eduardorsquos lack of

basic literacy skills appeared during the filing activity Near the end of this

class period the teacher asked learners to put their reading logs into a file

392 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

box organized by their first names Eduardo and another learner went to

the file box at the front of the room and stood by the box with their reading

logs looking for the appropriate place to put the logs After some time

Eduardo looked over to Carla (a learner from Brazil) and held out his right

hand palm up Carla oriented to this gesture as a request for help and got out

of her seat to help the two learners showing them the place in the files to

put their logs28 A bit later in this class period as the learners were packing

up to leave the class Eduardo solicited the teacherrsquos help in understanding

the name of the process of filing (Excerpt (8)) In so doing he is building on

the co-constructed filing practice with his classmate

(8)

[10-3ndash02 A 204 25149 Term I week 2]29

1 E want to ask (you something) ((walking to file box))

2 T yes you want to ask me something

3 E somebody ((puts hand in file box then touches head)) somebody

4 T file

5 E file file

6 T uh huh this is what () please file file you papers

In Exerpt (8) Eduardo is standing next to the teacher and utters a

pre-question (Schegloff 1980) in line 1 as he walks to the file box Once at

the box in line 3 he says lsquosomebodyrsquo a bare noun phrase which projects a

predicate Eduardo produces that predicate by modeling the relevant action

a hypothetical learner filing a paper This is followed by a gesture of his

hand to his head (which Eduardo commonly used to indicate that he did not

remember a particular word in English) and a repetition of the same bare

noun phrase In line 4 the teacher orients to Eduardorsquos talk as a request for

a word to name the action of putting the reading log into the box The fact

that this interaction is elicited by Eduardo shortly after his request for help

from Carla suggests that Carla may have helped him put the reading log

in the right place but did not give Eduardo the English word for that action

It is Eduardorsquos interactions with both a peer and with the teacher which

help him co-construct a name for this literacy event

While Eduardorsquos success in filing his reading log was sporadic throughout

the rest of this first term at the beginning of the next term on the first day

of class the teacher explained again that the reading logs were to be filed

alphabetically She explained and modeled this while standing next to the

file box to assist learners After explaining and modeling the procedure to the

class she reminded Eduardo again several minutes later lsquoyou need to put this

[reading log] away young manrsquo Several minutes after that Eduardo held up

his reading log showing it to the teacher as other learners were going to the

file box to file their logs She responded affirmatively and Eduardo went to

the file box The teacher said his name Eduardo said lsquoersquo (the first letter of his

JOHN HELLERMANN 393

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

first name) and put the reading log in the appropriate place in the file box

Having participated in one term of the mSSR and the literacy event of filling

in and filing reading logs (the term in which it was just noted that he was

given support by a peer and the teacher) the reinforcement of the rules the

modeling by the teacher as well as the personal reminder and reassurance

given by the teacher guided Eduardo into full participation in this literacy

event Later in this second term and in the third term as well Eduardo

was able to file the log independently By the beginning of the third term

(4103) he was also able to tell a newcomer to the class the purpose of the

reading log

Based on conversations with his teachers the evidence from his reading

logs and his interactions with other learners in the re-telling literacy event

Eduardo seemed to have developed a genuine interest in and enthusiasm for

reading In a more complex literacy skill involving the reading logs there is

evidence that Eduardo developed the ability to orally evaluate the books

he read adopting a term introduced by the teacher to describe several of

his books lsquoso-sorsquo In the later part of the first term of the mSSR Eduardorsquos

reading log was sporadically filled in and he wrote in Spanish for the

assessment portion of the log (Figure 1)

By the second term of the mSSR Eduardo was reading some books during

the silent reading period in class for four class periods in a row (an indication

of persistence and interest) and assessed one book (The Orange Grove) in his

reading log as lsquovery goodrsquo Through this assessment Eduardo displayed

part of a personal identity as a literate person in English But even by the

third term of the mSSR classes Eduardo did not elaborate on the assessments

of his books as the reading log prompted learners to do In a row at the top

of the reading log learners were to answer the question lsquoDid you like it

[the book]rsquo and then write why The teacher provided another written

prompt in the box that learners checked for a positive assessment lsquoYes

because rsquo In this place though Eduardo always indicated that he liked the

Figure 1 Part of Eduardorsquos reading log from the first term of the mSSR

394 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

books that he read he did not specify why he liked them giving evidence

of the limitations of his ability to evaluate his reading (as Figure 2 shows)

In contrast to Eduardo Abby did not have trouble filing her reading log

On the day the teacher explained to learners how they should file their

reading logs she used Abby as an example lsquoFor example Abby file your

paper under lsquolsquoArsquorsquo for Abbyrsquo In subsequent class periods Abby displayed

competence at filing her reading log in the appropriate slot in the file box

The content of Abbyrsquos reading logs also differed from Eduardorsquos in notable

ways Where Eduardo always checked the box marked lsquoeasyrsquo when

evaluating the level of difficulty of the books he read in most cases Abby

checked the lsquojust rightrsquo box and just a few times the box marked lsquoeasyrsquo for

the books she read Figure 3 shows one of her reading logs from the third

term of the mSSR

The notations in Abbyrsquos reading log in Figure 3 suggest that she was

choosing books that were appropriate to her ability (the box labeled

lsquojust rightrsquo is marked consistently) Also Abby was able to give some detail

(although limited) when prompted by the teacher for the reasons behind

her assessment of a book In response to the teacherrsquos written prompt on

the reading log lsquoyes I liked it because rsquo Abby had two responses she used

lsquoyes I did because interestingrsquo or lsquoyes I did because easyrsquo Abby indicated

Figure 2 Part of Eduardorsquos reading log from the third term of the mSSR

JOHN HELLERMANN 395

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

these more expanded assessments both in the second and third terms of the

mSSR classes

An important question for research on language socialization and

interactional competence in a classroom setting is to what degree these

processes result in increased engagement with literacy outside the classroom

A telling insight gained from the learnersrsquo in-home L1 interviews suggests

that for both these learners the socialization into literacy events in the

classroom lead to increased participation in literacy outside the classroom

In the interviews conducted with each learner before the start of the mSSR

treatment when asked what and how much they read in English for

pleasure Abby indicated that she read student picture books for ninety

minutes a week Eduardo reported reading newspapers for thirty minutes

a week In interviews conducted in June of 2004 after the learnersrsquo

completed their participation in the mSSR Abby reported reading

newspapers and books for 7 hours a week and Eduardo newspapers and

magazines for 2 hours a week Along with the development of interactive

practices in classroom literacy events highlighted in this paper these findings

show a remarkable increase in these learnersrsquo engagement with literacy

outside the classroom and evidence of their emerging identities as individuals

literate in English

Figure 3 Part of Abbyrsquos reading log from the third term of the mSSR

396 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

CONCLUSIONS

The findings uncovered in this study show two learnersrsquo development of

interactional competence through their socialization into classroom literacy

events This socialization occurred through the learnersrsquo engagement in

discursive practices in repeated literacy events which were part of a modified

sustained silent reading program The discursive practices for the literacy

events occurred within the context of the entire classroom community of

practice (Wenger 1998) and afforded learners the opportunities to move from

peripheral to more full participation in English literacy This community of

practice included (1) the teachers who provided instructions and support for

the activities through explicit instruction and modeling (2) learner peers

who also modeled appropriate interactive and language behavior and were

the interlocutors with whom some of the literacy practices were negotiated

and (3) the texts themselves which became a mediating object the third

part in a triadic dialogue for literacy (van Lier 2002) comprised of learnerndash

teacherndashtext or learnerndashlearnerndashtext

While neither learner had studied English formally before enrolling in

classes at the Lab School this study shows that Abby the learner with a high

school education from her home country was familiar with some of the

practices for literacy events including alphabetical filing book selection

and book assessment This research also showed that over the course of

three terms doing the mSSR activities Abby developed a wider range of

interactional practices for opening the dyadic interactions involved in the

story re-telling

Eduardo on the other hand began his participation in the mSSR activities

with much less experience with classroom literacy events having had just

two years of education in his home country The literacy events which were

part of the mSSR afforded Eduardo (van Lier 2000) the opportunity to

engage with literacy and by participating at first peripherally Eduardo

quickly understood and participated more fully in the book selection literacy

event Through interaction with his peers and the teacher in term two basic

literacy skills such as alphabetizing and filing his reading log developed

Though his teachersrsquo initial impressions suggested that he got very little

from his participation in the mSSR a review of his reading logs and his

participation in class show that Eduardo acquired knowledge of literacy

through a transformation (Lave and Wenger 1991) of his understanding of

and participation in literacy events

The development of these learnersrsquo interactional competence can be seen

in Eduardorsquos pursuit of understanding the practice of filing his reading log

which he accomplished through interaction with several members of the

classroom community This change in his participation in filing the logs

shows how learning is a situated practice accomplished through repeated

interactions with the entire classroom community In the analysis of the

story re-telling activities both Eduardo and Abby exhibited an increased

JOHN HELLERMANN 397

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

ability to use talk to initiate interaction by negotiating interlocutor

assignment and turn allocation to open their re-tellings Again the repeated

practice of the re-tellings afforded the learners opportunities to negotiate

a particular classroom and social action (opening a face-to-face interaction)

and both learners developed interactional skills that allowed them to

participate in the practice more fully

A quantitative analysis of standardized assessment measures30 for all the

learners at the Lab School shows that students who participated in the mSSR

method improved in their English language literacy skills to the same degree

as students who participated in classes which used a traditional skills-based

method for the teaching of reading (Reder et al forthcoming) This result

leads one to question what classroom practices might have contributed to

the increase in scores for each group Qualitative micro-analyses such as this

study are a first step toward understanding the discursive practices of the

mSSR classrooms which led to increases in those standardized tests of literacy

skills Also while we know that first-language education is a factor in

successful second language acquisition (Cole et al 1971) we know little

about how classroom interaction between experienced and inexperienced

learners differs In order to address this question this analysis used existing

social categorizations for participant selection (their degree of previous

education in their first language environment) and focused on two students

who would be categorized differently But the use of these macro-level

categorizations was not intended to reify the association of the characteristics

of each category to individual members Rather they were used to define

places from which to empirically examine the interactional language

behavior of members of each category This examination was done through

micro-analyses of the two studentsrsquo participation in the discursive practices

in mSSR literacy events that help L2 literacy develop The focus on the

day-to-day classroom interactions of the two learners allowed us to see

different paths to L2 literacy for learners who have different educational and

literacy experiences and uncover the complex interaction within a classroom

community of practice which results in the changes reported in traditional

language assessment measures

Final version received November 2005

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank the entire staff at the National Labsite for Adult ESOL at Portland State

University for their involvement in maintaining the Lab School as a place for adults to learn

English and as a state of the art research facility I would also like to thank Kathy Harris Sandra

Banke Reuel Kurzet Steve Reder Dominique Brillanceau and three anonymous readers for

their feedback on various versions of the paper

398 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

APPENDIX A

Some transcript conventions in conversation analysis (adapted from Schegloff

2000)

I Temporal and sequential relationships

[ Overlapping or simultaneous talk

frac14 lsquolatched utterancesrsquo no break or pause between utterances

(05) Numbers in parentheses indicate silence represented in tenths of a second

() A dot in parentheses indicates a lsquomicropausersquo

II Aspects of speech delivery including aspectsof intonation

period indicates a falling intonation contour not necessarily the end ofa sentence

question mark indicates rising intonation

a comma indicates lsquocontinuingrsquo intonation

Colons are used to indicate the prolongation or stretching of the soundjust preceding them The more colons the longer the stretching

- A hyphen after a word or part of a word indicates a cut-off or self-interruption word

Underlining is used to indicate some form of stress or emphasis either byincreased loudness or higher pitch The more underlining the greater theemphasis

The degree sign indicates that the talk following it was markedly quiet orsoft

The up and down arrows mark sharper rises or falls in pitch

45 The combination of lsquomore thanrsquo and lsquoless thanrsquo symbols indicates that thetalk between them is compressed or rushed

54 Used in the reverse order they can indicate that a stretch of talk ismarkedly slowed or drawn out

hhh Outbreath

hh Inbreath

(( )) Descriptions of events ((cough)) ((sniff)) ((telephone rings)) ((foot-steps))

(word) All or part of an utterance in parentheses indicates transcriber uncertainty

Creaky voice

NOTES

1 In order to get around the unwieldy

and theoretically-loaded terminology

for describing the use acquisition

and learning of a language that is

not the home or first language of the

participants of this study I will use

JOHN HELLERMANN 399

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

the abbreviation lsquoL2rsquo throughout the

paper to refer to a language that is

being attained through formal instruc-

tion For the students in this study

lsquoL2rsquo refers to English It may not be

however that English is these

studentsrsquo lsquosecondrsquo language as the

abbreviation implies

2 Students in the current study were in

lsquolevel Arsquo classes at the data collection

site SPL level 0ndash2

3 In Sustained Silent Reading

(McCracken 1971 Pilgreen 2000)

students are given a set time in the

classroom to read silently without

interruption by the teacher or other

students and without evaluation of

what is read and how it is read

The method was altered slightly at

the data collection site to meet the

needs of beginning adult language

learners and included activities

like post-reading re-telling activities

and studentsrsquo use of reading logs

to record their assessments of their

reading

4 The National Labsite for Adult ESOL

at Portland State University is sup-

ported in part by grant R309B6002

from the Institute for Education

Science US Dept of Education to

the National Center for the Study of

Adult Learning and Literacy The

Labsite is a partnership between

Portland State University and Portland

Community College The school

and research facilities are housed at

Portland State while the registration

curriculum and teachers of the

ESL students are from Portland

Community College

5 One reviewer asked about the inabil-

ity to see learnersrsquo eye gaze with

cameras embedded in the ceiling

While this is a problem when

students are sitting directly under

the two mobile cameras which

follow students wearing the wireless

microphones most often students

are sitting in a position where

studentsrsquo faces can be seen quite

directly For details of the data

collection see Reder et al (2003)

6 The Labsite Student Study (LSS)

conducts in-home interviews with a

subset of students in the lab school

(70 per year) in their home lan-

guages over the course of four

years regardless of whether the

student remains in lab school classes

or not The primary purpose of

the LSS study is to understand

language use and literacy develop-

ment outside the classroom context

and factors which influence program

persistence

7 All names used in this study are

pseudonyms

8 The teacher had different types of

books on a cart that she wheeled into

the room every class period She took

books off the cart and spread them

out on desks at the back of the room

9 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoselectsbookclass1]

10 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardohelping]

11 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoshowing]

12 Sarah Ouellette helped with the

Spanish transcription and provided

the translation to English Transcrip-

tion conventions are included in

Appendix A lsquoTrsquo indicates the class-

room teacher in all transcripts

13 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoexplaining]

400 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

14 At the time of this excerpt Eduardo

was a novice in Rederrsquos (1987) third

mode of literacy engagement

technical still struggling with basic

technical issues like decoding English

language lexicon

15 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Abbyreading]

16 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Abbynotetaking]

17 The classroom teachers noted the

frustration of doing mSSR with

students who have very low first

language literacy because of her

inability to help students organize

their reading in instances like note

taking (Banke and Brillanceau 2004)

18 A literacy assessment test (BEST

Literacy) was administered in the

classroom in terms one and two of

the mSSR program While the scores

increased for each learner for

Eduardo the increase is not as great

as Abbyrsquos Eduardorsquos overall literacy

score went from 35 in term one

to 42 in term two which is an

increase of one student performance

level (from 3 to 4) Abbyrsquos scores

increased from 45 in term one to

56 in term two which indicates

a jump from student performance

level 4 to 6 For information

on characteristics of student language

abilities at different student perfor-

mance levels (SPLs) see pp 5ndash6 of

wwwcalorgcaelaesl_resources

Part4-5pdf

19 One of the pedagogical advantages of

doing a dyadic re-telling in a lan-

guage classroom is that even if one

student doesnrsquot understand the

instructions for the task in an activity

like the mSSR the peerrsquos act of

posture shift moving a book into

a common space and looking

toward the partner strongly invite

collaboration in some interaction and

it is collaboration that is perhaps

the most important aspect of the

re-telling activity (Pilgreen 2000)

especially for language learners

20 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoopening1]

21 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoopening2]

22 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoorientsstorytelling]

23 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Abbyopening1]

24 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Abbypretasktalkterm2]

25 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Abbystartingretelling2]

26 While more empirical evidence is

warranted a provisional claim

can be mentioned here that such

re-telling activities and perhaps

in classroom pair activities in

general are organized with a two-

part move like that displayed in

(6) lsquoquery about readinessrsquo and

lsquoturn allocationrsquo before the first task

question

27 Notably absent from Abbyrsquos and

Eduardorsquos peer re-tellings are any

verbal greeting sequences Even

when one of the pair moves across

the room to sit with another student

Abby and Eduardo did not exchange

greetings with their partner for their

JOHN HELLERMANN 401

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

task This is something that other

students did as part of their openings

28 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoasksstudentforhelpfiling]

29 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoasksaboutfiling]

30 The assessment measures were the

BEST Plus and the Peabody Picture

Vocabulary tests

REFERENCES

Atkinson J M and J C Heritage 1984

Structures of Social Action Studies in Conversation

Analysis Cambridge Cambridge University Press

August G 2001 The Road to Second Language

Reading How do we get there Unpublished

PhD Dissertation City University of New York

New York

Banke S and D Brillanceu 2004 lsquoLiving

in Interventionrsquo Unpublished manuscript

Barton D (2001) lsquoDirections for literacy

research Analysing language and social practices

in a textually mediated worldrsquo Language and

Education 152ndash3 92ndash104

Bernhardt E B and M L Kamil 1995 lsquoInter-

preting relationships between L1 and L2 reading

Consolidating the linguistic threshold and the

linguistic interdependence hypothesesrsquo Applied

Linguistics 161 15ndash34

Bourdieu P 1991 Language and Symbolic Power

Cambridge MA Harvard University Press

Brandt D 1990 Literacy as Involvement The Acts

of Writers Readers and Texts Carbondale IL

Southern Illinois University Press

ButtonG andNCasey1984 lsquoGenerating topics

The use of topic initial elicitorsrsquo in J M Atkinson

and J C Heritage (eds) Structures of Social Action

Studies in Conversation Analysis Cambridge

Cambridge University Press

Canale M and M Swain 1980 lsquoTheoretical

bases of communicative approaches to second

language teaching and testingrsquoApplied Linguistics

1 1ndash47

Carrell P L 1991 lsquoSecond language reading

Reading ability or language proficiencyrsquo Applied

Linguistics 122 159ndash79

Chow P and C Chou 2000 Evaluating

Sustained Silent Reading in Reading Classes [Web]

I-TESL-J Available httpitesljorgArticlesChow-

mSSRhtml

Cole M J Gay J A Glick and D W Sharp

1971 The Cultural Context of Learning and Think-

ing An Exploration in Experimental Anthropology

New York Basic Books

Couper-Kuhlen E andMSelting 1996 Prosody

in Conversation Interactional Studies Cambridge

Cambridge University Press

Duff P 2002 lsquoThe discursive co-construction

of knowledge identity and difference An

ethnography of communication in the high

school mainstreamrsquo Applied Linguistics 233

289ndash322

Erickson F and J Schultz 1981 lsquoWhen is

a context Some issues and methods in the

analysis of social competencersquo in J Green and

C Wallat (eds) Ethnography and Language in

Educational Settings Norwood NJ Ablex

Felser C L Roberts T Marinis and R Gross

2003 lsquoThe processing of ambiguous sentences by

first and second language learners of Englishrsquo

Applied Psycholinguistics 243 453ndash89

Garfinkel H 1967 Studies in Ethnomethodology

Englewood Cliffs NJ Prentice Hall

Gee J P 1990 Social Linguistics and Literacies

Ideology in Discourses London Falmer Press

Goffman E 1959 The Presentation of Self

in Everyday Life New York Anchor Books

Doubleday

Goffman E 1961 Encounters Two Studies in

the Sociology of Interaction Indianapolis Bobbs-

Merrill

Goody J1977 TheDomestication of the SavageMind

Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Grabe W and F L Stoller 1997 lsquoReading and

vocabulary development in a second language

A case studyrsquo in J Coady and T Huckin (eds)

Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition A

Rationale for Pedagogy Cambridge Cambridge

University Press

402 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

Gumperz J J 1982 Discourse Strategies

Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Habermas J1976 lsquoSome distinctions in universal

pragmatics A working paperrsquo Theory and Society

32 155ndash67

Hall J K 1993 lsquoThe role of oral practices in

the accomplishment of our everyday lives

The sociocultural dimension of interaction

with implications for the learning of

another languagersquo Applied Linguistics 142

145ndash66

Hall J K 1995 lsquo lsquolsquoAw man where you goinrsquorsquorsquo

Classroom interaction and the development

of L2 interactional competencersquo Issues in Applied

Linguistics 62 37ndash62

Hall JK1997 lsquoA consideration of SLA as a theory

of practice A response to Firth and Wagnerrsquo

Modern Language Journal 813 301ndash306

He A W and R Young 1998 lsquoLanguage

proficiency interviews A discourse approachrsquo in

R Young and A W He (eds) Talking and Testing

Discourse Approaches to the Assessment of Oral

Proficiency Amsterdam John Benjamins

Heath S B 1982 lsquoWhat no bedtime story means

Narrative skills at home and schoolrsquo Language

in Society 11 49ndash76

Heath S B 1983 Ways with Words Language

Life and Work in Communities and Classrooms

Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Hellermann J 2004 lsquoPractices for opening dyadic

interactionrsquo paper presented at the annual

conference of the American Association for

Applied Linguistics Portland OR

Hellermann J forthcoming lsquoThe development of

practices for action in the classroom diadic

interaction focus on task openingsrsquo Modern

Language Journal

Hood S and H Joyce 1995 lsquoReading in the

adult ESL curriculum and classroomrsquo Prospect

102 52ndash64

Hymes D 1974 Foundations in Sociolinguistics

An Ethnographic Approach Philadelphia

University of Pennsylvania Press

Kramsch C 1986 lsquoFrom language proficiency

to interactional competencersquo Modern Language

Journal 70 372ndash66

Kramsch C 2002 lsquoHow can we tell the dancer

from the dancersquo in C Kramsch (ed) Language

Acquisition and Language Socialization An ecological

approach London Continuum

Lave J and E Wenger 1991 Situated Learning

Legitimate Peripheral Participation Cambridge

Cambridge University Press

Lerner G H 1995 lsquoTurn design and the organiza-

tion of participation in instructional activitiesrsquo

Discourse Processes 19 111ndash31

MacBethD2003 lsquoHugh MehanrsquosLearning Lessons

reconsidered On the differences between the

naturalistic and critical analysis of classroom

discoursersquo American Educational Research Journal

401 239ndash80

McCraken R A 1971 lsquoInitiating sustained silent

readingrsquo Journal of Reading 148 521ndash4 582ndash3

McDermott R and D Roth 1978 lsquoThe social

organization of behavior Interactional

approachesrsquo Annual Review of Anthropology 7

321ndash45

Markee N 2000 Conversation Analysis Marwah

NJ Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

Ochs E and B Schieffelin 1979 Developmental

Pragmatics New York Academic Press

Ochs E E A Schegloff and S A Thompson

1996 Interaction and Grammar Cambridge

Cambridge University Press

Ong W J 1982 Orality and Literacy The Technolo-

gizing of the Word London Routledge

Palacios I G 2002 An ESLLiteracy Center

A qualitative study of perspectives and practices

of immigrant adults and literacy facilitators

Unpublished PhD Dissertation Indiana

University Pennsylvania Indiana PA

Pilgreen J L 2000 The SSR Handbook How to

Organize and Manage a Sustained Silent Reading

Program Portsmouth NH BoyntonCook

Pulido D 2003 lsquoModeling the role of second

language proficiency and topic familiarity

in second language incidental vocabulary

acquisition through readingrsquo Language Learning

532 233ndash84

Reder S 1987 lsquoComparative aspects of functional

literacy development Three ethnic American

communitiesrsquo in D Wagner (ed) The Future

of Literacy in a Changing World Oxford Pergamon

Press

Reder S 1994 lsquoPractice engagement theory

A sociocultural approach to literacy across

languages and culturersquo in B M Ferdman

R M Weber and A G Ramırez (eds) Literacy

Across Languages and Cultures Albany NY State

University of New York Press

Reder S and E Davila (2005) lsquoContext

and literacy practicesrsquo Annual Review of Applied

Linguistics 25 170ndash87

Reder S K A Harris and K Setzler 2003

lsquoA multimedia adult learner corpusrsquo TESOL

Quarterly 373 546ndash57

JOHN HELLERMANN 403

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

Reder S K A Harris R Kurzet

D Brillanceau S Banke and JHellermann

forthcoming Using a modified Sustained Silent

Reading for low-level adult ESOL students

Boston National Center for the Study of Adult

Learning and Literacy

Sacks H E A Schegloff and G Jefferson

1974 lsquoA simplest systematics for the organiza-

tion of turn-taking for conversationsrsquo Language

504 696ndash735

Sagarra N 2000 The longitudinal role of working

memory on adult acquisition of L2 grammar

Unpublished PhD Dissertation University of

Illinois Urbana-Champaign

Schegloff E A 1968 lsquoSequencing in conversa-

tional openingsrsquo American Anthropologist 70

1075ndash95

Schegloff E A 1980 lsquoPreliminaries to prelimin-

aries lsquolsquoCan I ask you a questionrsquorsquo rsquo Sociological

Inquiry 50 104ndash52

Schegloff E A 1998 lsquoReflections on studying

prosody in talk-in-interactionrsquo Language and

Speech 413ndash4 235ndash63

Schegloff E A 2000 lsquoOverlapping talk and the

organization of turn-making for conversationrsquo

Language in Society 291 1ndash63

Schegloff E A 2002 lsquoOpening sequencingrsquo

in J E Katz and M Aakhus (eds) Perpetual

Contact Mobile Communication Private Talk Public

Performance Cambridge Cambridge University

Press

Schegloff E A and H Sacks 1973 lsquoOpening up

closingsrsquo Semiotica 8 289ndash327

Schieffelin B B and Ochs E (1986) lsquoLanguage

socializationrsquo Annual Review of Anthropology 15

163ndash91

Scribner S and M Cole 1981 The Psychology of

Literacy Cambridge MA Harvard University

Press

Segalowitz N C Poulsen and M Komoda

1991 lsquoLower level components of reading skill in

higher level bilinguals Implications for reading

instructionrsquo AILA Review 8 15ndash30

Streeck J 1983 Social Order in Child Communica-

tion Amsterdam John Benjamins

Streeck J and S Mihus 2005 lsquoMicroethno-

graphy The study of practicesrsquo In K L Fitch

and R E Sanders (eds) The Handbook of

Language and Social Interaction Marwah NJ

Lawrence Erlbaum

Street B 1998 lsquoNew literacies in theory

and practice What are the implications for

language in educationrsquo Linguistics and Education

10 1ndash24

Street B V 2001 Literacy and Development

Ethnographic perspectives London Routledge

Tang H 1997 lsquoThe relationship between reading

comprehension processes in L1 and L2rsquo Reading

Psychology 183 249ndash301

Treville M C 1996 lsquoLexical learning and reading

in L2 at the beginner level The advantage of

cognatesrsquo The Canadian Modern Language Review

531 173ndash90

Van Lier L 2000 lsquoFrom input to affordance

Social-interactive learning from an ecological

perspectiversquo in J Lantolf (ed) Sociocultural

Theory and Second Language Learning Oxford

Oxford University Press

van Lier L 2002 lsquoAn ecological-semiotic

perspective on language and linguisticsrsquo in

C Kramsch (ed) Language Acquisition and

Language Socialization An ecological approach

London Continuum

Wenger J 1998 Communities of Practice Learning

Meaning and Identity Cambridge Cambridge

University Press

Yang J 2000 lsquoOrthographic effect on word

recognition by learners of Chinese as a Foreign

Languagersquo Journal of the Chinese Language

Teachers Association 352 1ndash18

YoungR1999 lsquoSociolinguistic approaches toSLArsquo

Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 19 105ndash32

Young R 2000 lsquoInteractional competence

Challenges for validityrsquo Paper presented at the

annual conference of the American Association

for Applied Linguistics Vancouver BC

Young R F 2002 lsquoDiscourse approaches to oral

language assessmentrsquo Annual Review of Applied

Linguistics 22 243ndash62

404 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

Page 9: Classroom Interactive Practices for Developing L2 Literacy: A Microethnographic Study of Two Beginning Adult Learners of English

This example shows Eduardo working through two of Rederrsquos (1987) three

modes of engagement with literacy functional and social14 In this act of

offering help to a newcomer Eduardo displays his functional engagement

with the mSSR literacy event by helping the teacher set out books and

modeling the practice of choosing a book His awareness of the mSSR event

as beneficial and one in which the entire class engages motivates him to give

instructions to a newcomer to the classroom community in that learnerrsquos L1

with key terms for the task in English displaying a social engagement with

literacy

While these observations of book selection and reading behavior do not

make claims about the development of decoding skills lexical acquisition

or memory and cognitive skills enhanced by L2 literacy development this

micro-ethnographic approach does uncover the habitus (Bourdieu 1991) of

the L2 literacy development in the classroom that is the behavioral practices

which establish a context in which other code-related skills become possible

In the book selection literacy event we see evidence of Eduardo moving

from peripheral to full participation (Lave and Wenger 1991) in his greater

discrimination in book selection The ability for Eduardo to explain the mSSR

activity to a newcomer to the class also shows the concomitant developing

interactional competence through socialization into classroom literacy events

By the end of three terms of attending classes which included the mSSR

activity Eduardo has acquired some of the social processes within the

context of the classroom community that involve him (Brandt 1990) in

literacy

In contrast to Eduardo presumably because of the literate practices learned

in her first language and culture for Abby socialization into L2 book

selection and reading perseverance was something that required less time In

her first mSSR session after the teacherrsquos instructions about selecting a book

Abby was the first learner to get out of her seat and go to the book cart

At the book cart she picked out one book and skimmed through it before

returning it She selected a second book looked through it briefly took the

book back to her seat and kept it for the entire period At the end of the class

period after the teacher suggested that students could reserve their book for

the next class period by putting a name card in the book Abby did this

highlighting her ability to engage with a text from the first day of the mSSR

This type of engagement with the text (book selection and reserving the book

for the next class period) contrasts notably with Eduardorsquos indiscriminate

book selection on the first day of the mSSR

Other evidence that Abby was able to take advantage of her experience

with L1 literacy was her use of several strategies for reading that Eduardo

did not use during the silent reading period These included the use of an

electronic dictionary to help her understand unfamiliar words and quietly

reading to herself during the time for silent reading15 The use of the

dictionary was part of systematic note taking by Abby who wrote out

unfamiliar words in columns in her notebook with the Chinese equivalents

JOHN HELLERMANN 385

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

next to them16 These skills were done without instruction from the

teacher and displayed her self-directed strategies for acquiring the L2 lexicon

While Eduardo also wrote in his notebook he usually wrote out full

sentences and phrases Watching him writing and seeing his notebooks from

time to time on camera I observed that Eduardo did not display the

experience of taking notes nor the strategic language learning skills that

Abby exhibited Conversations with the classroom teachers also suggest that

Eduardorsquos notes were not helpful to him because of their unsystematic

nature17 While Eduardo did begin using a dictionary in term three

regarding the mechanics of decoding written text the evidence suggests that

Abbyrsquos educational background played a large role in allowing her to

participate more completely from the start in the silent reading than

Eduardo18

Opening the post-reading story re-telling

Research in conversation analysis has explored how conversationalists

start their social interactions through orderly practices in their talk

(Schegloff 1968 1998 2002 Schegloff and Sacks 1973 Button and Casey

1984) While this line of research has focused on native speaker interaction

adult learners of English face the same fundamental problem as native

speakersmdashhow to get an interaction underway Adult learners of English

may bring a repertoire of strategies for social interaction from their life

experiences in other languages and cultures but whether adult learners of a

language as socially competent adults bring a sense of universal pragmatics

(Habermas 1976) to the classroom is an ongoing empirical question The

study of interaction in the context of adult learners using a lingua franca to

start activities provides a rich environment for the exploration of basic turn-

taking and conversational practices used in institutional settings

After the thirty minutes of silent reading another regular task in the

mSSR activity was peer re-telling in which the teacher instructed learners

(sometimes supplying question prompts) to tell their deskmate something

about the book they had just been reading The evidence gathered from the

two adult learners of English in this analysis suggests that differences in a

level of interactional competence in the L2 can be seen in the way the

learners engage in basic conversational skills such as opening an interaction

Two notable differences between these two learners are seen in the overt

negotiation over interlocutor selection and turn allocation at the beginning of

a task and the orientation to other activities that they are in the process of

finishing up Abbyrsquos interactions are characterized by opening moves which

display a greater range of linguistic and pragmatic skills than Eduardorsquos

Her opening moves also display notable development over the course of

three terms in the mSSR classes

A crucial first step to interaction in this literacy event for learners without

a large repertoire of linguistic code skills is the achievement of mutual

386 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

physical orientation for doing dyadic interaction19 Highly proficient speakers

of a language have a range of speech acts which they can use to subtly gain

a partnerrsquos attention while beginning learners almost without exception

rely on mutual physical orientation and object manipulation to start

their dyadic interactions (Hellermann 2004 2005) Eduardo and Abby also

both accomplished these subtle alignments for opening their re-telling

activities unproblematically in most instances Coordinating a mutual

physical orientation for re-telling entails the participants shifting their

posture slightly toward one another moving their books into a shared

space for re-telling and pointing to items in their books The interactions

between Eduardo and Lai Min another student in Excerpts (2) and (3)

occur at the beginning of Eduardorsquos second term in the mSSR The excerpts

are presented to show Eduardorsquos perseverance in opening this particular

literacy event demonstrating how he sees the establishment of mutual

orientation to a space for re-telling to be a necessary part of the re-telling

(Excerpt 2) and highlighting his manipulation of the books themselves

(Excerpt 3) as objects which are fundamental to the accomplishment of this

literacy event

(2)

[A2ndash13ndash03 204 24800 Term II week 6]20

1 T you need to speak to Eduardo

2 E ((taps Lai Min on shoulder and waves his hands motioning her

3 to move toward him))

4 L yeah ((leans back turns head slightly toward Eduardo))

5 E ((pages through his book))

6 L ((looks down to her book looks around class looks over

7 at E leans a little bit toward E))

8 L ((looks away from E)) [((leans forward away from E))

9 E [((looks toward L)) ((puts down his

10 book takes off glasses))

In (2) after the teacherrsquos directive to Lai Min to do the re-telling activity

with Eduardo (line 1) Eduardo makes a clear non-verbal summons

(shoulder tap) and invitation (waving motion) to Lai Min to begin the

re-telling activity in lines 2ndash3 Lai Min makes a minimal verbal and non-

verbal response (line 4) as Eduardo looks in his book Then as Eduardo is

paging through his book Lai Min looks at her own book looks around the

class looks to Eduardo and then looks away Lai Min does not make any

verbal moves to start the interaction and her visual orientation to various

places does not focus on an interaction space Besides the slight head

turn (line 4) and slight lean toward Eduardo (line 7) there is no clear

postural alignment to the space between herself and Eduardo When

Eduardo stops paging through his book and looks to Lai Min in line 9

JOHN HELLERMANN 387

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

he sees that her posture is not aligned to a mutual re-telling space and

he takes off his glasses and puts down his book seemingly aborting the

re-telling sequence

(3)

[A2ndash13ndash03 204 24835 Term II week 6]21

11 L ((looks at Ersquos book looks at board)) tee shuh ss tee shup

12 E ((opens another book)) ((puts book mark in it and closes it))

13 L ((looks at E))

14 E ((puts on glasses))

15 L ((opens her book))

16 E ((opens the second book points to something in the book))

17 L ((looks toward E))

18 E ( )

19 L ((L leans in toward E looking at book))

20 E Saigon Saigone Saigone

21 L ((points to Ersquos book)) Saigon

22 E Saigon Vietnam

23 L uh

24 E Saigone Vietname S( ) Vietnam

25 L mm

26 E Saigone

27 L Saigon ((leans away from E))

28 E ((looks at Lrsquos book and reads something from it)) [(prayer)

29 L [((moves her

30 book toward E))

In (3) after this aborted opening Lai Min appears to read something from

the board out loud (line 11) while Eduardo handles another book on the

table in front of him After Lai Min glances at Eduardo in line 13 Eduardo

puts on his glasses opens the book he has just been handling and points to

something in the book (line 16) which Lai Min orients to by leaning

in toward Eduardo to look at the page to which he is pointing After some

back and forth repetition of the word Eduardo is pointing to (Saigon) Lai Min

ends the focus on Eduardorsquos book by leaning away from the common

interactional space (line 27) Eduardo takes this as a cue to switch roles and

to now share information from Lai Minrsquos book In line 28 Eduardo reads

something from Lai Minrsquos book and she moves it closer to him to aid his

reading

While Extracts (2) and (3) show Eduardo initiating openings for the

re-telling literacy event and non-verbally orienting to the interaction with his

peer he was usually not the most verbally-active participant in his dyadic

388 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

interactions for re-telling When he self-selected to start a re-telling it was

when there were long pauses or notable lack of initiation from his partner

(as in (2) and (3)) By the end of term two of the mSSR however there

is evidence of Eduardo making a reciprocal verbal elicitation for a re-telling

As Excerpt (4) shows after finishing his own re-telling and completing

a closing sequence to that telling (lines 4ndash7) Eduardo reciprocates in eliciting

a re-telling from his partner (line 8)

(4)

[B 5ndash13ndash03 23601 term III week 7]22

1 E fis

2 J flying fish ((flapping left hand like flying))

3 E this is flying fi[s() this (of the)

4 J [yeah yeah yeah yeah

5 J mm mm

6 E mm hmm

7 J mm hmm

8 E what is your

9 (20) ((J picks up his book))

10 J eh (started started) this story

11 E the mountain the mountain ((reads Jrsquos book cover))

While the elicitation in line 8 is abbreviated Eduardorsquos partner (Jin) orients

to line 8 as an elicitation by picking up his own book (line 9) and beginning

his re-telling (line 10) As Jin starts the re-telling Eduardo orients to the title

of the book as an important part of the re-telling event by reading the title of

Jinrsquos book (line 11)

Two aspects of the openings for the re-tellings that the other focal student

of this study Abby displayed but that did not occur in Eduardorsquos interactions

were her pre-activity talk checking on whether the peer was ready to do

the task and then talk about interlocutor assignment for the activity

Abby became more active in initiating these opening moves over the course

of the three terms of the mSSR Excerpts (5)ndash(7) show examples of this

development In (5) which comes from the very beginning of the second

term in the mSSR we see Abby interact with Fernando but not initiate the

interaction

(5)

[1-10ndash03 B 24452 Term II week 2]23

1 F whose talk to me

2 (10) ((Fernando facing Abby Abby turns to Fernando))

3 F ((to Abby)) you oh

4 (25)

JOHN HELLERMANN 389

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

5 F hhyeah okay

6 ((Abby sneezes))

7 F bless you () god bless you a[gain

8 A [thank you

9 F again [god bless you

10 A [huh hah hah [uh hih hih hih hih hhuh

11 F [eh huh heh heh heah

12 (20)

13 F what () is your book

14 A eh () my book is () my my book is easy () easy story press

15 F oh press [mm hmm

16 A [yeah ease story pres[s

17 F [eh

18 (35)

19 A what is (your) story

In line 1 Fernando makes the first verbal move to establish the peer

dyad and achieve mutual physical orientation asking about a partner

and after a sequence involving sneezing in line 13 Fernando asks the

first elicitation question for the activity Abby responds to each elicitation

non-verbally in line 2 and with the title of her book in line 14 Abby orients

to the activity of finding out about one anotherrsquos books by asking

the reciprocal question more specifically asking about Fernandorsquos lsquostoryrsquo in

line 19

The next example of one of Abbyrsquos opening move sequences comes from

the fifth week of the second term of the mSSR Excerpt (6) shows Abby

engaging in more pre-task opening talk (lines 3 and 6) interlocutor selection

(line 8) and the launch of the task (line 10)

(6)

[2703 B 204 24353 Term II week 5]24

1 T you need to talk ladies

2 (10)

3 Ab todayrsquos uh February ((looks to Ana then back to notebook))

4 An ((shifts posture toward Abby))

5 (70)

6 Ab seventh

7 (140) ((both ss write)

8 Ab I talk to you ((turning to Ana))

9 (250) ((Ana continues writing))

10 Ab my () my book uh life story one

11 (20)

12 An ((shifts posture a bit to A))

390 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

13 Ab are you finished

14 An go (go ahead) please () where is () where is your story

After the teacher exhorts the learners (line 1) to begin their pair task

(the story re-telling) Abby announces the date and after Ana shifts her

posture toward Abby proposes the pair assignment (line 8) Since the

learners sit at desks in pairs the pair assignment is somewhat of a given so

Abbyrsquos turn in line 8 may also act as a proposal for turn allocation If

interlocutor assignment is relatively self-evident the turn lsquoI talk to yoursquo is at

least a move to attempt to get Ana to enter the interaction and may be an

explicit move to tell Ana that she Abby is starting the activity There is no

uptake by Ana after this proposal and after a rather long pause (line 9) Abby

launches the task self-selecting to re-tell her story first When there is no

verbal uptake by Ana in line 11 after Abbyrsquos turn Abby orients to her

partnerrsquos preparation for the task and asks if Ana has finished (line 13) her

preparatory work (writing notes) Ana orients to Abbyrsquos question as a pre-

request to check whether Ana is ready to start her re-telling by encouraging

Abby to continue directly eliciting information about the location of her

story in line 14

The final excerpt from the third term of the mSSR illustrates Abbyrsquos further

development of interactional practices for opening the re-telling activity In (7)

while Inez is writing in her notebook Abby shifts her posture to Inez and asks

a question (line 2) which is preliminary to a question for the assigned activity

(7)

[5-9ndash03 B 206 24121 Term III week 7]25

((Teacherrsquos prompt for the interaction lsquoDo you like books about a story or

information what kind of book are you reading nowrsquo))

1 A ((shifts posture toward Inez))

2 I are you ready

3 (70) ((Inez is writing in her notebook))

4 I yeah sorry

5 (30)

6 I ((re-positions her posture to face Abby then gestures with

7 right hand pointing to Abby and back to herself))

8 (30)

9 A ((Abby looks at the board and reads the question)) what type

10 of a book are you reading now

11 ((Inez begins her re-telling))

While Abbyrsquos question in line 2 orients to the necessity of the completion of

the preparatory work for the re-telling literacy event it also works as part

of the opening for the re-telling task itself Inez finishes writing in her

notebook and orients to Abbyrsquos question as an opening to the assigned

JOHN HELLERMANN 391

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

re-telling task by answering Abbyrsquos question and apologizing for not starting

immediately (line 4) After Inez repositions her body and non-verbally

initiates a negotiation of turn allocation for the re-telling (lines 6 and 7)

Abby self-selects to elicit the re-telling from Inez by reading one of the

teacherrsquos prompts from the board (lines 9ndash10)

Abbyrsquos socialization to the mSSR re-telling activity can be seen in the

development of opening moves in the re-telling interactions with her peers

in Excerpts (5)ndash(7) The interaction from earlier in the mSSR (Excerpt (5))

shows Abby not actively initiating dyad assignment pre-task talk and task

launch In terms two and three the excerpts show her more actively

involved in starting these re-telling activities Her task-preliminary organiza-

tional talk and task launching later in the second and third terms of the

mSSR suggest that she is now more comfortable with the re-telling literacy

event and with the language as a whole

These excerpts of Abbyrsquos interaction in the re-telling literacy events show

two common moves by more advanced learners for opening dyadic

interactions (Hellermann 2004 forthcoming) the orientation to the previous

task completion (in Excerpt (6) lsquoare you finishedrsquo and Excerpt (7) lsquoare you

readyrsquo) and interlocutor selection (in Excerpt (6) lsquoI talk to yoursquo) As other

research in conversation shows such moves for opening talk enable

participants to work out basic features of talk-in-interaction such as avoiding

simultaneous talk and ensuring that the talk about to happen is the start of

something new not from the previous topic (Button and Casey 1984)26

The interactions by Abby and Eduardo in the re-telling literacy events also

show evidence for the learnersrsquo development of interactional competence

through their socialization into literacy events27 While both Abby and

Eduardo orient to the beginnings of the re-telling events creating spaces for

appropriate mutual participation for the event from the start of the mSSR

we see evidence for a change in their participation in the re-telling events

over the course of the three terms of the mSSR Eduardo uses a speech act

(lsquowhat is yourrsquo) in a more sophisticated modality (verbal rather than non-

verbal) to reciprocate an elicitation for a re-telling in his interaction with Jin

in Excerpt (4) In Abbyrsquos later interactions she explicitly orients to the

boundaries of the events by inquiring as to her partnersrsquo readiness to

participate (Excerpts (5) and (6)) and negotiates roles for participation

(Excerpt (6) lsquoI talk to yoursquo) and turn allocation (Excerpts (6) and (7))

Learner reading logs and filing of reading logs

A basic literacy skill activity that the teacher built into the mSSR classes was

having learners chart their reading activity in a reading log and then file their

own reading logs alphabetically in a file box at the end of every lesson In

the third class period of the first term some evidence of Eduardorsquos lack of

basic literacy skills appeared during the filing activity Near the end of this

class period the teacher asked learners to put their reading logs into a file

392 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

box organized by their first names Eduardo and another learner went to

the file box at the front of the room and stood by the box with their reading

logs looking for the appropriate place to put the logs After some time

Eduardo looked over to Carla (a learner from Brazil) and held out his right

hand palm up Carla oriented to this gesture as a request for help and got out

of her seat to help the two learners showing them the place in the files to

put their logs28 A bit later in this class period as the learners were packing

up to leave the class Eduardo solicited the teacherrsquos help in understanding

the name of the process of filing (Excerpt (8)) In so doing he is building on

the co-constructed filing practice with his classmate

(8)

[10-3ndash02 A 204 25149 Term I week 2]29

1 E want to ask (you something) ((walking to file box))

2 T yes you want to ask me something

3 E somebody ((puts hand in file box then touches head)) somebody

4 T file

5 E file file

6 T uh huh this is what () please file file you papers

In Exerpt (8) Eduardo is standing next to the teacher and utters a

pre-question (Schegloff 1980) in line 1 as he walks to the file box Once at

the box in line 3 he says lsquosomebodyrsquo a bare noun phrase which projects a

predicate Eduardo produces that predicate by modeling the relevant action

a hypothetical learner filing a paper This is followed by a gesture of his

hand to his head (which Eduardo commonly used to indicate that he did not

remember a particular word in English) and a repetition of the same bare

noun phrase In line 4 the teacher orients to Eduardorsquos talk as a request for

a word to name the action of putting the reading log into the box The fact

that this interaction is elicited by Eduardo shortly after his request for help

from Carla suggests that Carla may have helped him put the reading log

in the right place but did not give Eduardo the English word for that action

It is Eduardorsquos interactions with both a peer and with the teacher which

help him co-construct a name for this literacy event

While Eduardorsquos success in filing his reading log was sporadic throughout

the rest of this first term at the beginning of the next term on the first day

of class the teacher explained again that the reading logs were to be filed

alphabetically She explained and modeled this while standing next to the

file box to assist learners After explaining and modeling the procedure to the

class she reminded Eduardo again several minutes later lsquoyou need to put this

[reading log] away young manrsquo Several minutes after that Eduardo held up

his reading log showing it to the teacher as other learners were going to the

file box to file their logs She responded affirmatively and Eduardo went to

the file box The teacher said his name Eduardo said lsquoersquo (the first letter of his

JOHN HELLERMANN 393

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

first name) and put the reading log in the appropriate place in the file box

Having participated in one term of the mSSR and the literacy event of filling

in and filing reading logs (the term in which it was just noted that he was

given support by a peer and the teacher) the reinforcement of the rules the

modeling by the teacher as well as the personal reminder and reassurance

given by the teacher guided Eduardo into full participation in this literacy

event Later in this second term and in the third term as well Eduardo

was able to file the log independently By the beginning of the third term

(4103) he was also able to tell a newcomer to the class the purpose of the

reading log

Based on conversations with his teachers the evidence from his reading

logs and his interactions with other learners in the re-telling literacy event

Eduardo seemed to have developed a genuine interest in and enthusiasm for

reading In a more complex literacy skill involving the reading logs there is

evidence that Eduardo developed the ability to orally evaluate the books

he read adopting a term introduced by the teacher to describe several of

his books lsquoso-sorsquo In the later part of the first term of the mSSR Eduardorsquos

reading log was sporadically filled in and he wrote in Spanish for the

assessment portion of the log (Figure 1)

By the second term of the mSSR Eduardo was reading some books during

the silent reading period in class for four class periods in a row (an indication

of persistence and interest) and assessed one book (The Orange Grove) in his

reading log as lsquovery goodrsquo Through this assessment Eduardo displayed

part of a personal identity as a literate person in English But even by the

third term of the mSSR classes Eduardo did not elaborate on the assessments

of his books as the reading log prompted learners to do In a row at the top

of the reading log learners were to answer the question lsquoDid you like it

[the book]rsquo and then write why The teacher provided another written

prompt in the box that learners checked for a positive assessment lsquoYes

because rsquo In this place though Eduardo always indicated that he liked the

Figure 1 Part of Eduardorsquos reading log from the first term of the mSSR

394 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

books that he read he did not specify why he liked them giving evidence

of the limitations of his ability to evaluate his reading (as Figure 2 shows)

In contrast to Eduardo Abby did not have trouble filing her reading log

On the day the teacher explained to learners how they should file their

reading logs she used Abby as an example lsquoFor example Abby file your

paper under lsquolsquoArsquorsquo for Abbyrsquo In subsequent class periods Abby displayed

competence at filing her reading log in the appropriate slot in the file box

The content of Abbyrsquos reading logs also differed from Eduardorsquos in notable

ways Where Eduardo always checked the box marked lsquoeasyrsquo when

evaluating the level of difficulty of the books he read in most cases Abby

checked the lsquojust rightrsquo box and just a few times the box marked lsquoeasyrsquo for

the books she read Figure 3 shows one of her reading logs from the third

term of the mSSR

The notations in Abbyrsquos reading log in Figure 3 suggest that she was

choosing books that were appropriate to her ability (the box labeled

lsquojust rightrsquo is marked consistently) Also Abby was able to give some detail

(although limited) when prompted by the teacher for the reasons behind

her assessment of a book In response to the teacherrsquos written prompt on

the reading log lsquoyes I liked it because rsquo Abby had two responses she used

lsquoyes I did because interestingrsquo or lsquoyes I did because easyrsquo Abby indicated

Figure 2 Part of Eduardorsquos reading log from the third term of the mSSR

JOHN HELLERMANN 395

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

these more expanded assessments both in the second and third terms of the

mSSR classes

An important question for research on language socialization and

interactional competence in a classroom setting is to what degree these

processes result in increased engagement with literacy outside the classroom

A telling insight gained from the learnersrsquo in-home L1 interviews suggests

that for both these learners the socialization into literacy events in the

classroom lead to increased participation in literacy outside the classroom

In the interviews conducted with each learner before the start of the mSSR

treatment when asked what and how much they read in English for

pleasure Abby indicated that she read student picture books for ninety

minutes a week Eduardo reported reading newspapers for thirty minutes

a week In interviews conducted in June of 2004 after the learnersrsquo

completed their participation in the mSSR Abby reported reading

newspapers and books for 7 hours a week and Eduardo newspapers and

magazines for 2 hours a week Along with the development of interactive

practices in classroom literacy events highlighted in this paper these findings

show a remarkable increase in these learnersrsquo engagement with literacy

outside the classroom and evidence of their emerging identities as individuals

literate in English

Figure 3 Part of Abbyrsquos reading log from the third term of the mSSR

396 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

CONCLUSIONS

The findings uncovered in this study show two learnersrsquo development of

interactional competence through their socialization into classroom literacy

events This socialization occurred through the learnersrsquo engagement in

discursive practices in repeated literacy events which were part of a modified

sustained silent reading program The discursive practices for the literacy

events occurred within the context of the entire classroom community of

practice (Wenger 1998) and afforded learners the opportunities to move from

peripheral to more full participation in English literacy This community of

practice included (1) the teachers who provided instructions and support for

the activities through explicit instruction and modeling (2) learner peers

who also modeled appropriate interactive and language behavior and were

the interlocutors with whom some of the literacy practices were negotiated

and (3) the texts themselves which became a mediating object the third

part in a triadic dialogue for literacy (van Lier 2002) comprised of learnerndash

teacherndashtext or learnerndashlearnerndashtext

While neither learner had studied English formally before enrolling in

classes at the Lab School this study shows that Abby the learner with a high

school education from her home country was familiar with some of the

practices for literacy events including alphabetical filing book selection

and book assessment This research also showed that over the course of

three terms doing the mSSR activities Abby developed a wider range of

interactional practices for opening the dyadic interactions involved in the

story re-telling

Eduardo on the other hand began his participation in the mSSR activities

with much less experience with classroom literacy events having had just

two years of education in his home country The literacy events which were

part of the mSSR afforded Eduardo (van Lier 2000) the opportunity to

engage with literacy and by participating at first peripherally Eduardo

quickly understood and participated more fully in the book selection literacy

event Through interaction with his peers and the teacher in term two basic

literacy skills such as alphabetizing and filing his reading log developed

Though his teachersrsquo initial impressions suggested that he got very little

from his participation in the mSSR a review of his reading logs and his

participation in class show that Eduardo acquired knowledge of literacy

through a transformation (Lave and Wenger 1991) of his understanding of

and participation in literacy events

The development of these learnersrsquo interactional competence can be seen

in Eduardorsquos pursuit of understanding the practice of filing his reading log

which he accomplished through interaction with several members of the

classroom community This change in his participation in filing the logs

shows how learning is a situated practice accomplished through repeated

interactions with the entire classroom community In the analysis of the

story re-telling activities both Eduardo and Abby exhibited an increased

JOHN HELLERMANN 397

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

ability to use talk to initiate interaction by negotiating interlocutor

assignment and turn allocation to open their re-tellings Again the repeated

practice of the re-tellings afforded the learners opportunities to negotiate

a particular classroom and social action (opening a face-to-face interaction)

and both learners developed interactional skills that allowed them to

participate in the practice more fully

A quantitative analysis of standardized assessment measures30 for all the

learners at the Lab School shows that students who participated in the mSSR

method improved in their English language literacy skills to the same degree

as students who participated in classes which used a traditional skills-based

method for the teaching of reading (Reder et al forthcoming) This result

leads one to question what classroom practices might have contributed to

the increase in scores for each group Qualitative micro-analyses such as this

study are a first step toward understanding the discursive practices of the

mSSR classrooms which led to increases in those standardized tests of literacy

skills Also while we know that first-language education is a factor in

successful second language acquisition (Cole et al 1971) we know little

about how classroom interaction between experienced and inexperienced

learners differs In order to address this question this analysis used existing

social categorizations for participant selection (their degree of previous

education in their first language environment) and focused on two students

who would be categorized differently But the use of these macro-level

categorizations was not intended to reify the association of the characteristics

of each category to individual members Rather they were used to define

places from which to empirically examine the interactional language

behavior of members of each category This examination was done through

micro-analyses of the two studentsrsquo participation in the discursive practices

in mSSR literacy events that help L2 literacy develop The focus on the

day-to-day classroom interactions of the two learners allowed us to see

different paths to L2 literacy for learners who have different educational and

literacy experiences and uncover the complex interaction within a classroom

community of practice which results in the changes reported in traditional

language assessment measures

Final version received November 2005

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank the entire staff at the National Labsite for Adult ESOL at Portland State

University for their involvement in maintaining the Lab School as a place for adults to learn

English and as a state of the art research facility I would also like to thank Kathy Harris Sandra

Banke Reuel Kurzet Steve Reder Dominique Brillanceau and three anonymous readers for

their feedback on various versions of the paper

398 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

APPENDIX A

Some transcript conventions in conversation analysis (adapted from Schegloff

2000)

I Temporal and sequential relationships

[ Overlapping or simultaneous talk

frac14 lsquolatched utterancesrsquo no break or pause between utterances

(05) Numbers in parentheses indicate silence represented in tenths of a second

() A dot in parentheses indicates a lsquomicropausersquo

II Aspects of speech delivery including aspectsof intonation

period indicates a falling intonation contour not necessarily the end ofa sentence

question mark indicates rising intonation

a comma indicates lsquocontinuingrsquo intonation

Colons are used to indicate the prolongation or stretching of the soundjust preceding them The more colons the longer the stretching

- A hyphen after a word or part of a word indicates a cut-off or self-interruption word

Underlining is used to indicate some form of stress or emphasis either byincreased loudness or higher pitch The more underlining the greater theemphasis

The degree sign indicates that the talk following it was markedly quiet orsoft

The up and down arrows mark sharper rises or falls in pitch

45 The combination of lsquomore thanrsquo and lsquoless thanrsquo symbols indicates that thetalk between them is compressed or rushed

54 Used in the reverse order they can indicate that a stretch of talk ismarkedly slowed or drawn out

hhh Outbreath

hh Inbreath

(( )) Descriptions of events ((cough)) ((sniff)) ((telephone rings)) ((foot-steps))

(word) All or part of an utterance in parentheses indicates transcriber uncertainty

Creaky voice

NOTES

1 In order to get around the unwieldy

and theoretically-loaded terminology

for describing the use acquisition

and learning of a language that is

not the home or first language of the

participants of this study I will use

JOHN HELLERMANN 399

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

the abbreviation lsquoL2rsquo throughout the

paper to refer to a language that is

being attained through formal instruc-

tion For the students in this study

lsquoL2rsquo refers to English It may not be

however that English is these

studentsrsquo lsquosecondrsquo language as the

abbreviation implies

2 Students in the current study were in

lsquolevel Arsquo classes at the data collection

site SPL level 0ndash2

3 In Sustained Silent Reading

(McCracken 1971 Pilgreen 2000)

students are given a set time in the

classroom to read silently without

interruption by the teacher or other

students and without evaluation of

what is read and how it is read

The method was altered slightly at

the data collection site to meet the

needs of beginning adult language

learners and included activities

like post-reading re-telling activities

and studentsrsquo use of reading logs

to record their assessments of their

reading

4 The National Labsite for Adult ESOL

at Portland State University is sup-

ported in part by grant R309B6002

from the Institute for Education

Science US Dept of Education to

the National Center for the Study of

Adult Learning and Literacy The

Labsite is a partnership between

Portland State University and Portland

Community College The school

and research facilities are housed at

Portland State while the registration

curriculum and teachers of the

ESL students are from Portland

Community College

5 One reviewer asked about the inabil-

ity to see learnersrsquo eye gaze with

cameras embedded in the ceiling

While this is a problem when

students are sitting directly under

the two mobile cameras which

follow students wearing the wireless

microphones most often students

are sitting in a position where

studentsrsquo faces can be seen quite

directly For details of the data

collection see Reder et al (2003)

6 The Labsite Student Study (LSS)

conducts in-home interviews with a

subset of students in the lab school

(70 per year) in their home lan-

guages over the course of four

years regardless of whether the

student remains in lab school classes

or not The primary purpose of

the LSS study is to understand

language use and literacy develop-

ment outside the classroom context

and factors which influence program

persistence

7 All names used in this study are

pseudonyms

8 The teacher had different types of

books on a cart that she wheeled into

the room every class period She took

books off the cart and spread them

out on desks at the back of the room

9 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoselectsbookclass1]

10 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardohelping]

11 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoshowing]

12 Sarah Ouellette helped with the

Spanish transcription and provided

the translation to English Transcrip-

tion conventions are included in

Appendix A lsquoTrsquo indicates the class-

room teacher in all transcripts

13 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoexplaining]

400 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

14 At the time of this excerpt Eduardo

was a novice in Rederrsquos (1987) third

mode of literacy engagement

technical still struggling with basic

technical issues like decoding English

language lexicon

15 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Abbyreading]

16 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Abbynotetaking]

17 The classroom teachers noted the

frustration of doing mSSR with

students who have very low first

language literacy because of her

inability to help students organize

their reading in instances like note

taking (Banke and Brillanceau 2004)

18 A literacy assessment test (BEST

Literacy) was administered in the

classroom in terms one and two of

the mSSR program While the scores

increased for each learner for

Eduardo the increase is not as great

as Abbyrsquos Eduardorsquos overall literacy

score went from 35 in term one

to 42 in term two which is an

increase of one student performance

level (from 3 to 4) Abbyrsquos scores

increased from 45 in term one to

56 in term two which indicates

a jump from student performance

level 4 to 6 For information

on characteristics of student language

abilities at different student perfor-

mance levels (SPLs) see pp 5ndash6 of

wwwcalorgcaelaesl_resources

Part4-5pdf

19 One of the pedagogical advantages of

doing a dyadic re-telling in a lan-

guage classroom is that even if one

student doesnrsquot understand the

instructions for the task in an activity

like the mSSR the peerrsquos act of

posture shift moving a book into

a common space and looking

toward the partner strongly invite

collaboration in some interaction and

it is collaboration that is perhaps

the most important aspect of the

re-telling activity (Pilgreen 2000)

especially for language learners

20 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoopening1]

21 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoopening2]

22 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoorientsstorytelling]

23 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Abbyopening1]

24 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Abbypretasktalkterm2]

25 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Abbystartingretelling2]

26 While more empirical evidence is

warranted a provisional claim

can be mentioned here that such

re-telling activities and perhaps

in classroom pair activities in

general are organized with a two-

part move like that displayed in

(6) lsquoquery about readinessrsquo and

lsquoturn allocationrsquo before the first task

question

27 Notably absent from Abbyrsquos and

Eduardorsquos peer re-tellings are any

verbal greeting sequences Even

when one of the pair moves across

the room to sit with another student

Abby and Eduardo did not exchange

greetings with their partner for their

JOHN HELLERMANN 401

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

task This is something that other

students did as part of their openings

28 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoasksstudentforhelpfiling]

29 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoasksaboutfiling]

30 The assessment measures were the

BEST Plus and the Peabody Picture

Vocabulary tests

REFERENCES

Atkinson J M and J C Heritage 1984

Structures of Social Action Studies in Conversation

Analysis Cambridge Cambridge University Press

August G 2001 The Road to Second Language

Reading How do we get there Unpublished

PhD Dissertation City University of New York

New York

Banke S and D Brillanceu 2004 lsquoLiving

in Interventionrsquo Unpublished manuscript

Barton D (2001) lsquoDirections for literacy

research Analysing language and social practices

in a textually mediated worldrsquo Language and

Education 152ndash3 92ndash104

Bernhardt E B and M L Kamil 1995 lsquoInter-

preting relationships between L1 and L2 reading

Consolidating the linguistic threshold and the

linguistic interdependence hypothesesrsquo Applied

Linguistics 161 15ndash34

Bourdieu P 1991 Language and Symbolic Power

Cambridge MA Harvard University Press

Brandt D 1990 Literacy as Involvement The Acts

of Writers Readers and Texts Carbondale IL

Southern Illinois University Press

ButtonG andNCasey1984 lsquoGenerating topics

The use of topic initial elicitorsrsquo in J M Atkinson

and J C Heritage (eds) Structures of Social Action

Studies in Conversation Analysis Cambridge

Cambridge University Press

Canale M and M Swain 1980 lsquoTheoretical

bases of communicative approaches to second

language teaching and testingrsquoApplied Linguistics

1 1ndash47

Carrell P L 1991 lsquoSecond language reading

Reading ability or language proficiencyrsquo Applied

Linguistics 122 159ndash79

Chow P and C Chou 2000 Evaluating

Sustained Silent Reading in Reading Classes [Web]

I-TESL-J Available httpitesljorgArticlesChow-

mSSRhtml

Cole M J Gay J A Glick and D W Sharp

1971 The Cultural Context of Learning and Think-

ing An Exploration in Experimental Anthropology

New York Basic Books

Couper-Kuhlen E andMSelting 1996 Prosody

in Conversation Interactional Studies Cambridge

Cambridge University Press

Duff P 2002 lsquoThe discursive co-construction

of knowledge identity and difference An

ethnography of communication in the high

school mainstreamrsquo Applied Linguistics 233

289ndash322

Erickson F and J Schultz 1981 lsquoWhen is

a context Some issues and methods in the

analysis of social competencersquo in J Green and

C Wallat (eds) Ethnography and Language in

Educational Settings Norwood NJ Ablex

Felser C L Roberts T Marinis and R Gross

2003 lsquoThe processing of ambiguous sentences by

first and second language learners of Englishrsquo

Applied Psycholinguistics 243 453ndash89

Garfinkel H 1967 Studies in Ethnomethodology

Englewood Cliffs NJ Prentice Hall

Gee J P 1990 Social Linguistics and Literacies

Ideology in Discourses London Falmer Press

Goffman E 1959 The Presentation of Self

in Everyday Life New York Anchor Books

Doubleday

Goffman E 1961 Encounters Two Studies in

the Sociology of Interaction Indianapolis Bobbs-

Merrill

Goody J1977 TheDomestication of the SavageMind

Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Grabe W and F L Stoller 1997 lsquoReading and

vocabulary development in a second language

A case studyrsquo in J Coady and T Huckin (eds)

Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition A

Rationale for Pedagogy Cambridge Cambridge

University Press

402 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

Gumperz J J 1982 Discourse Strategies

Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Habermas J1976 lsquoSome distinctions in universal

pragmatics A working paperrsquo Theory and Society

32 155ndash67

Hall J K 1993 lsquoThe role of oral practices in

the accomplishment of our everyday lives

The sociocultural dimension of interaction

with implications for the learning of

another languagersquo Applied Linguistics 142

145ndash66

Hall J K 1995 lsquo lsquolsquoAw man where you goinrsquorsquorsquo

Classroom interaction and the development

of L2 interactional competencersquo Issues in Applied

Linguistics 62 37ndash62

Hall JK1997 lsquoA consideration of SLA as a theory

of practice A response to Firth and Wagnerrsquo

Modern Language Journal 813 301ndash306

He A W and R Young 1998 lsquoLanguage

proficiency interviews A discourse approachrsquo in

R Young and A W He (eds) Talking and Testing

Discourse Approaches to the Assessment of Oral

Proficiency Amsterdam John Benjamins

Heath S B 1982 lsquoWhat no bedtime story means

Narrative skills at home and schoolrsquo Language

in Society 11 49ndash76

Heath S B 1983 Ways with Words Language

Life and Work in Communities and Classrooms

Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Hellermann J 2004 lsquoPractices for opening dyadic

interactionrsquo paper presented at the annual

conference of the American Association for

Applied Linguistics Portland OR

Hellermann J forthcoming lsquoThe development of

practices for action in the classroom diadic

interaction focus on task openingsrsquo Modern

Language Journal

Hood S and H Joyce 1995 lsquoReading in the

adult ESL curriculum and classroomrsquo Prospect

102 52ndash64

Hymes D 1974 Foundations in Sociolinguistics

An Ethnographic Approach Philadelphia

University of Pennsylvania Press

Kramsch C 1986 lsquoFrom language proficiency

to interactional competencersquo Modern Language

Journal 70 372ndash66

Kramsch C 2002 lsquoHow can we tell the dancer

from the dancersquo in C Kramsch (ed) Language

Acquisition and Language Socialization An ecological

approach London Continuum

Lave J and E Wenger 1991 Situated Learning

Legitimate Peripheral Participation Cambridge

Cambridge University Press

Lerner G H 1995 lsquoTurn design and the organiza-

tion of participation in instructional activitiesrsquo

Discourse Processes 19 111ndash31

MacBethD2003 lsquoHugh MehanrsquosLearning Lessons

reconsidered On the differences between the

naturalistic and critical analysis of classroom

discoursersquo American Educational Research Journal

401 239ndash80

McCraken R A 1971 lsquoInitiating sustained silent

readingrsquo Journal of Reading 148 521ndash4 582ndash3

McDermott R and D Roth 1978 lsquoThe social

organization of behavior Interactional

approachesrsquo Annual Review of Anthropology 7

321ndash45

Markee N 2000 Conversation Analysis Marwah

NJ Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

Ochs E and B Schieffelin 1979 Developmental

Pragmatics New York Academic Press

Ochs E E A Schegloff and S A Thompson

1996 Interaction and Grammar Cambridge

Cambridge University Press

Ong W J 1982 Orality and Literacy The Technolo-

gizing of the Word London Routledge

Palacios I G 2002 An ESLLiteracy Center

A qualitative study of perspectives and practices

of immigrant adults and literacy facilitators

Unpublished PhD Dissertation Indiana

University Pennsylvania Indiana PA

Pilgreen J L 2000 The SSR Handbook How to

Organize and Manage a Sustained Silent Reading

Program Portsmouth NH BoyntonCook

Pulido D 2003 lsquoModeling the role of second

language proficiency and topic familiarity

in second language incidental vocabulary

acquisition through readingrsquo Language Learning

532 233ndash84

Reder S 1987 lsquoComparative aspects of functional

literacy development Three ethnic American

communitiesrsquo in D Wagner (ed) The Future

of Literacy in a Changing World Oxford Pergamon

Press

Reder S 1994 lsquoPractice engagement theory

A sociocultural approach to literacy across

languages and culturersquo in B M Ferdman

R M Weber and A G Ramırez (eds) Literacy

Across Languages and Cultures Albany NY State

University of New York Press

Reder S and E Davila (2005) lsquoContext

and literacy practicesrsquo Annual Review of Applied

Linguistics 25 170ndash87

Reder S K A Harris and K Setzler 2003

lsquoA multimedia adult learner corpusrsquo TESOL

Quarterly 373 546ndash57

JOHN HELLERMANN 403

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

Reder S K A Harris R Kurzet

D Brillanceau S Banke and JHellermann

forthcoming Using a modified Sustained Silent

Reading for low-level adult ESOL students

Boston National Center for the Study of Adult

Learning and Literacy

Sacks H E A Schegloff and G Jefferson

1974 lsquoA simplest systematics for the organiza-

tion of turn-taking for conversationsrsquo Language

504 696ndash735

Sagarra N 2000 The longitudinal role of working

memory on adult acquisition of L2 grammar

Unpublished PhD Dissertation University of

Illinois Urbana-Champaign

Schegloff E A 1968 lsquoSequencing in conversa-

tional openingsrsquo American Anthropologist 70

1075ndash95

Schegloff E A 1980 lsquoPreliminaries to prelimin-

aries lsquolsquoCan I ask you a questionrsquorsquo rsquo Sociological

Inquiry 50 104ndash52

Schegloff E A 1998 lsquoReflections on studying

prosody in talk-in-interactionrsquo Language and

Speech 413ndash4 235ndash63

Schegloff E A 2000 lsquoOverlapping talk and the

organization of turn-making for conversationrsquo

Language in Society 291 1ndash63

Schegloff E A 2002 lsquoOpening sequencingrsquo

in J E Katz and M Aakhus (eds) Perpetual

Contact Mobile Communication Private Talk Public

Performance Cambridge Cambridge University

Press

Schegloff E A and H Sacks 1973 lsquoOpening up

closingsrsquo Semiotica 8 289ndash327

Schieffelin B B and Ochs E (1986) lsquoLanguage

socializationrsquo Annual Review of Anthropology 15

163ndash91

Scribner S and M Cole 1981 The Psychology of

Literacy Cambridge MA Harvard University

Press

Segalowitz N C Poulsen and M Komoda

1991 lsquoLower level components of reading skill in

higher level bilinguals Implications for reading

instructionrsquo AILA Review 8 15ndash30

Streeck J 1983 Social Order in Child Communica-

tion Amsterdam John Benjamins

Streeck J and S Mihus 2005 lsquoMicroethno-

graphy The study of practicesrsquo In K L Fitch

and R E Sanders (eds) The Handbook of

Language and Social Interaction Marwah NJ

Lawrence Erlbaum

Street B 1998 lsquoNew literacies in theory

and practice What are the implications for

language in educationrsquo Linguistics and Education

10 1ndash24

Street B V 2001 Literacy and Development

Ethnographic perspectives London Routledge

Tang H 1997 lsquoThe relationship between reading

comprehension processes in L1 and L2rsquo Reading

Psychology 183 249ndash301

Treville M C 1996 lsquoLexical learning and reading

in L2 at the beginner level The advantage of

cognatesrsquo The Canadian Modern Language Review

531 173ndash90

Van Lier L 2000 lsquoFrom input to affordance

Social-interactive learning from an ecological

perspectiversquo in J Lantolf (ed) Sociocultural

Theory and Second Language Learning Oxford

Oxford University Press

van Lier L 2002 lsquoAn ecological-semiotic

perspective on language and linguisticsrsquo in

C Kramsch (ed) Language Acquisition and

Language Socialization An ecological approach

London Continuum

Wenger J 1998 Communities of Practice Learning

Meaning and Identity Cambridge Cambridge

University Press

Yang J 2000 lsquoOrthographic effect on word

recognition by learners of Chinese as a Foreign

Languagersquo Journal of the Chinese Language

Teachers Association 352 1ndash18

YoungR1999 lsquoSociolinguistic approaches toSLArsquo

Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 19 105ndash32

Young R 2000 lsquoInteractional competence

Challenges for validityrsquo Paper presented at the

annual conference of the American Association

for Applied Linguistics Vancouver BC

Young R F 2002 lsquoDiscourse approaches to oral

language assessmentrsquo Annual Review of Applied

Linguistics 22 243ndash62

404 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

Page 10: Classroom Interactive Practices for Developing L2 Literacy: A Microethnographic Study of Two Beginning Adult Learners of English

next to them16 These skills were done without instruction from the

teacher and displayed her self-directed strategies for acquiring the L2 lexicon

While Eduardo also wrote in his notebook he usually wrote out full

sentences and phrases Watching him writing and seeing his notebooks from

time to time on camera I observed that Eduardo did not display the

experience of taking notes nor the strategic language learning skills that

Abby exhibited Conversations with the classroom teachers also suggest that

Eduardorsquos notes were not helpful to him because of their unsystematic

nature17 While Eduardo did begin using a dictionary in term three

regarding the mechanics of decoding written text the evidence suggests that

Abbyrsquos educational background played a large role in allowing her to

participate more completely from the start in the silent reading than

Eduardo18

Opening the post-reading story re-telling

Research in conversation analysis has explored how conversationalists

start their social interactions through orderly practices in their talk

(Schegloff 1968 1998 2002 Schegloff and Sacks 1973 Button and Casey

1984) While this line of research has focused on native speaker interaction

adult learners of English face the same fundamental problem as native

speakersmdashhow to get an interaction underway Adult learners of English

may bring a repertoire of strategies for social interaction from their life

experiences in other languages and cultures but whether adult learners of a

language as socially competent adults bring a sense of universal pragmatics

(Habermas 1976) to the classroom is an ongoing empirical question The

study of interaction in the context of adult learners using a lingua franca to

start activities provides a rich environment for the exploration of basic turn-

taking and conversational practices used in institutional settings

After the thirty minutes of silent reading another regular task in the

mSSR activity was peer re-telling in which the teacher instructed learners

(sometimes supplying question prompts) to tell their deskmate something

about the book they had just been reading The evidence gathered from the

two adult learners of English in this analysis suggests that differences in a

level of interactional competence in the L2 can be seen in the way the

learners engage in basic conversational skills such as opening an interaction

Two notable differences between these two learners are seen in the overt

negotiation over interlocutor selection and turn allocation at the beginning of

a task and the orientation to other activities that they are in the process of

finishing up Abbyrsquos interactions are characterized by opening moves which

display a greater range of linguistic and pragmatic skills than Eduardorsquos

Her opening moves also display notable development over the course of

three terms in the mSSR classes

A crucial first step to interaction in this literacy event for learners without

a large repertoire of linguistic code skills is the achievement of mutual

386 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

physical orientation for doing dyadic interaction19 Highly proficient speakers

of a language have a range of speech acts which they can use to subtly gain

a partnerrsquos attention while beginning learners almost without exception

rely on mutual physical orientation and object manipulation to start

their dyadic interactions (Hellermann 2004 2005) Eduardo and Abby also

both accomplished these subtle alignments for opening their re-telling

activities unproblematically in most instances Coordinating a mutual

physical orientation for re-telling entails the participants shifting their

posture slightly toward one another moving their books into a shared

space for re-telling and pointing to items in their books The interactions

between Eduardo and Lai Min another student in Excerpts (2) and (3)

occur at the beginning of Eduardorsquos second term in the mSSR The excerpts

are presented to show Eduardorsquos perseverance in opening this particular

literacy event demonstrating how he sees the establishment of mutual

orientation to a space for re-telling to be a necessary part of the re-telling

(Excerpt 2) and highlighting his manipulation of the books themselves

(Excerpt 3) as objects which are fundamental to the accomplishment of this

literacy event

(2)

[A2ndash13ndash03 204 24800 Term II week 6]20

1 T you need to speak to Eduardo

2 E ((taps Lai Min on shoulder and waves his hands motioning her

3 to move toward him))

4 L yeah ((leans back turns head slightly toward Eduardo))

5 E ((pages through his book))

6 L ((looks down to her book looks around class looks over

7 at E leans a little bit toward E))

8 L ((looks away from E)) [((leans forward away from E))

9 E [((looks toward L)) ((puts down his

10 book takes off glasses))

In (2) after the teacherrsquos directive to Lai Min to do the re-telling activity

with Eduardo (line 1) Eduardo makes a clear non-verbal summons

(shoulder tap) and invitation (waving motion) to Lai Min to begin the

re-telling activity in lines 2ndash3 Lai Min makes a minimal verbal and non-

verbal response (line 4) as Eduardo looks in his book Then as Eduardo is

paging through his book Lai Min looks at her own book looks around the

class looks to Eduardo and then looks away Lai Min does not make any

verbal moves to start the interaction and her visual orientation to various

places does not focus on an interaction space Besides the slight head

turn (line 4) and slight lean toward Eduardo (line 7) there is no clear

postural alignment to the space between herself and Eduardo When

Eduardo stops paging through his book and looks to Lai Min in line 9

JOHN HELLERMANN 387

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

he sees that her posture is not aligned to a mutual re-telling space and

he takes off his glasses and puts down his book seemingly aborting the

re-telling sequence

(3)

[A2ndash13ndash03 204 24835 Term II week 6]21

11 L ((looks at Ersquos book looks at board)) tee shuh ss tee shup

12 E ((opens another book)) ((puts book mark in it and closes it))

13 L ((looks at E))

14 E ((puts on glasses))

15 L ((opens her book))

16 E ((opens the second book points to something in the book))

17 L ((looks toward E))

18 E ( )

19 L ((L leans in toward E looking at book))

20 E Saigon Saigone Saigone

21 L ((points to Ersquos book)) Saigon

22 E Saigon Vietnam

23 L uh

24 E Saigone Vietname S( ) Vietnam

25 L mm

26 E Saigone

27 L Saigon ((leans away from E))

28 E ((looks at Lrsquos book and reads something from it)) [(prayer)

29 L [((moves her

30 book toward E))

In (3) after this aborted opening Lai Min appears to read something from

the board out loud (line 11) while Eduardo handles another book on the

table in front of him After Lai Min glances at Eduardo in line 13 Eduardo

puts on his glasses opens the book he has just been handling and points to

something in the book (line 16) which Lai Min orients to by leaning

in toward Eduardo to look at the page to which he is pointing After some

back and forth repetition of the word Eduardo is pointing to (Saigon) Lai Min

ends the focus on Eduardorsquos book by leaning away from the common

interactional space (line 27) Eduardo takes this as a cue to switch roles and

to now share information from Lai Minrsquos book In line 28 Eduardo reads

something from Lai Minrsquos book and she moves it closer to him to aid his

reading

While Extracts (2) and (3) show Eduardo initiating openings for the

re-telling literacy event and non-verbally orienting to the interaction with his

peer he was usually not the most verbally-active participant in his dyadic

388 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

interactions for re-telling When he self-selected to start a re-telling it was

when there were long pauses or notable lack of initiation from his partner

(as in (2) and (3)) By the end of term two of the mSSR however there

is evidence of Eduardo making a reciprocal verbal elicitation for a re-telling

As Excerpt (4) shows after finishing his own re-telling and completing

a closing sequence to that telling (lines 4ndash7) Eduardo reciprocates in eliciting

a re-telling from his partner (line 8)

(4)

[B 5ndash13ndash03 23601 term III week 7]22

1 E fis

2 J flying fish ((flapping left hand like flying))

3 E this is flying fi[s() this (of the)

4 J [yeah yeah yeah yeah

5 J mm mm

6 E mm hmm

7 J mm hmm

8 E what is your

9 (20) ((J picks up his book))

10 J eh (started started) this story

11 E the mountain the mountain ((reads Jrsquos book cover))

While the elicitation in line 8 is abbreviated Eduardorsquos partner (Jin) orients

to line 8 as an elicitation by picking up his own book (line 9) and beginning

his re-telling (line 10) As Jin starts the re-telling Eduardo orients to the title

of the book as an important part of the re-telling event by reading the title of

Jinrsquos book (line 11)

Two aspects of the openings for the re-tellings that the other focal student

of this study Abby displayed but that did not occur in Eduardorsquos interactions

were her pre-activity talk checking on whether the peer was ready to do

the task and then talk about interlocutor assignment for the activity

Abby became more active in initiating these opening moves over the course

of the three terms of the mSSR Excerpts (5)ndash(7) show examples of this

development In (5) which comes from the very beginning of the second

term in the mSSR we see Abby interact with Fernando but not initiate the

interaction

(5)

[1-10ndash03 B 24452 Term II week 2]23

1 F whose talk to me

2 (10) ((Fernando facing Abby Abby turns to Fernando))

3 F ((to Abby)) you oh

4 (25)

JOHN HELLERMANN 389

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

5 F hhyeah okay

6 ((Abby sneezes))

7 F bless you () god bless you a[gain

8 A [thank you

9 F again [god bless you

10 A [huh hah hah [uh hih hih hih hih hhuh

11 F [eh huh heh heh heah

12 (20)

13 F what () is your book

14 A eh () my book is () my my book is easy () easy story press

15 F oh press [mm hmm

16 A [yeah ease story pres[s

17 F [eh

18 (35)

19 A what is (your) story

In line 1 Fernando makes the first verbal move to establish the peer

dyad and achieve mutual physical orientation asking about a partner

and after a sequence involving sneezing in line 13 Fernando asks the

first elicitation question for the activity Abby responds to each elicitation

non-verbally in line 2 and with the title of her book in line 14 Abby orients

to the activity of finding out about one anotherrsquos books by asking

the reciprocal question more specifically asking about Fernandorsquos lsquostoryrsquo in

line 19

The next example of one of Abbyrsquos opening move sequences comes from

the fifth week of the second term of the mSSR Excerpt (6) shows Abby

engaging in more pre-task opening talk (lines 3 and 6) interlocutor selection

(line 8) and the launch of the task (line 10)

(6)

[2703 B 204 24353 Term II week 5]24

1 T you need to talk ladies

2 (10)

3 Ab todayrsquos uh February ((looks to Ana then back to notebook))

4 An ((shifts posture toward Abby))

5 (70)

6 Ab seventh

7 (140) ((both ss write)

8 Ab I talk to you ((turning to Ana))

9 (250) ((Ana continues writing))

10 Ab my () my book uh life story one

11 (20)

12 An ((shifts posture a bit to A))

390 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

13 Ab are you finished

14 An go (go ahead) please () where is () where is your story

After the teacher exhorts the learners (line 1) to begin their pair task

(the story re-telling) Abby announces the date and after Ana shifts her

posture toward Abby proposes the pair assignment (line 8) Since the

learners sit at desks in pairs the pair assignment is somewhat of a given so

Abbyrsquos turn in line 8 may also act as a proposal for turn allocation If

interlocutor assignment is relatively self-evident the turn lsquoI talk to yoursquo is at

least a move to attempt to get Ana to enter the interaction and may be an

explicit move to tell Ana that she Abby is starting the activity There is no

uptake by Ana after this proposal and after a rather long pause (line 9) Abby

launches the task self-selecting to re-tell her story first When there is no

verbal uptake by Ana in line 11 after Abbyrsquos turn Abby orients to her

partnerrsquos preparation for the task and asks if Ana has finished (line 13) her

preparatory work (writing notes) Ana orients to Abbyrsquos question as a pre-

request to check whether Ana is ready to start her re-telling by encouraging

Abby to continue directly eliciting information about the location of her

story in line 14

The final excerpt from the third term of the mSSR illustrates Abbyrsquos further

development of interactional practices for opening the re-telling activity In (7)

while Inez is writing in her notebook Abby shifts her posture to Inez and asks

a question (line 2) which is preliminary to a question for the assigned activity

(7)

[5-9ndash03 B 206 24121 Term III week 7]25

((Teacherrsquos prompt for the interaction lsquoDo you like books about a story or

information what kind of book are you reading nowrsquo))

1 A ((shifts posture toward Inez))

2 I are you ready

3 (70) ((Inez is writing in her notebook))

4 I yeah sorry

5 (30)

6 I ((re-positions her posture to face Abby then gestures with

7 right hand pointing to Abby and back to herself))

8 (30)

9 A ((Abby looks at the board and reads the question)) what type

10 of a book are you reading now

11 ((Inez begins her re-telling))

While Abbyrsquos question in line 2 orients to the necessity of the completion of

the preparatory work for the re-telling literacy event it also works as part

of the opening for the re-telling task itself Inez finishes writing in her

notebook and orients to Abbyrsquos question as an opening to the assigned

JOHN HELLERMANN 391

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

re-telling task by answering Abbyrsquos question and apologizing for not starting

immediately (line 4) After Inez repositions her body and non-verbally

initiates a negotiation of turn allocation for the re-telling (lines 6 and 7)

Abby self-selects to elicit the re-telling from Inez by reading one of the

teacherrsquos prompts from the board (lines 9ndash10)

Abbyrsquos socialization to the mSSR re-telling activity can be seen in the

development of opening moves in the re-telling interactions with her peers

in Excerpts (5)ndash(7) The interaction from earlier in the mSSR (Excerpt (5))

shows Abby not actively initiating dyad assignment pre-task talk and task

launch In terms two and three the excerpts show her more actively

involved in starting these re-telling activities Her task-preliminary organiza-

tional talk and task launching later in the second and third terms of the

mSSR suggest that she is now more comfortable with the re-telling literacy

event and with the language as a whole

These excerpts of Abbyrsquos interaction in the re-telling literacy events show

two common moves by more advanced learners for opening dyadic

interactions (Hellermann 2004 forthcoming) the orientation to the previous

task completion (in Excerpt (6) lsquoare you finishedrsquo and Excerpt (7) lsquoare you

readyrsquo) and interlocutor selection (in Excerpt (6) lsquoI talk to yoursquo) As other

research in conversation shows such moves for opening talk enable

participants to work out basic features of talk-in-interaction such as avoiding

simultaneous talk and ensuring that the talk about to happen is the start of

something new not from the previous topic (Button and Casey 1984)26

The interactions by Abby and Eduardo in the re-telling literacy events also

show evidence for the learnersrsquo development of interactional competence

through their socialization into literacy events27 While both Abby and

Eduardo orient to the beginnings of the re-telling events creating spaces for

appropriate mutual participation for the event from the start of the mSSR

we see evidence for a change in their participation in the re-telling events

over the course of the three terms of the mSSR Eduardo uses a speech act

(lsquowhat is yourrsquo) in a more sophisticated modality (verbal rather than non-

verbal) to reciprocate an elicitation for a re-telling in his interaction with Jin

in Excerpt (4) In Abbyrsquos later interactions she explicitly orients to the

boundaries of the events by inquiring as to her partnersrsquo readiness to

participate (Excerpts (5) and (6)) and negotiates roles for participation

(Excerpt (6) lsquoI talk to yoursquo) and turn allocation (Excerpts (6) and (7))

Learner reading logs and filing of reading logs

A basic literacy skill activity that the teacher built into the mSSR classes was

having learners chart their reading activity in a reading log and then file their

own reading logs alphabetically in a file box at the end of every lesson In

the third class period of the first term some evidence of Eduardorsquos lack of

basic literacy skills appeared during the filing activity Near the end of this

class period the teacher asked learners to put their reading logs into a file

392 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

box organized by their first names Eduardo and another learner went to

the file box at the front of the room and stood by the box with their reading

logs looking for the appropriate place to put the logs After some time

Eduardo looked over to Carla (a learner from Brazil) and held out his right

hand palm up Carla oriented to this gesture as a request for help and got out

of her seat to help the two learners showing them the place in the files to

put their logs28 A bit later in this class period as the learners were packing

up to leave the class Eduardo solicited the teacherrsquos help in understanding

the name of the process of filing (Excerpt (8)) In so doing he is building on

the co-constructed filing practice with his classmate

(8)

[10-3ndash02 A 204 25149 Term I week 2]29

1 E want to ask (you something) ((walking to file box))

2 T yes you want to ask me something

3 E somebody ((puts hand in file box then touches head)) somebody

4 T file

5 E file file

6 T uh huh this is what () please file file you papers

In Exerpt (8) Eduardo is standing next to the teacher and utters a

pre-question (Schegloff 1980) in line 1 as he walks to the file box Once at

the box in line 3 he says lsquosomebodyrsquo a bare noun phrase which projects a

predicate Eduardo produces that predicate by modeling the relevant action

a hypothetical learner filing a paper This is followed by a gesture of his

hand to his head (which Eduardo commonly used to indicate that he did not

remember a particular word in English) and a repetition of the same bare

noun phrase In line 4 the teacher orients to Eduardorsquos talk as a request for

a word to name the action of putting the reading log into the box The fact

that this interaction is elicited by Eduardo shortly after his request for help

from Carla suggests that Carla may have helped him put the reading log

in the right place but did not give Eduardo the English word for that action

It is Eduardorsquos interactions with both a peer and with the teacher which

help him co-construct a name for this literacy event

While Eduardorsquos success in filing his reading log was sporadic throughout

the rest of this first term at the beginning of the next term on the first day

of class the teacher explained again that the reading logs were to be filed

alphabetically She explained and modeled this while standing next to the

file box to assist learners After explaining and modeling the procedure to the

class she reminded Eduardo again several minutes later lsquoyou need to put this

[reading log] away young manrsquo Several minutes after that Eduardo held up

his reading log showing it to the teacher as other learners were going to the

file box to file their logs She responded affirmatively and Eduardo went to

the file box The teacher said his name Eduardo said lsquoersquo (the first letter of his

JOHN HELLERMANN 393

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

first name) and put the reading log in the appropriate place in the file box

Having participated in one term of the mSSR and the literacy event of filling

in and filing reading logs (the term in which it was just noted that he was

given support by a peer and the teacher) the reinforcement of the rules the

modeling by the teacher as well as the personal reminder and reassurance

given by the teacher guided Eduardo into full participation in this literacy

event Later in this second term and in the third term as well Eduardo

was able to file the log independently By the beginning of the third term

(4103) he was also able to tell a newcomer to the class the purpose of the

reading log

Based on conversations with his teachers the evidence from his reading

logs and his interactions with other learners in the re-telling literacy event

Eduardo seemed to have developed a genuine interest in and enthusiasm for

reading In a more complex literacy skill involving the reading logs there is

evidence that Eduardo developed the ability to orally evaluate the books

he read adopting a term introduced by the teacher to describe several of

his books lsquoso-sorsquo In the later part of the first term of the mSSR Eduardorsquos

reading log was sporadically filled in and he wrote in Spanish for the

assessment portion of the log (Figure 1)

By the second term of the mSSR Eduardo was reading some books during

the silent reading period in class for four class periods in a row (an indication

of persistence and interest) and assessed one book (The Orange Grove) in his

reading log as lsquovery goodrsquo Through this assessment Eduardo displayed

part of a personal identity as a literate person in English But even by the

third term of the mSSR classes Eduardo did not elaborate on the assessments

of his books as the reading log prompted learners to do In a row at the top

of the reading log learners were to answer the question lsquoDid you like it

[the book]rsquo and then write why The teacher provided another written

prompt in the box that learners checked for a positive assessment lsquoYes

because rsquo In this place though Eduardo always indicated that he liked the

Figure 1 Part of Eduardorsquos reading log from the first term of the mSSR

394 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

books that he read he did not specify why he liked them giving evidence

of the limitations of his ability to evaluate his reading (as Figure 2 shows)

In contrast to Eduardo Abby did not have trouble filing her reading log

On the day the teacher explained to learners how they should file their

reading logs she used Abby as an example lsquoFor example Abby file your

paper under lsquolsquoArsquorsquo for Abbyrsquo In subsequent class periods Abby displayed

competence at filing her reading log in the appropriate slot in the file box

The content of Abbyrsquos reading logs also differed from Eduardorsquos in notable

ways Where Eduardo always checked the box marked lsquoeasyrsquo when

evaluating the level of difficulty of the books he read in most cases Abby

checked the lsquojust rightrsquo box and just a few times the box marked lsquoeasyrsquo for

the books she read Figure 3 shows one of her reading logs from the third

term of the mSSR

The notations in Abbyrsquos reading log in Figure 3 suggest that she was

choosing books that were appropriate to her ability (the box labeled

lsquojust rightrsquo is marked consistently) Also Abby was able to give some detail

(although limited) when prompted by the teacher for the reasons behind

her assessment of a book In response to the teacherrsquos written prompt on

the reading log lsquoyes I liked it because rsquo Abby had two responses she used

lsquoyes I did because interestingrsquo or lsquoyes I did because easyrsquo Abby indicated

Figure 2 Part of Eduardorsquos reading log from the third term of the mSSR

JOHN HELLERMANN 395

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

these more expanded assessments both in the second and third terms of the

mSSR classes

An important question for research on language socialization and

interactional competence in a classroom setting is to what degree these

processes result in increased engagement with literacy outside the classroom

A telling insight gained from the learnersrsquo in-home L1 interviews suggests

that for both these learners the socialization into literacy events in the

classroom lead to increased participation in literacy outside the classroom

In the interviews conducted with each learner before the start of the mSSR

treatment when asked what and how much they read in English for

pleasure Abby indicated that she read student picture books for ninety

minutes a week Eduardo reported reading newspapers for thirty minutes

a week In interviews conducted in June of 2004 after the learnersrsquo

completed their participation in the mSSR Abby reported reading

newspapers and books for 7 hours a week and Eduardo newspapers and

magazines for 2 hours a week Along with the development of interactive

practices in classroom literacy events highlighted in this paper these findings

show a remarkable increase in these learnersrsquo engagement with literacy

outside the classroom and evidence of their emerging identities as individuals

literate in English

Figure 3 Part of Abbyrsquos reading log from the third term of the mSSR

396 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

CONCLUSIONS

The findings uncovered in this study show two learnersrsquo development of

interactional competence through their socialization into classroom literacy

events This socialization occurred through the learnersrsquo engagement in

discursive practices in repeated literacy events which were part of a modified

sustained silent reading program The discursive practices for the literacy

events occurred within the context of the entire classroom community of

practice (Wenger 1998) and afforded learners the opportunities to move from

peripheral to more full participation in English literacy This community of

practice included (1) the teachers who provided instructions and support for

the activities through explicit instruction and modeling (2) learner peers

who also modeled appropriate interactive and language behavior and were

the interlocutors with whom some of the literacy practices were negotiated

and (3) the texts themselves which became a mediating object the third

part in a triadic dialogue for literacy (van Lier 2002) comprised of learnerndash

teacherndashtext or learnerndashlearnerndashtext

While neither learner had studied English formally before enrolling in

classes at the Lab School this study shows that Abby the learner with a high

school education from her home country was familiar with some of the

practices for literacy events including alphabetical filing book selection

and book assessment This research also showed that over the course of

three terms doing the mSSR activities Abby developed a wider range of

interactional practices for opening the dyadic interactions involved in the

story re-telling

Eduardo on the other hand began his participation in the mSSR activities

with much less experience with classroom literacy events having had just

two years of education in his home country The literacy events which were

part of the mSSR afforded Eduardo (van Lier 2000) the opportunity to

engage with literacy and by participating at first peripherally Eduardo

quickly understood and participated more fully in the book selection literacy

event Through interaction with his peers and the teacher in term two basic

literacy skills such as alphabetizing and filing his reading log developed

Though his teachersrsquo initial impressions suggested that he got very little

from his participation in the mSSR a review of his reading logs and his

participation in class show that Eduardo acquired knowledge of literacy

through a transformation (Lave and Wenger 1991) of his understanding of

and participation in literacy events

The development of these learnersrsquo interactional competence can be seen

in Eduardorsquos pursuit of understanding the practice of filing his reading log

which he accomplished through interaction with several members of the

classroom community This change in his participation in filing the logs

shows how learning is a situated practice accomplished through repeated

interactions with the entire classroom community In the analysis of the

story re-telling activities both Eduardo and Abby exhibited an increased

JOHN HELLERMANN 397

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

ability to use talk to initiate interaction by negotiating interlocutor

assignment and turn allocation to open their re-tellings Again the repeated

practice of the re-tellings afforded the learners opportunities to negotiate

a particular classroom and social action (opening a face-to-face interaction)

and both learners developed interactional skills that allowed them to

participate in the practice more fully

A quantitative analysis of standardized assessment measures30 for all the

learners at the Lab School shows that students who participated in the mSSR

method improved in their English language literacy skills to the same degree

as students who participated in classes which used a traditional skills-based

method for the teaching of reading (Reder et al forthcoming) This result

leads one to question what classroom practices might have contributed to

the increase in scores for each group Qualitative micro-analyses such as this

study are a first step toward understanding the discursive practices of the

mSSR classrooms which led to increases in those standardized tests of literacy

skills Also while we know that first-language education is a factor in

successful second language acquisition (Cole et al 1971) we know little

about how classroom interaction between experienced and inexperienced

learners differs In order to address this question this analysis used existing

social categorizations for participant selection (their degree of previous

education in their first language environment) and focused on two students

who would be categorized differently But the use of these macro-level

categorizations was not intended to reify the association of the characteristics

of each category to individual members Rather they were used to define

places from which to empirically examine the interactional language

behavior of members of each category This examination was done through

micro-analyses of the two studentsrsquo participation in the discursive practices

in mSSR literacy events that help L2 literacy develop The focus on the

day-to-day classroom interactions of the two learners allowed us to see

different paths to L2 literacy for learners who have different educational and

literacy experiences and uncover the complex interaction within a classroom

community of practice which results in the changes reported in traditional

language assessment measures

Final version received November 2005

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank the entire staff at the National Labsite for Adult ESOL at Portland State

University for their involvement in maintaining the Lab School as a place for adults to learn

English and as a state of the art research facility I would also like to thank Kathy Harris Sandra

Banke Reuel Kurzet Steve Reder Dominique Brillanceau and three anonymous readers for

their feedback on various versions of the paper

398 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

APPENDIX A

Some transcript conventions in conversation analysis (adapted from Schegloff

2000)

I Temporal and sequential relationships

[ Overlapping or simultaneous talk

frac14 lsquolatched utterancesrsquo no break or pause between utterances

(05) Numbers in parentheses indicate silence represented in tenths of a second

() A dot in parentheses indicates a lsquomicropausersquo

II Aspects of speech delivery including aspectsof intonation

period indicates a falling intonation contour not necessarily the end ofa sentence

question mark indicates rising intonation

a comma indicates lsquocontinuingrsquo intonation

Colons are used to indicate the prolongation or stretching of the soundjust preceding them The more colons the longer the stretching

- A hyphen after a word or part of a word indicates a cut-off or self-interruption word

Underlining is used to indicate some form of stress or emphasis either byincreased loudness or higher pitch The more underlining the greater theemphasis

The degree sign indicates that the talk following it was markedly quiet orsoft

The up and down arrows mark sharper rises or falls in pitch

45 The combination of lsquomore thanrsquo and lsquoless thanrsquo symbols indicates that thetalk between them is compressed or rushed

54 Used in the reverse order they can indicate that a stretch of talk ismarkedly slowed or drawn out

hhh Outbreath

hh Inbreath

(( )) Descriptions of events ((cough)) ((sniff)) ((telephone rings)) ((foot-steps))

(word) All or part of an utterance in parentheses indicates transcriber uncertainty

Creaky voice

NOTES

1 In order to get around the unwieldy

and theoretically-loaded terminology

for describing the use acquisition

and learning of a language that is

not the home or first language of the

participants of this study I will use

JOHN HELLERMANN 399

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

the abbreviation lsquoL2rsquo throughout the

paper to refer to a language that is

being attained through formal instruc-

tion For the students in this study

lsquoL2rsquo refers to English It may not be

however that English is these

studentsrsquo lsquosecondrsquo language as the

abbreviation implies

2 Students in the current study were in

lsquolevel Arsquo classes at the data collection

site SPL level 0ndash2

3 In Sustained Silent Reading

(McCracken 1971 Pilgreen 2000)

students are given a set time in the

classroom to read silently without

interruption by the teacher or other

students and without evaluation of

what is read and how it is read

The method was altered slightly at

the data collection site to meet the

needs of beginning adult language

learners and included activities

like post-reading re-telling activities

and studentsrsquo use of reading logs

to record their assessments of their

reading

4 The National Labsite for Adult ESOL

at Portland State University is sup-

ported in part by grant R309B6002

from the Institute for Education

Science US Dept of Education to

the National Center for the Study of

Adult Learning and Literacy The

Labsite is a partnership between

Portland State University and Portland

Community College The school

and research facilities are housed at

Portland State while the registration

curriculum and teachers of the

ESL students are from Portland

Community College

5 One reviewer asked about the inabil-

ity to see learnersrsquo eye gaze with

cameras embedded in the ceiling

While this is a problem when

students are sitting directly under

the two mobile cameras which

follow students wearing the wireless

microphones most often students

are sitting in a position where

studentsrsquo faces can be seen quite

directly For details of the data

collection see Reder et al (2003)

6 The Labsite Student Study (LSS)

conducts in-home interviews with a

subset of students in the lab school

(70 per year) in their home lan-

guages over the course of four

years regardless of whether the

student remains in lab school classes

or not The primary purpose of

the LSS study is to understand

language use and literacy develop-

ment outside the classroom context

and factors which influence program

persistence

7 All names used in this study are

pseudonyms

8 The teacher had different types of

books on a cart that she wheeled into

the room every class period She took

books off the cart and spread them

out on desks at the back of the room

9 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoselectsbookclass1]

10 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardohelping]

11 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoshowing]

12 Sarah Ouellette helped with the

Spanish transcription and provided

the translation to English Transcrip-

tion conventions are included in

Appendix A lsquoTrsquo indicates the class-

room teacher in all transcripts

13 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoexplaining]

400 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

14 At the time of this excerpt Eduardo

was a novice in Rederrsquos (1987) third

mode of literacy engagement

technical still struggling with basic

technical issues like decoding English

language lexicon

15 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Abbyreading]

16 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Abbynotetaking]

17 The classroom teachers noted the

frustration of doing mSSR with

students who have very low first

language literacy because of her

inability to help students organize

their reading in instances like note

taking (Banke and Brillanceau 2004)

18 A literacy assessment test (BEST

Literacy) was administered in the

classroom in terms one and two of

the mSSR program While the scores

increased for each learner for

Eduardo the increase is not as great

as Abbyrsquos Eduardorsquos overall literacy

score went from 35 in term one

to 42 in term two which is an

increase of one student performance

level (from 3 to 4) Abbyrsquos scores

increased from 45 in term one to

56 in term two which indicates

a jump from student performance

level 4 to 6 For information

on characteristics of student language

abilities at different student perfor-

mance levels (SPLs) see pp 5ndash6 of

wwwcalorgcaelaesl_resources

Part4-5pdf

19 One of the pedagogical advantages of

doing a dyadic re-telling in a lan-

guage classroom is that even if one

student doesnrsquot understand the

instructions for the task in an activity

like the mSSR the peerrsquos act of

posture shift moving a book into

a common space and looking

toward the partner strongly invite

collaboration in some interaction and

it is collaboration that is perhaps

the most important aspect of the

re-telling activity (Pilgreen 2000)

especially for language learners

20 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoopening1]

21 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoopening2]

22 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoorientsstorytelling]

23 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Abbyopening1]

24 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Abbypretasktalkterm2]

25 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Abbystartingretelling2]

26 While more empirical evidence is

warranted a provisional claim

can be mentioned here that such

re-telling activities and perhaps

in classroom pair activities in

general are organized with a two-

part move like that displayed in

(6) lsquoquery about readinessrsquo and

lsquoturn allocationrsquo before the first task

question

27 Notably absent from Abbyrsquos and

Eduardorsquos peer re-tellings are any

verbal greeting sequences Even

when one of the pair moves across

the room to sit with another student

Abby and Eduardo did not exchange

greetings with their partner for their

JOHN HELLERMANN 401

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

task This is something that other

students did as part of their openings

28 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoasksstudentforhelpfiling]

29 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoasksaboutfiling]

30 The assessment measures were the

BEST Plus and the Peabody Picture

Vocabulary tests

REFERENCES

Atkinson J M and J C Heritage 1984

Structures of Social Action Studies in Conversation

Analysis Cambridge Cambridge University Press

August G 2001 The Road to Second Language

Reading How do we get there Unpublished

PhD Dissertation City University of New York

New York

Banke S and D Brillanceu 2004 lsquoLiving

in Interventionrsquo Unpublished manuscript

Barton D (2001) lsquoDirections for literacy

research Analysing language and social practices

in a textually mediated worldrsquo Language and

Education 152ndash3 92ndash104

Bernhardt E B and M L Kamil 1995 lsquoInter-

preting relationships between L1 and L2 reading

Consolidating the linguistic threshold and the

linguistic interdependence hypothesesrsquo Applied

Linguistics 161 15ndash34

Bourdieu P 1991 Language and Symbolic Power

Cambridge MA Harvard University Press

Brandt D 1990 Literacy as Involvement The Acts

of Writers Readers and Texts Carbondale IL

Southern Illinois University Press

ButtonG andNCasey1984 lsquoGenerating topics

The use of topic initial elicitorsrsquo in J M Atkinson

and J C Heritage (eds) Structures of Social Action

Studies in Conversation Analysis Cambridge

Cambridge University Press

Canale M and M Swain 1980 lsquoTheoretical

bases of communicative approaches to second

language teaching and testingrsquoApplied Linguistics

1 1ndash47

Carrell P L 1991 lsquoSecond language reading

Reading ability or language proficiencyrsquo Applied

Linguistics 122 159ndash79

Chow P and C Chou 2000 Evaluating

Sustained Silent Reading in Reading Classes [Web]

I-TESL-J Available httpitesljorgArticlesChow-

mSSRhtml

Cole M J Gay J A Glick and D W Sharp

1971 The Cultural Context of Learning and Think-

ing An Exploration in Experimental Anthropology

New York Basic Books

Couper-Kuhlen E andMSelting 1996 Prosody

in Conversation Interactional Studies Cambridge

Cambridge University Press

Duff P 2002 lsquoThe discursive co-construction

of knowledge identity and difference An

ethnography of communication in the high

school mainstreamrsquo Applied Linguistics 233

289ndash322

Erickson F and J Schultz 1981 lsquoWhen is

a context Some issues and methods in the

analysis of social competencersquo in J Green and

C Wallat (eds) Ethnography and Language in

Educational Settings Norwood NJ Ablex

Felser C L Roberts T Marinis and R Gross

2003 lsquoThe processing of ambiguous sentences by

first and second language learners of Englishrsquo

Applied Psycholinguistics 243 453ndash89

Garfinkel H 1967 Studies in Ethnomethodology

Englewood Cliffs NJ Prentice Hall

Gee J P 1990 Social Linguistics and Literacies

Ideology in Discourses London Falmer Press

Goffman E 1959 The Presentation of Self

in Everyday Life New York Anchor Books

Doubleday

Goffman E 1961 Encounters Two Studies in

the Sociology of Interaction Indianapolis Bobbs-

Merrill

Goody J1977 TheDomestication of the SavageMind

Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Grabe W and F L Stoller 1997 lsquoReading and

vocabulary development in a second language

A case studyrsquo in J Coady and T Huckin (eds)

Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition A

Rationale for Pedagogy Cambridge Cambridge

University Press

402 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

Gumperz J J 1982 Discourse Strategies

Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Habermas J1976 lsquoSome distinctions in universal

pragmatics A working paperrsquo Theory and Society

32 155ndash67

Hall J K 1993 lsquoThe role of oral practices in

the accomplishment of our everyday lives

The sociocultural dimension of interaction

with implications for the learning of

another languagersquo Applied Linguistics 142

145ndash66

Hall J K 1995 lsquo lsquolsquoAw man where you goinrsquorsquorsquo

Classroom interaction and the development

of L2 interactional competencersquo Issues in Applied

Linguistics 62 37ndash62

Hall JK1997 lsquoA consideration of SLA as a theory

of practice A response to Firth and Wagnerrsquo

Modern Language Journal 813 301ndash306

He A W and R Young 1998 lsquoLanguage

proficiency interviews A discourse approachrsquo in

R Young and A W He (eds) Talking and Testing

Discourse Approaches to the Assessment of Oral

Proficiency Amsterdam John Benjamins

Heath S B 1982 lsquoWhat no bedtime story means

Narrative skills at home and schoolrsquo Language

in Society 11 49ndash76

Heath S B 1983 Ways with Words Language

Life and Work in Communities and Classrooms

Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Hellermann J 2004 lsquoPractices for opening dyadic

interactionrsquo paper presented at the annual

conference of the American Association for

Applied Linguistics Portland OR

Hellermann J forthcoming lsquoThe development of

practices for action in the classroom diadic

interaction focus on task openingsrsquo Modern

Language Journal

Hood S and H Joyce 1995 lsquoReading in the

adult ESL curriculum and classroomrsquo Prospect

102 52ndash64

Hymes D 1974 Foundations in Sociolinguistics

An Ethnographic Approach Philadelphia

University of Pennsylvania Press

Kramsch C 1986 lsquoFrom language proficiency

to interactional competencersquo Modern Language

Journal 70 372ndash66

Kramsch C 2002 lsquoHow can we tell the dancer

from the dancersquo in C Kramsch (ed) Language

Acquisition and Language Socialization An ecological

approach London Continuum

Lave J and E Wenger 1991 Situated Learning

Legitimate Peripheral Participation Cambridge

Cambridge University Press

Lerner G H 1995 lsquoTurn design and the organiza-

tion of participation in instructional activitiesrsquo

Discourse Processes 19 111ndash31

MacBethD2003 lsquoHugh MehanrsquosLearning Lessons

reconsidered On the differences between the

naturalistic and critical analysis of classroom

discoursersquo American Educational Research Journal

401 239ndash80

McCraken R A 1971 lsquoInitiating sustained silent

readingrsquo Journal of Reading 148 521ndash4 582ndash3

McDermott R and D Roth 1978 lsquoThe social

organization of behavior Interactional

approachesrsquo Annual Review of Anthropology 7

321ndash45

Markee N 2000 Conversation Analysis Marwah

NJ Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

Ochs E and B Schieffelin 1979 Developmental

Pragmatics New York Academic Press

Ochs E E A Schegloff and S A Thompson

1996 Interaction and Grammar Cambridge

Cambridge University Press

Ong W J 1982 Orality and Literacy The Technolo-

gizing of the Word London Routledge

Palacios I G 2002 An ESLLiteracy Center

A qualitative study of perspectives and practices

of immigrant adults and literacy facilitators

Unpublished PhD Dissertation Indiana

University Pennsylvania Indiana PA

Pilgreen J L 2000 The SSR Handbook How to

Organize and Manage a Sustained Silent Reading

Program Portsmouth NH BoyntonCook

Pulido D 2003 lsquoModeling the role of second

language proficiency and topic familiarity

in second language incidental vocabulary

acquisition through readingrsquo Language Learning

532 233ndash84

Reder S 1987 lsquoComparative aspects of functional

literacy development Three ethnic American

communitiesrsquo in D Wagner (ed) The Future

of Literacy in a Changing World Oxford Pergamon

Press

Reder S 1994 lsquoPractice engagement theory

A sociocultural approach to literacy across

languages and culturersquo in B M Ferdman

R M Weber and A G Ramırez (eds) Literacy

Across Languages and Cultures Albany NY State

University of New York Press

Reder S and E Davila (2005) lsquoContext

and literacy practicesrsquo Annual Review of Applied

Linguistics 25 170ndash87

Reder S K A Harris and K Setzler 2003

lsquoA multimedia adult learner corpusrsquo TESOL

Quarterly 373 546ndash57

JOHN HELLERMANN 403

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

Reder S K A Harris R Kurzet

D Brillanceau S Banke and JHellermann

forthcoming Using a modified Sustained Silent

Reading for low-level adult ESOL students

Boston National Center for the Study of Adult

Learning and Literacy

Sacks H E A Schegloff and G Jefferson

1974 lsquoA simplest systematics for the organiza-

tion of turn-taking for conversationsrsquo Language

504 696ndash735

Sagarra N 2000 The longitudinal role of working

memory on adult acquisition of L2 grammar

Unpublished PhD Dissertation University of

Illinois Urbana-Champaign

Schegloff E A 1968 lsquoSequencing in conversa-

tional openingsrsquo American Anthropologist 70

1075ndash95

Schegloff E A 1980 lsquoPreliminaries to prelimin-

aries lsquolsquoCan I ask you a questionrsquorsquo rsquo Sociological

Inquiry 50 104ndash52

Schegloff E A 1998 lsquoReflections on studying

prosody in talk-in-interactionrsquo Language and

Speech 413ndash4 235ndash63

Schegloff E A 2000 lsquoOverlapping talk and the

organization of turn-making for conversationrsquo

Language in Society 291 1ndash63

Schegloff E A 2002 lsquoOpening sequencingrsquo

in J E Katz and M Aakhus (eds) Perpetual

Contact Mobile Communication Private Talk Public

Performance Cambridge Cambridge University

Press

Schegloff E A and H Sacks 1973 lsquoOpening up

closingsrsquo Semiotica 8 289ndash327

Schieffelin B B and Ochs E (1986) lsquoLanguage

socializationrsquo Annual Review of Anthropology 15

163ndash91

Scribner S and M Cole 1981 The Psychology of

Literacy Cambridge MA Harvard University

Press

Segalowitz N C Poulsen and M Komoda

1991 lsquoLower level components of reading skill in

higher level bilinguals Implications for reading

instructionrsquo AILA Review 8 15ndash30

Streeck J 1983 Social Order in Child Communica-

tion Amsterdam John Benjamins

Streeck J and S Mihus 2005 lsquoMicroethno-

graphy The study of practicesrsquo In K L Fitch

and R E Sanders (eds) The Handbook of

Language and Social Interaction Marwah NJ

Lawrence Erlbaum

Street B 1998 lsquoNew literacies in theory

and practice What are the implications for

language in educationrsquo Linguistics and Education

10 1ndash24

Street B V 2001 Literacy and Development

Ethnographic perspectives London Routledge

Tang H 1997 lsquoThe relationship between reading

comprehension processes in L1 and L2rsquo Reading

Psychology 183 249ndash301

Treville M C 1996 lsquoLexical learning and reading

in L2 at the beginner level The advantage of

cognatesrsquo The Canadian Modern Language Review

531 173ndash90

Van Lier L 2000 lsquoFrom input to affordance

Social-interactive learning from an ecological

perspectiversquo in J Lantolf (ed) Sociocultural

Theory and Second Language Learning Oxford

Oxford University Press

van Lier L 2002 lsquoAn ecological-semiotic

perspective on language and linguisticsrsquo in

C Kramsch (ed) Language Acquisition and

Language Socialization An ecological approach

London Continuum

Wenger J 1998 Communities of Practice Learning

Meaning and Identity Cambridge Cambridge

University Press

Yang J 2000 lsquoOrthographic effect on word

recognition by learners of Chinese as a Foreign

Languagersquo Journal of the Chinese Language

Teachers Association 352 1ndash18

YoungR1999 lsquoSociolinguistic approaches toSLArsquo

Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 19 105ndash32

Young R 2000 lsquoInteractional competence

Challenges for validityrsquo Paper presented at the

annual conference of the American Association

for Applied Linguistics Vancouver BC

Young R F 2002 lsquoDiscourse approaches to oral

language assessmentrsquo Annual Review of Applied

Linguistics 22 243ndash62

404 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

Page 11: Classroom Interactive Practices for Developing L2 Literacy: A Microethnographic Study of Two Beginning Adult Learners of English

physical orientation for doing dyadic interaction19 Highly proficient speakers

of a language have a range of speech acts which they can use to subtly gain

a partnerrsquos attention while beginning learners almost without exception

rely on mutual physical orientation and object manipulation to start

their dyadic interactions (Hellermann 2004 2005) Eduardo and Abby also

both accomplished these subtle alignments for opening their re-telling

activities unproblematically in most instances Coordinating a mutual

physical orientation for re-telling entails the participants shifting their

posture slightly toward one another moving their books into a shared

space for re-telling and pointing to items in their books The interactions

between Eduardo and Lai Min another student in Excerpts (2) and (3)

occur at the beginning of Eduardorsquos second term in the mSSR The excerpts

are presented to show Eduardorsquos perseverance in opening this particular

literacy event demonstrating how he sees the establishment of mutual

orientation to a space for re-telling to be a necessary part of the re-telling

(Excerpt 2) and highlighting his manipulation of the books themselves

(Excerpt 3) as objects which are fundamental to the accomplishment of this

literacy event

(2)

[A2ndash13ndash03 204 24800 Term II week 6]20

1 T you need to speak to Eduardo

2 E ((taps Lai Min on shoulder and waves his hands motioning her

3 to move toward him))

4 L yeah ((leans back turns head slightly toward Eduardo))

5 E ((pages through his book))

6 L ((looks down to her book looks around class looks over

7 at E leans a little bit toward E))

8 L ((looks away from E)) [((leans forward away from E))

9 E [((looks toward L)) ((puts down his

10 book takes off glasses))

In (2) after the teacherrsquos directive to Lai Min to do the re-telling activity

with Eduardo (line 1) Eduardo makes a clear non-verbal summons

(shoulder tap) and invitation (waving motion) to Lai Min to begin the

re-telling activity in lines 2ndash3 Lai Min makes a minimal verbal and non-

verbal response (line 4) as Eduardo looks in his book Then as Eduardo is

paging through his book Lai Min looks at her own book looks around the

class looks to Eduardo and then looks away Lai Min does not make any

verbal moves to start the interaction and her visual orientation to various

places does not focus on an interaction space Besides the slight head

turn (line 4) and slight lean toward Eduardo (line 7) there is no clear

postural alignment to the space between herself and Eduardo When

Eduardo stops paging through his book and looks to Lai Min in line 9

JOHN HELLERMANN 387

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

he sees that her posture is not aligned to a mutual re-telling space and

he takes off his glasses and puts down his book seemingly aborting the

re-telling sequence

(3)

[A2ndash13ndash03 204 24835 Term II week 6]21

11 L ((looks at Ersquos book looks at board)) tee shuh ss tee shup

12 E ((opens another book)) ((puts book mark in it and closes it))

13 L ((looks at E))

14 E ((puts on glasses))

15 L ((opens her book))

16 E ((opens the second book points to something in the book))

17 L ((looks toward E))

18 E ( )

19 L ((L leans in toward E looking at book))

20 E Saigon Saigone Saigone

21 L ((points to Ersquos book)) Saigon

22 E Saigon Vietnam

23 L uh

24 E Saigone Vietname S( ) Vietnam

25 L mm

26 E Saigone

27 L Saigon ((leans away from E))

28 E ((looks at Lrsquos book and reads something from it)) [(prayer)

29 L [((moves her

30 book toward E))

In (3) after this aborted opening Lai Min appears to read something from

the board out loud (line 11) while Eduardo handles another book on the

table in front of him After Lai Min glances at Eduardo in line 13 Eduardo

puts on his glasses opens the book he has just been handling and points to

something in the book (line 16) which Lai Min orients to by leaning

in toward Eduardo to look at the page to which he is pointing After some

back and forth repetition of the word Eduardo is pointing to (Saigon) Lai Min

ends the focus on Eduardorsquos book by leaning away from the common

interactional space (line 27) Eduardo takes this as a cue to switch roles and

to now share information from Lai Minrsquos book In line 28 Eduardo reads

something from Lai Minrsquos book and she moves it closer to him to aid his

reading

While Extracts (2) and (3) show Eduardo initiating openings for the

re-telling literacy event and non-verbally orienting to the interaction with his

peer he was usually not the most verbally-active participant in his dyadic

388 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

interactions for re-telling When he self-selected to start a re-telling it was

when there were long pauses or notable lack of initiation from his partner

(as in (2) and (3)) By the end of term two of the mSSR however there

is evidence of Eduardo making a reciprocal verbal elicitation for a re-telling

As Excerpt (4) shows after finishing his own re-telling and completing

a closing sequence to that telling (lines 4ndash7) Eduardo reciprocates in eliciting

a re-telling from his partner (line 8)

(4)

[B 5ndash13ndash03 23601 term III week 7]22

1 E fis

2 J flying fish ((flapping left hand like flying))

3 E this is flying fi[s() this (of the)

4 J [yeah yeah yeah yeah

5 J mm mm

6 E mm hmm

7 J mm hmm

8 E what is your

9 (20) ((J picks up his book))

10 J eh (started started) this story

11 E the mountain the mountain ((reads Jrsquos book cover))

While the elicitation in line 8 is abbreviated Eduardorsquos partner (Jin) orients

to line 8 as an elicitation by picking up his own book (line 9) and beginning

his re-telling (line 10) As Jin starts the re-telling Eduardo orients to the title

of the book as an important part of the re-telling event by reading the title of

Jinrsquos book (line 11)

Two aspects of the openings for the re-tellings that the other focal student

of this study Abby displayed but that did not occur in Eduardorsquos interactions

were her pre-activity talk checking on whether the peer was ready to do

the task and then talk about interlocutor assignment for the activity

Abby became more active in initiating these opening moves over the course

of the three terms of the mSSR Excerpts (5)ndash(7) show examples of this

development In (5) which comes from the very beginning of the second

term in the mSSR we see Abby interact with Fernando but not initiate the

interaction

(5)

[1-10ndash03 B 24452 Term II week 2]23

1 F whose talk to me

2 (10) ((Fernando facing Abby Abby turns to Fernando))

3 F ((to Abby)) you oh

4 (25)

JOHN HELLERMANN 389

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

5 F hhyeah okay

6 ((Abby sneezes))

7 F bless you () god bless you a[gain

8 A [thank you

9 F again [god bless you

10 A [huh hah hah [uh hih hih hih hih hhuh

11 F [eh huh heh heh heah

12 (20)

13 F what () is your book

14 A eh () my book is () my my book is easy () easy story press

15 F oh press [mm hmm

16 A [yeah ease story pres[s

17 F [eh

18 (35)

19 A what is (your) story

In line 1 Fernando makes the first verbal move to establish the peer

dyad and achieve mutual physical orientation asking about a partner

and after a sequence involving sneezing in line 13 Fernando asks the

first elicitation question for the activity Abby responds to each elicitation

non-verbally in line 2 and with the title of her book in line 14 Abby orients

to the activity of finding out about one anotherrsquos books by asking

the reciprocal question more specifically asking about Fernandorsquos lsquostoryrsquo in

line 19

The next example of one of Abbyrsquos opening move sequences comes from

the fifth week of the second term of the mSSR Excerpt (6) shows Abby

engaging in more pre-task opening talk (lines 3 and 6) interlocutor selection

(line 8) and the launch of the task (line 10)

(6)

[2703 B 204 24353 Term II week 5]24

1 T you need to talk ladies

2 (10)

3 Ab todayrsquos uh February ((looks to Ana then back to notebook))

4 An ((shifts posture toward Abby))

5 (70)

6 Ab seventh

7 (140) ((both ss write)

8 Ab I talk to you ((turning to Ana))

9 (250) ((Ana continues writing))

10 Ab my () my book uh life story one

11 (20)

12 An ((shifts posture a bit to A))

390 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

13 Ab are you finished

14 An go (go ahead) please () where is () where is your story

After the teacher exhorts the learners (line 1) to begin their pair task

(the story re-telling) Abby announces the date and after Ana shifts her

posture toward Abby proposes the pair assignment (line 8) Since the

learners sit at desks in pairs the pair assignment is somewhat of a given so

Abbyrsquos turn in line 8 may also act as a proposal for turn allocation If

interlocutor assignment is relatively self-evident the turn lsquoI talk to yoursquo is at

least a move to attempt to get Ana to enter the interaction and may be an

explicit move to tell Ana that she Abby is starting the activity There is no

uptake by Ana after this proposal and after a rather long pause (line 9) Abby

launches the task self-selecting to re-tell her story first When there is no

verbal uptake by Ana in line 11 after Abbyrsquos turn Abby orients to her

partnerrsquos preparation for the task and asks if Ana has finished (line 13) her

preparatory work (writing notes) Ana orients to Abbyrsquos question as a pre-

request to check whether Ana is ready to start her re-telling by encouraging

Abby to continue directly eliciting information about the location of her

story in line 14

The final excerpt from the third term of the mSSR illustrates Abbyrsquos further

development of interactional practices for opening the re-telling activity In (7)

while Inez is writing in her notebook Abby shifts her posture to Inez and asks

a question (line 2) which is preliminary to a question for the assigned activity

(7)

[5-9ndash03 B 206 24121 Term III week 7]25

((Teacherrsquos prompt for the interaction lsquoDo you like books about a story or

information what kind of book are you reading nowrsquo))

1 A ((shifts posture toward Inez))

2 I are you ready

3 (70) ((Inez is writing in her notebook))

4 I yeah sorry

5 (30)

6 I ((re-positions her posture to face Abby then gestures with

7 right hand pointing to Abby and back to herself))

8 (30)

9 A ((Abby looks at the board and reads the question)) what type

10 of a book are you reading now

11 ((Inez begins her re-telling))

While Abbyrsquos question in line 2 orients to the necessity of the completion of

the preparatory work for the re-telling literacy event it also works as part

of the opening for the re-telling task itself Inez finishes writing in her

notebook and orients to Abbyrsquos question as an opening to the assigned

JOHN HELLERMANN 391

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

re-telling task by answering Abbyrsquos question and apologizing for not starting

immediately (line 4) After Inez repositions her body and non-verbally

initiates a negotiation of turn allocation for the re-telling (lines 6 and 7)

Abby self-selects to elicit the re-telling from Inez by reading one of the

teacherrsquos prompts from the board (lines 9ndash10)

Abbyrsquos socialization to the mSSR re-telling activity can be seen in the

development of opening moves in the re-telling interactions with her peers

in Excerpts (5)ndash(7) The interaction from earlier in the mSSR (Excerpt (5))

shows Abby not actively initiating dyad assignment pre-task talk and task

launch In terms two and three the excerpts show her more actively

involved in starting these re-telling activities Her task-preliminary organiza-

tional talk and task launching later in the second and third terms of the

mSSR suggest that she is now more comfortable with the re-telling literacy

event and with the language as a whole

These excerpts of Abbyrsquos interaction in the re-telling literacy events show

two common moves by more advanced learners for opening dyadic

interactions (Hellermann 2004 forthcoming) the orientation to the previous

task completion (in Excerpt (6) lsquoare you finishedrsquo and Excerpt (7) lsquoare you

readyrsquo) and interlocutor selection (in Excerpt (6) lsquoI talk to yoursquo) As other

research in conversation shows such moves for opening talk enable

participants to work out basic features of talk-in-interaction such as avoiding

simultaneous talk and ensuring that the talk about to happen is the start of

something new not from the previous topic (Button and Casey 1984)26

The interactions by Abby and Eduardo in the re-telling literacy events also

show evidence for the learnersrsquo development of interactional competence

through their socialization into literacy events27 While both Abby and

Eduardo orient to the beginnings of the re-telling events creating spaces for

appropriate mutual participation for the event from the start of the mSSR

we see evidence for a change in their participation in the re-telling events

over the course of the three terms of the mSSR Eduardo uses a speech act

(lsquowhat is yourrsquo) in a more sophisticated modality (verbal rather than non-

verbal) to reciprocate an elicitation for a re-telling in his interaction with Jin

in Excerpt (4) In Abbyrsquos later interactions she explicitly orients to the

boundaries of the events by inquiring as to her partnersrsquo readiness to

participate (Excerpts (5) and (6)) and negotiates roles for participation

(Excerpt (6) lsquoI talk to yoursquo) and turn allocation (Excerpts (6) and (7))

Learner reading logs and filing of reading logs

A basic literacy skill activity that the teacher built into the mSSR classes was

having learners chart their reading activity in a reading log and then file their

own reading logs alphabetically in a file box at the end of every lesson In

the third class period of the first term some evidence of Eduardorsquos lack of

basic literacy skills appeared during the filing activity Near the end of this

class period the teacher asked learners to put their reading logs into a file

392 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

box organized by their first names Eduardo and another learner went to

the file box at the front of the room and stood by the box with their reading

logs looking for the appropriate place to put the logs After some time

Eduardo looked over to Carla (a learner from Brazil) and held out his right

hand palm up Carla oriented to this gesture as a request for help and got out

of her seat to help the two learners showing them the place in the files to

put their logs28 A bit later in this class period as the learners were packing

up to leave the class Eduardo solicited the teacherrsquos help in understanding

the name of the process of filing (Excerpt (8)) In so doing he is building on

the co-constructed filing practice with his classmate

(8)

[10-3ndash02 A 204 25149 Term I week 2]29

1 E want to ask (you something) ((walking to file box))

2 T yes you want to ask me something

3 E somebody ((puts hand in file box then touches head)) somebody

4 T file

5 E file file

6 T uh huh this is what () please file file you papers

In Exerpt (8) Eduardo is standing next to the teacher and utters a

pre-question (Schegloff 1980) in line 1 as he walks to the file box Once at

the box in line 3 he says lsquosomebodyrsquo a bare noun phrase which projects a

predicate Eduardo produces that predicate by modeling the relevant action

a hypothetical learner filing a paper This is followed by a gesture of his

hand to his head (which Eduardo commonly used to indicate that he did not

remember a particular word in English) and a repetition of the same bare

noun phrase In line 4 the teacher orients to Eduardorsquos talk as a request for

a word to name the action of putting the reading log into the box The fact

that this interaction is elicited by Eduardo shortly after his request for help

from Carla suggests that Carla may have helped him put the reading log

in the right place but did not give Eduardo the English word for that action

It is Eduardorsquos interactions with both a peer and with the teacher which

help him co-construct a name for this literacy event

While Eduardorsquos success in filing his reading log was sporadic throughout

the rest of this first term at the beginning of the next term on the first day

of class the teacher explained again that the reading logs were to be filed

alphabetically She explained and modeled this while standing next to the

file box to assist learners After explaining and modeling the procedure to the

class she reminded Eduardo again several minutes later lsquoyou need to put this

[reading log] away young manrsquo Several minutes after that Eduardo held up

his reading log showing it to the teacher as other learners were going to the

file box to file their logs She responded affirmatively and Eduardo went to

the file box The teacher said his name Eduardo said lsquoersquo (the first letter of his

JOHN HELLERMANN 393

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

first name) and put the reading log in the appropriate place in the file box

Having participated in one term of the mSSR and the literacy event of filling

in and filing reading logs (the term in which it was just noted that he was

given support by a peer and the teacher) the reinforcement of the rules the

modeling by the teacher as well as the personal reminder and reassurance

given by the teacher guided Eduardo into full participation in this literacy

event Later in this second term and in the third term as well Eduardo

was able to file the log independently By the beginning of the third term

(4103) he was also able to tell a newcomer to the class the purpose of the

reading log

Based on conversations with his teachers the evidence from his reading

logs and his interactions with other learners in the re-telling literacy event

Eduardo seemed to have developed a genuine interest in and enthusiasm for

reading In a more complex literacy skill involving the reading logs there is

evidence that Eduardo developed the ability to orally evaluate the books

he read adopting a term introduced by the teacher to describe several of

his books lsquoso-sorsquo In the later part of the first term of the mSSR Eduardorsquos

reading log was sporadically filled in and he wrote in Spanish for the

assessment portion of the log (Figure 1)

By the second term of the mSSR Eduardo was reading some books during

the silent reading period in class for four class periods in a row (an indication

of persistence and interest) and assessed one book (The Orange Grove) in his

reading log as lsquovery goodrsquo Through this assessment Eduardo displayed

part of a personal identity as a literate person in English But even by the

third term of the mSSR classes Eduardo did not elaborate on the assessments

of his books as the reading log prompted learners to do In a row at the top

of the reading log learners were to answer the question lsquoDid you like it

[the book]rsquo and then write why The teacher provided another written

prompt in the box that learners checked for a positive assessment lsquoYes

because rsquo In this place though Eduardo always indicated that he liked the

Figure 1 Part of Eduardorsquos reading log from the first term of the mSSR

394 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

books that he read he did not specify why he liked them giving evidence

of the limitations of his ability to evaluate his reading (as Figure 2 shows)

In contrast to Eduardo Abby did not have trouble filing her reading log

On the day the teacher explained to learners how they should file their

reading logs she used Abby as an example lsquoFor example Abby file your

paper under lsquolsquoArsquorsquo for Abbyrsquo In subsequent class periods Abby displayed

competence at filing her reading log in the appropriate slot in the file box

The content of Abbyrsquos reading logs also differed from Eduardorsquos in notable

ways Where Eduardo always checked the box marked lsquoeasyrsquo when

evaluating the level of difficulty of the books he read in most cases Abby

checked the lsquojust rightrsquo box and just a few times the box marked lsquoeasyrsquo for

the books she read Figure 3 shows one of her reading logs from the third

term of the mSSR

The notations in Abbyrsquos reading log in Figure 3 suggest that she was

choosing books that were appropriate to her ability (the box labeled

lsquojust rightrsquo is marked consistently) Also Abby was able to give some detail

(although limited) when prompted by the teacher for the reasons behind

her assessment of a book In response to the teacherrsquos written prompt on

the reading log lsquoyes I liked it because rsquo Abby had two responses she used

lsquoyes I did because interestingrsquo or lsquoyes I did because easyrsquo Abby indicated

Figure 2 Part of Eduardorsquos reading log from the third term of the mSSR

JOHN HELLERMANN 395

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

these more expanded assessments both in the second and third terms of the

mSSR classes

An important question for research on language socialization and

interactional competence in a classroom setting is to what degree these

processes result in increased engagement with literacy outside the classroom

A telling insight gained from the learnersrsquo in-home L1 interviews suggests

that for both these learners the socialization into literacy events in the

classroom lead to increased participation in literacy outside the classroom

In the interviews conducted with each learner before the start of the mSSR

treatment when asked what and how much they read in English for

pleasure Abby indicated that she read student picture books for ninety

minutes a week Eduardo reported reading newspapers for thirty minutes

a week In interviews conducted in June of 2004 after the learnersrsquo

completed their participation in the mSSR Abby reported reading

newspapers and books for 7 hours a week and Eduardo newspapers and

magazines for 2 hours a week Along with the development of interactive

practices in classroom literacy events highlighted in this paper these findings

show a remarkable increase in these learnersrsquo engagement with literacy

outside the classroom and evidence of their emerging identities as individuals

literate in English

Figure 3 Part of Abbyrsquos reading log from the third term of the mSSR

396 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

CONCLUSIONS

The findings uncovered in this study show two learnersrsquo development of

interactional competence through their socialization into classroom literacy

events This socialization occurred through the learnersrsquo engagement in

discursive practices in repeated literacy events which were part of a modified

sustained silent reading program The discursive practices for the literacy

events occurred within the context of the entire classroom community of

practice (Wenger 1998) and afforded learners the opportunities to move from

peripheral to more full participation in English literacy This community of

practice included (1) the teachers who provided instructions and support for

the activities through explicit instruction and modeling (2) learner peers

who also modeled appropriate interactive and language behavior and were

the interlocutors with whom some of the literacy practices were negotiated

and (3) the texts themselves which became a mediating object the third

part in a triadic dialogue for literacy (van Lier 2002) comprised of learnerndash

teacherndashtext or learnerndashlearnerndashtext

While neither learner had studied English formally before enrolling in

classes at the Lab School this study shows that Abby the learner with a high

school education from her home country was familiar with some of the

practices for literacy events including alphabetical filing book selection

and book assessment This research also showed that over the course of

three terms doing the mSSR activities Abby developed a wider range of

interactional practices for opening the dyadic interactions involved in the

story re-telling

Eduardo on the other hand began his participation in the mSSR activities

with much less experience with classroom literacy events having had just

two years of education in his home country The literacy events which were

part of the mSSR afforded Eduardo (van Lier 2000) the opportunity to

engage with literacy and by participating at first peripherally Eduardo

quickly understood and participated more fully in the book selection literacy

event Through interaction with his peers and the teacher in term two basic

literacy skills such as alphabetizing and filing his reading log developed

Though his teachersrsquo initial impressions suggested that he got very little

from his participation in the mSSR a review of his reading logs and his

participation in class show that Eduardo acquired knowledge of literacy

through a transformation (Lave and Wenger 1991) of his understanding of

and participation in literacy events

The development of these learnersrsquo interactional competence can be seen

in Eduardorsquos pursuit of understanding the practice of filing his reading log

which he accomplished through interaction with several members of the

classroom community This change in his participation in filing the logs

shows how learning is a situated practice accomplished through repeated

interactions with the entire classroom community In the analysis of the

story re-telling activities both Eduardo and Abby exhibited an increased

JOHN HELLERMANN 397

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

ability to use talk to initiate interaction by negotiating interlocutor

assignment and turn allocation to open their re-tellings Again the repeated

practice of the re-tellings afforded the learners opportunities to negotiate

a particular classroom and social action (opening a face-to-face interaction)

and both learners developed interactional skills that allowed them to

participate in the practice more fully

A quantitative analysis of standardized assessment measures30 for all the

learners at the Lab School shows that students who participated in the mSSR

method improved in their English language literacy skills to the same degree

as students who participated in classes which used a traditional skills-based

method for the teaching of reading (Reder et al forthcoming) This result

leads one to question what classroom practices might have contributed to

the increase in scores for each group Qualitative micro-analyses such as this

study are a first step toward understanding the discursive practices of the

mSSR classrooms which led to increases in those standardized tests of literacy

skills Also while we know that first-language education is a factor in

successful second language acquisition (Cole et al 1971) we know little

about how classroom interaction between experienced and inexperienced

learners differs In order to address this question this analysis used existing

social categorizations for participant selection (their degree of previous

education in their first language environment) and focused on two students

who would be categorized differently But the use of these macro-level

categorizations was not intended to reify the association of the characteristics

of each category to individual members Rather they were used to define

places from which to empirically examine the interactional language

behavior of members of each category This examination was done through

micro-analyses of the two studentsrsquo participation in the discursive practices

in mSSR literacy events that help L2 literacy develop The focus on the

day-to-day classroom interactions of the two learners allowed us to see

different paths to L2 literacy for learners who have different educational and

literacy experiences and uncover the complex interaction within a classroom

community of practice which results in the changes reported in traditional

language assessment measures

Final version received November 2005

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank the entire staff at the National Labsite for Adult ESOL at Portland State

University for their involvement in maintaining the Lab School as a place for adults to learn

English and as a state of the art research facility I would also like to thank Kathy Harris Sandra

Banke Reuel Kurzet Steve Reder Dominique Brillanceau and three anonymous readers for

their feedback on various versions of the paper

398 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

APPENDIX A

Some transcript conventions in conversation analysis (adapted from Schegloff

2000)

I Temporal and sequential relationships

[ Overlapping or simultaneous talk

frac14 lsquolatched utterancesrsquo no break or pause between utterances

(05) Numbers in parentheses indicate silence represented in tenths of a second

() A dot in parentheses indicates a lsquomicropausersquo

II Aspects of speech delivery including aspectsof intonation

period indicates a falling intonation contour not necessarily the end ofa sentence

question mark indicates rising intonation

a comma indicates lsquocontinuingrsquo intonation

Colons are used to indicate the prolongation or stretching of the soundjust preceding them The more colons the longer the stretching

- A hyphen after a word or part of a word indicates a cut-off or self-interruption word

Underlining is used to indicate some form of stress or emphasis either byincreased loudness or higher pitch The more underlining the greater theemphasis

The degree sign indicates that the talk following it was markedly quiet orsoft

The up and down arrows mark sharper rises or falls in pitch

45 The combination of lsquomore thanrsquo and lsquoless thanrsquo symbols indicates that thetalk between them is compressed or rushed

54 Used in the reverse order they can indicate that a stretch of talk ismarkedly slowed or drawn out

hhh Outbreath

hh Inbreath

(( )) Descriptions of events ((cough)) ((sniff)) ((telephone rings)) ((foot-steps))

(word) All or part of an utterance in parentheses indicates transcriber uncertainty

Creaky voice

NOTES

1 In order to get around the unwieldy

and theoretically-loaded terminology

for describing the use acquisition

and learning of a language that is

not the home or first language of the

participants of this study I will use

JOHN HELLERMANN 399

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

the abbreviation lsquoL2rsquo throughout the

paper to refer to a language that is

being attained through formal instruc-

tion For the students in this study

lsquoL2rsquo refers to English It may not be

however that English is these

studentsrsquo lsquosecondrsquo language as the

abbreviation implies

2 Students in the current study were in

lsquolevel Arsquo classes at the data collection

site SPL level 0ndash2

3 In Sustained Silent Reading

(McCracken 1971 Pilgreen 2000)

students are given a set time in the

classroom to read silently without

interruption by the teacher or other

students and without evaluation of

what is read and how it is read

The method was altered slightly at

the data collection site to meet the

needs of beginning adult language

learners and included activities

like post-reading re-telling activities

and studentsrsquo use of reading logs

to record their assessments of their

reading

4 The National Labsite for Adult ESOL

at Portland State University is sup-

ported in part by grant R309B6002

from the Institute for Education

Science US Dept of Education to

the National Center for the Study of

Adult Learning and Literacy The

Labsite is a partnership between

Portland State University and Portland

Community College The school

and research facilities are housed at

Portland State while the registration

curriculum and teachers of the

ESL students are from Portland

Community College

5 One reviewer asked about the inabil-

ity to see learnersrsquo eye gaze with

cameras embedded in the ceiling

While this is a problem when

students are sitting directly under

the two mobile cameras which

follow students wearing the wireless

microphones most often students

are sitting in a position where

studentsrsquo faces can be seen quite

directly For details of the data

collection see Reder et al (2003)

6 The Labsite Student Study (LSS)

conducts in-home interviews with a

subset of students in the lab school

(70 per year) in their home lan-

guages over the course of four

years regardless of whether the

student remains in lab school classes

or not The primary purpose of

the LSS study is to understand

language use and literacy develop-

ment outside the classroom context

and factors which influence program

persistence

7 All names used in this study are

pseudonyms

8 The teacher had different types of

books on a cart that she wheeled into

the room every class period She took

books off the cart and spread them

out on desks at the back of the room

9 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoselectsbookclass1]

10 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardohelping]

11 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoshowing]

12 Sarah Ouellette helped with the

Spanish transcription and provided

the translation to English Transcrip-

tion conventions are included in

Appendix A lsquoTrsquo indicates the class-

room teacher in all transcripts

13 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoexplaining]

400 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

14 At the time of this excerpt Eduardo

was a novice in Rederrsquos (1987) third

mode of literacy engagement

technical still struggling with basic

technical issues like decoding English

language lexicon

15 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Abbyreading]

16 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Abbynotetaking]

17 The classroom teachers noted the

frustration of doing mSSR with

students who have very low first

language literacy because of her

inability to help students organize

their reading in instances like note

taking (Banke and Brillanceau 2004)

18 A literacy assessment test (BEST

Literacy) was administered in the

classroom in terms one and two of

the mSSR program While the scores

increased for each learner for

Eduardo the increase is not as great

as Abbyrsquos Eduardorsquos overall literacy

score went from 35 in term one

to 42 in term two which is an

increase of one student performance

level (from 3 to 4) Abbyrsquos scores

increased from 45 in term one to

56 in term two which indicates

a jump from student performance

level 4 to 6 For information

on characteristics of student language

abilities at different student perfor-

mance levels (SPLs) see pp 5ndash6 of

wwwcalorgcaelaesl_resources

Part4-5pdf

19 One of the pedagogical advantages of

doing a dyadic re-telling in a lan-

guage classroom is that even if one

student doesnrsquot understand the

instructions for the task in an activity

like the mSSR the peerrsquos act of

posture shift moving a book into

a common space and looking

toward the partner strongly invite

collaboration in some interaction and

it is collaboration that is perhaps

the most important aspect of the

re-telling activity (Pilgreen 2000)

especially for language learners

20 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoopening1]

21 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoopening2]

22 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoorientsstorytelling]

23 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Abbyopening1]

24 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Abbypretasktalkterm2]

25 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Abbystartingretelling2]

26 While more empirical evidence is

warranted a provisional claim

can be mentioned here that such

re-telling activities and perhaps

in classroom pair activities in

general are organized with a two-

part move like that displayed in

(6) lsquoquery about readinessrsquo and

lsquoturn allocationrsquo before the first task

question

27 Notably absent from Abbyrsquos and

Eduardorsquos peer re-tellings are any

verbal greeting sequences Even

when one of the pair moves across

the room to sit with another student

Abby and Eduardo did not exchange

greetings with their partner for their

JOHN HELLERMANN 401

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

task This is something that other

students did as part of their openings

28 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoasksstudentforhelpfiling]

29 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoasksaboutfiling]

30 The assessment measures were the

BEST Plus and the Peabody Picture

Vocabulary tests

REFERENCES

Atkinson J M and J C Heritage 1984

Structures of Social Action Studies in Conversation

Analysis Cambridge Cambridge University Press

August G 2001 The Road to Second Language

Reading How do we get there Unpublished

PhD Dissertation City University of New York

New York

Banke S and D Brillanceu 2004 lsquoLiving

in Interventionrsquo Unpublished manuscript

Barton D (2001) lsquoDirections for literacy

research Analysing language and social practices

in a textually mediated worldrsquo Language and

Education 152ndash3 92ndash104

Bernhardt E B and M L Kamil 1995 lsquoInter-

preting relationships between L1 and L2 reading

Consolidating the linguistic threshold and the

linguistic interdependence hypothesesrsquo Applied

Linguistics 161 15ndash34

Bourdieu P 1991 Language and Symbolic Power

Cambridge MA Harvard University Press

Brandt D 1990 Literacy as Involvement The Acts

of Writers Readers and Texts Carbondale IL

Southern Illinois University Press

ButtonG andNCasey1984 lsquoGenerating topics

The use of topic initial elicitorsrsquo in J M Atkinson

and J C Heritage (eds) Structures of Social Action

Studies in Conversation Analysis Cambridge

Cambridge University Press

Canale M and M Swain 1980 lsquoTheoretical

bases of communicative approaches to second

language teaching and testingrsquoApplied Linguistics

1 1ndash47

Carrell P L 1991 lsquoSecond language reading

Reading ability or language proficiencyrsquo Applied

Linguistics 122 159ndash79

Chow P and C Chou 2000 Evaluating

Sustained Silent Reading in Reading Classes [Web]

I-TESL-J Available httpitesljorgArticlesChow-

mSSRhtml

Cole M J Gay J A Glick and D W Sharp

1971 The Cultural Context of Learning and Think-

ing An Exploration in Experimental Anthropology

New York Basic Books

Couper-Kuhlen E andMSelting 1996 Prosody

in Conversation Interactional Studies Cambridge

Cambridge University Press

Duff P 2002 lsquoThe discursive co-construction

of knowledge identity and difference An

ethnography of communication in the high

school mainstreamrsquo Applied Linguistics 233

289ndash322

Erickson F and J Schultz 1981 lsquoWhen is

a context Some issues and methods in the

analysis of social competencersquo in J Green and

C Wallat (eds) Ethnography and Language in

Educational Settings Norwood NJ Ablex

Felser C L Roberts T Marinis and R Gross

2003 lsquoThe processing of ambiguous sentences by

first and second language learners of Englishrsquo

Applied Psycholinguistics 243 453ndash89

Garfinkel H 1967 Studies in Ethnomethodology

Englewood Cliffs NJ Prentice Hall

Gee J P 1990 Social Linguistics and Literacies

Ideology in Discourses London Falmer Press

Goffman E 1959 The Presentation of Self

in Everyday Life New York Anchor Books

Doubleday

Goffman E 1961 Encounters Two Studies in

the Sociology of Interaction Indianapolis Bobbs-

Merrill

Goody J1977 TheDomestication of the SavageMind

Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Grabe W and F L Stoller 1997 lsquoReading and

vocabulary development in a second language

A case studyrsquo in J Coady and T Huckin (eds)

Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition A

Rationale for Pedagogy Cambridge Cambridge

University Press

402 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

Gumperz J J 1982 Discourse Strategies

Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Habermas J1976 lsquoSome distinctions in universal

pragmatics A working paperrsquo Theory and Society

32 155ndash67

Hall J K 1993 lsquoThe role of oral practices in

the accomplishment of our everyday lives

The sociocultural dimension of interaction

with implications for the learning of

another languagersquo Applied Linguistics 142

145ndash66

Hall J K 1995 lsquo lsquolsquoAw man where you goinrsquorsquorsquo

Classroom interaction and the development

of L2 interactional competencersquo Issues in Applied

Linguistics 62 37ndash62

Hall JK1997 lsquoA consideration of SLA as a theory

of practice A response to Firth and Wagnerrsquo

Modern Language Journal 813 301ndash306

He A W and R Young 1998 lsquoLanguage

proficiency interviews A discourse approachrsquo in

R Young and A W He (eds) Talking and Testing

Discourse Approaches to the Assessment of Oral

Proficiency Amsterdam John Benjamins

Heath S B 1982 lsquoWhat no bedtime story means

Narrative skills at home and schoolrsquo Language

in Society 11 49ndash76

Heath S B 1983 Ways with Words Language

Life and Work in Communities and Classrooms

Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Hellermann J 2004 lsquoPractices for opening dyadic

interactionrsquo paper presented at the annual

conference of the American Association for

Applied Linguistics Portland OR

Hellermann J forthcoming lsquoThe development of

practices for action in the classroom diadic

interaction focus on task openingsrsquo Modern

Language Journal

Hood S and H Joyce 1995 lsquoReading in the

adult ESL curriculum and classroomrsquo Prospect

102 52ndash64

Hymes D 1974 Foundations in Sociolinguistics

An Ethnographic Approach Philadelphia

University of Pennsylvania Press

Kramsch C 1986 lsquoFrom language proficiency

to interactional competencersquo Modern Language

Journal 70 372ndash66

Kramsch C 2002 lsquoHow can we tell the dancer

from the dancersquo in C Kramsch (ed) Language

Acquisition and Language Socialization An ecological

approach London Continuum

Lave J and E Wenger 1991 Situated Learning

Legitimate Peripheral Participation Cambridge

Cambridge University Press

Lerner G H 1995 lsquoTurn design and the organiza-

tion of participation in instructional activitiesrsquo

Discourse Processes 19 111ndash31

MacBethD2003 lsquoHugh MehanrsquosLearning Lessons

reconsidered On the differences between the

naturalistic and critical analysis of classroom

discoursersquo American Educational Research Journal

401 239ndash80

McCraken R A 1971 lsquoInitiating sustained silent

readingrsquo Journal of Reading 148 521ndash4 582ndash3

McDermott R and D Roth 1978 lsquoThe social

organization of behavior Interactional

approachesrsquo Annual Review of Anthropology 7

321ndash45

Markee N 2000 Conversation Analysis Marwah

NJ Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

Ochs E and B Schieffelin 1979 Developmental

Pragmatics New York Academic Press

Ochs E E A Schegloff and S A Thompson

1996 Interaction and Grammar Cambridge

Cambridge University Press

Ong W J 1982 Orality and Literacy The Technolo-

gizing of the Word London Routledge

Palacios I G 2002 An ESLLiteracy Center

A qualitative study of perspectives and practices

of immigrant adults and literacy facilitators

Unpublished PhD Dissertation Indiana

University Pennsylvania Indiana PA

Pilgreen J L 2000 The SSR Handbook How to

Organize and Manage a Sustained Silent Reading

Program Portsmouth NH BoyntonCook

Pulido D 2003 lsquoModeling the role of second

language proficiency and topic familiarity

in second language incidental vocabulary

acquisition through readingrsquo Language Learning

532 233ndash84

Reder S 1987 lsquoComparative aspects of functional

literacy development Three ethnic American

communitiesrsquo in D Wagner (ed) The Future

of Literacy in a Changing World Oxford Pergamon

Press

Reder S 1994 lsquoPractice engagement theory

A sociocultural approach to literacy across

languages and culturersquo in B M Ferdman

R M Weber and A G Ramırez (eds) Literacy

Across Languages and Cultures Albany NY State

University of New York Press

Reder S and E Davila (2005) lsquoContext

and literacy practicesrsquo Annual Review of Applied

Linguistics 25 170ndash87

Reder S K A Harris and K Setzler 2003

lsquoA multimedia adult learner corpusrsquo TESOL

Quarterly 373 546ndash57

JOHN HELLERMANN 403

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

Reder S K A Harris R Kurzet

D Brillanceau S Banke and JHellermann

forthcoming Using a modified Sustained Silent

Reading for low-level adult ESOL students

Boston National Center for the Study of Adult

Learning and Literacy

Sacks H E A Schegloff and G Jefferson

1974 lsquoA simplest systematics for the organiza-

tion of turn-taking for conversationsrsquo Language

504 696ndash735

Sagarra N 2000 The longitudinal role of working

memory on adult acquisition of L2 grammar

Unpublished PhD Dissertation University of

Illinois Urbana-Champaign

Schegloff E A 1968 lsquoSequencing in conversa-

tional openingsrsquo American Anthropologist 70

1075ndash95

Schegloff E A 1980 lsquoPreliminaries to prelimin-

aries lsquolsquoCan I ask you a questionrsquorsquo rsquo Sociological

Inquiry 50 104ndash52

Schegloff E A 1998 lsquoReflections on studying

prosody in talk-in-interactionrsquo Language and

Speech 413ndash4 235ndash63

Schegloff E A 2000 lsquoOverlapping talk and the

organization of turn-making for conversationrsquo

Language in Society 291 1ndash63

Schegloff E A 2002 lsquoOpening sequencingrsquo

in J E Katz and M Aakhus (eds) Perpetual

Contact Mobile Communication Private Talk Public

Performance Cambridge Cambridge University

Press

Schegloff E A and H Sacks 1973 lsquoOpening up

closingsrsquo Semiotica 8 289ndash327

Schieffelin B B and Ochs E (1986) lsquoLanguage

socializationrsquo Annual Review of Anthropology 15

163ndash91

Scribner S and M Cole 1981 The Psychology of

Literacy Cambridge MA Harvard University

Press

Segalowitz N C Poulsen and M Komoda

1991 lsquoLower level components of reading skill in

higher level bilinguals Implications for reading

instructionrsquo AILA Review 8 15ndash30

Streeck J 1983 Social Order in Child Communica-

tion Amsterdam John Benjamins

Streeck J and S Mihus 2005 lsquoMicroethno-

graphy The study of practicesrsquo In K L Fitch

and R E Sanders (eds) The Handbook of

Language and Social Interaction Marwah NJ

Lawrence Erlbaum

Street B 1998 lsquoNew literacies in theory

and practice What are the implications for

language in educationrsquo Linguistics and Education

10 1ndash24

Street B V 2001 Literacy and Development

Ethnographic perspectives London Routledge

Tang H 1997 lsquoThe relationship between reading

comprehension processes in L1 and L2rsquo Reading

Psychology 183 249ndash301

Treville M C 1996 lsquoLexical learning and reading

in L2 at the beginner level The advantage of

cognatesrsquo The Canadian Modern Language Review

531 173ndash90

Van Lier L 2000 lsquoFrom input to affordance

Social-interactive learning from an ecological

perspectiversquo in J Lantolf (ed) Sociocultural

Theory and Second Language Learning Oxford

Oxford University Press

van Lier L 2002 lsquoAn ecological-semiotic

perspective on language and linguisticsrsquo in

C Kramsch (ed) Language Acquisition and

Language Socialization An ecological approach

London Continuum

Wenger J 1998 Communities of Practice Learning

Meaning and Identity Cambridge Cambridge

University Press

Yang J 2000 lsquoOrthographic effect on word

recognition by learners of Chinese as a Foreign

Languagersquo Journal of the Chinese Language

Teachers Association 352 1ndash18

YoungR1999 lsquoSociolinguistic approaches toSLArsquo

Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 19 105ndash32

Young R 2000 lsquoInteractional competence

Challenges for validityrsquo Paper presented at the

annual conference of the American Association

for Applied Linguistics Vancouver BC

Young R F 2002 lsquoDiscourse approaches to oral

language assessmentrsquo Annual Review of Applied

Linguistics 22 243ndash62

404 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

Page 12: Classroom Interactive Practices for Developing L2 Literacy: A Microethnographic Study of Two Beginning Adult Learners of English

he sees that her posture is not aligned to a mutual re-telling space and

he takes off his glasses and puts down his book seemingly aborting the

re-telling sequence

(3)

[A2ndash13ndash03 204 24835 Term II week 6]21

11 L ((looks at Ersquos book looks at board)) tee shuh ss tee shup

12 E ((opens another book)) ((puts book mark in it and closes it))

13 L ((looks at E))

14 E ((puts on glasses))

15 L ((opens her book))

16 E ((opens the second book points to something in the book))

17 L ((looks toward E))

18 E ( )

19 L ((L leans in toward E looking at book))

20 E Saigon Saigone Saigone

21 L ((points to Ersquos book)) Saigon

22 E Saigon Vietnam

23 L uh

24 E Saigone Vietname S( ) Vietnam

25 L mm

26 E Saigone

27 L Saigon ((leans away from E))

28 E ((looks at Lrsquos book and reads something from it)) [(prayer)

29 L [((moves her

30 book toward E))

In (3) after this aborted opening Lai Min appears to read something from

the board out loud (line 11) while Eduardo handles another book on the

table in front of him After Lai Min glances at Eduardo in line 13 Eduardo

puts on his glasses opens the book he has just been handling and points to

something in the book (line 16) which Lai Min orients to by leaning

in toward Eduardo to look at the page to which he is pointing After some

back and forth repetition of the word Eduardo is pointing to (Saigon) Lai Min

ends the focus on Eduardorsquos book by leaning away from the common

interactional space (line 27) Eduardo takes this as a cue to switch roles and

to now share information from Lai Minrsquos book In line 28 Eduardo reads

something from Lai Minrsquos book and she moves it closer to him to aid his

reading

While Extracts (2) and (3) show Eduardo initiating openings for the

re-telling literacy event and non-verbally orienting to the interaction with his

peer he was usually not the most verbally-active participant in his dyadic

388 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

interactions for re-telling When he self-selected to start a re-telling it was

when there were long pauses or notable lack of initiation from his partner

(as in (2) and (3)) By the end of term two of the mSSR however there

is evidence of Eduardo making a reciprocal verbal elicitation for a re-telling

As Excerpt (4) shows after finishing his own re-telling and completing

a closing sequence to that telling (lines 4ndash7) Eduardo reciprocates in eliciting

a re-telling from his partner (line 8)

(4)

[B 5ndash13ndash03 23601 term III week 7]22

1 E fis

2 J flying fish ((flapping left hand like flying))

3 E this is flying fi[s() this (of the)

4 J [yeah yeah yeah yeah

5 J mm mm

6 E mm hmm

7 J mm hmm

8 E what is your

9 (20) ((J picks up his book))

10 J eh (started started) this story

11 E the mountain the mountain ((reads Jrsquos book cover))

While the elicitation in line 8 is abbreviated Eduardorsquos partner (Jin) orients

to line 8 as an elicitation by picking up his own book (line 9) and beginning

his re-telling (line 10) As Jin starts the re-telling Eduardo orients to the title

of the book as an important part of the re-telling event by reading the title of

Jinrsquos book (line 11)

Two aspects of the openings for the re-tellings that the other focal student

of this study Abby displayed but that did not occur in Eduardorsquos interactions

were her pre-activity talk checking on whether the peer was ready to do

the task and then talk about interlocutor assignment for the activity

Abby became more active in initiating these opening moves over the course

of the three terms of the mSSR Excerpts (5)ndash(7) show examples of this

development In (5) which comes from the very beginning of the second

term in the mSSR we see Abby interact with Fernando but not initiate the

interaction

(5)

[1-10ndash03 B 24452 Term II week 2]23

1 F whose talk to me

2 (10) ((Fernando facing Abby Abby turns to Fernando))

3 F ((to Abby)) you oh

4 (25)

JOHN HELLERMANN 389

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

5 F hhyeah okay

6 ((Abby sneezes))

7 F bless you () god bless you a[gain

8 A [thank you

9 F again [god bless you

10 A [huh hah hah [uh hih hih hih hih hhuh

11 F [eh huh heh heh heah

12 (20)

13 F what () is your book

14 A eh () my book is () my my book is easy () easy story press

15 F oh press [mm hmm

16 A [yeah ease story pres[s

17 F [eh

18 (35)

19 A what is (your) story

In line 1 Fernando makes the first verbal move to establish the peer

dyad and achieve mutual physical orientation asking about a partner

and after a sequence involving sneezing in line 13 Fernando asks the

first elicitation question for the activity Abby responds to each elicitation

non-verbally in line 2 and with the title of her book in line 14 Abby orients

to the activity of finding out about one anotherrsquos books by asking

the reciprocal question more specifically asking about Fernandorsquos lsquostoryrsquo in

line 19

The next example of one of Abbyrsquos opening move sequences comes from

the fifth week of the second term of the mSSR Excerpt (6) shows Abby

engaging in more pre-task opening talk (lines 3 and 6) interlocutor selection

(line 8) and the launch of the task (line 10)

(6)

[2703 B 204 24353 Term II week 5]24

1 T you need to talk ladies

2 (10)

3 Ab todayrsquos uh February ((looks to Ana then back to notebook))

4 An ((shifts posture toward Abby))

5 (70)

6 Ab seventh

7 (140) ((both ss write)

8 Ab I talk to you ((turning to Ana))

9 (250) ((Ana continues writing))

10 Ab my () my book uh life story one

11 (20)

12 An ((shifts posture a bit to A))

390 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

13 Ab are you finished

14 An go (go ahead) please () where is () where is your story

After the teacher exhorts the learners (line 1) to begin their pair task

(the story re-telling) Abby announces the date and after Ana shifts her

posture toward Abby proposes the pair assignment (line 8) Since the

learners sit at desks in pairs the pair assignment is somewhat of a given so

Abbyrsquos turn in line 8 may also act as a proposal for turn allocation If

interlocutor assignment is relatively self-evident the turn lsquoI talk to yoursquo is at

least a move to attempt to get Ana to enter the interaction and may be an

explicit move to tell Ana that she Abby is starting the activity There is no

uptake by Ana after this proposal and after a rather long pause (line 9) Abby

launches the task self-selecting to re-tell her story first When there is no

verbal uptake by Ana in line 11 after Abbyrsquos turn Abby orients to her

partnerrsquos preparation for the task and asks if Ana has finished (line 13) her

preparatory work (writing notes) Ana orients to Abbyrsquos question as a pre-

request to check whether Ana is ready to start her re-telling by encouraging

Abby to continue directly eliciting information about the location of her

story in line 14

The final excerpt from the third term of the mSSR illustrates Abbyrsquos further

development of interactional practices for opening the re-telling activity In (7)

while Inez is writing in her notebook Abby shifts her posture to Inez and asks

a question (line 2) which is preliminary to a question for the assigned activity

(7)

[5-9ndash03 B 206 24121 Term III week 7]25

((Teacherrsquos prompt for the interaction lsquoDo you like books about a story or

information what kind of book are you reading nowrsquo))

1 A ((shifts posture toward Inez))

2 I are you ready

3 (70) ((Inez is writing in her notebook))

4 I yeah sorry

5 (30)

6 I ((re-positions her posture to face Abby then gestures with

7 right hand pointing to Abby and back to herself))

8 (30)

9 A ((Abby looks at the board and reads the question)) what type

10 of a book are you reading now

11 ((Inez begins her re-telling))

While Abbyrsquos question in line 2 orients to the necessity of the completion of

the preparatory work for the re-telling literacy event it also works as part

of the opening for the re-telling task itself Inez finishes writing in her

notebook and orients to Abbyrsquos question as an opening to the assigned

JOHN HELLERMANN 391

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

re-telling task by answering Abbyrsquos question and apologizing for not starting

immediately (line 4) After Inez repositions her body and non-verbally

initiates a negotiation of turn allocation for the re-telling (lines 6 and 7)

Abby self-selects to elicit the re-telling from Inez by reading one of the

teacherrsquos prompts from the board (lines 9ndash10)

Abbyrsquos socialization to the mSSR re-telling activity can be seen in the

development of opening moves in the re-telling interactions with her peers

in Excerpts (5)ndash(7) The interaction from earlier in the mSSR (Excerpt (5))

shows Abby not actively initiating dyad assignment pre-task talk and task

launch In terms two and three the excerpts show her more actively

involved in starting these re-telling activities Her task-preliminary organiza-

tional talk and task launching later in the second and third terms of the

mSSR suggest that she is now more comfortable with the re-telling literacy

event and with the language as a whole

These excerpts of Abbyrsquos interaction in the re-telling literacy events show

two common moves by more advanced learners for opening dyadic

interactions (Hellermann 2004 forthcoming) the orientation to the previous

task completion (in Excerpt (6) lsquoare you finishedrsquo and Excerpt (7) lsquoare you

readyrsquo) and interlocutor selection (in Excerpt (6) lsquoI talk to yoursquo) As other

research in conversation shows such moves for opening talk enable

participants to work out basic features of talk-in-interaction such as avoiding

simultaneous talk and ensuring that the talk about to happen is the start of

something new not from the previous topic (Button and Casey 1984)26

The interactions by Abby and Eduardo in the re-telling literacy events also

show evidence for the learnersrsquo development of interactional competence

through their socialization into literacy events27 While both Abby and

Eduardo orient to the beginnings of the re-telling events creating spaces for

appropriate mutual participation for the event from the start of the mSSR

we see evidence for a change in their participation in the re-telling events

over the course of the three terms of the mSSR Eduardo uses a speech act

(lsquowhat is yourrsquo) in a more sophisticated modality (verbal rather than non-

verbal) to reciprocate an elicitation for a re-telling in his interaction with Jin

in Excerpt (4) In Abbyrsquos later interactions she explicitly orients to the

boundaries of the events by inquiring as to her partnersrsquo readiness to

participate (Excerpts (5) and (6)) and negotiates roles for participation

(Excerpt (6) lsquoI talk to yoursquo) and turn allocation (Excerpts (6) and (7))

Learner reading logs and filing of reading logs

A basic literacy skill activity that the teacher built into the mSSR classes was

having learners chart their reading activity in a reading log and then file their

own reading logs alphabetically in a file box at the end of every lesson In

the third class period of the first term some evidence of Eduardorsquos lack of

basic literacy skills appeared during the filing activity Near the end of this

class period the teacher asked learners to put their reading logs into a file

392 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

box organized by their first names Eduardo and another learner went to

the file box at the front of the room and stood by the box with their reading

logs looking for the appropriate place to put the logs After some time

Eduardo looked over to Carla (a learner from Brazil) and held out his right

hand palm up Carla oriented to this gesture as a request for help and got out

of her seat to help the two learners showing them the place in the files to

put their logs28 A bit later in this class period as the learners were packing

up to leave the class Eduardo solicited the teacherrsquos help in understanding

the name of the process of filing (Excerpt (8)) In so doing he is building on

the co-constructed filing practice with his classmate

(8)

[10-3ndash02 A 204 25149 Term I week 2]29

1 E want to ask (you something) ((walking to file box))

2 T yes you want to ask me something

3 E somebody ((puts hand in file box then touches head)) somebody

4 T file

5 E file file

6 T uh huh this is what () please file file you papers

In Exerpt (8) Eduardo is standing next to the teacher and utters a

pre-question (Schegloff 1980) in line 1 as he walks to the file box Once at

the box in line 3 he says lsquosomebodyrsquo a bare noun phrase which projects a

predicate Eduardo produces that predicate by modeling the relevant action

a hypothetical learner filing a paper This is followed by a gesture of his

hand to his head (which Eduardo commonly used to indicate that he did not

remember a particular word in English) and a repetition of the same bare

noun phrase In line 4 the teacher orients to Eduardorsquos talk as a request for

a word to name the action of putting the reading log into the box The fact

that this interaction is elicited by Eduardo shortly after his request for help

from Carla suggests that Carla may have helped him put the reading log

in the right place but did not give Eduardo the English word for that action

It is Eduardorsquos interactions with both a peer and with the teacher which

help him co-construct a name for this literacy event

While Eduardorsquos success in filing his reading log was sporadic throughout

the rest of this first term at the beginning of the next term on the first day

of class the teacher explained again that the reading logs were to be filed

alphabetically She explained and modeled this while standing next to the

file box to assist learners After explaining and modeling the procedure to the

class she reminded Eduardo again several minutes later lsquoyou need to put this

[reading log] away young manrsquo Several minutes after that Eduardo held up

his reading log showing it to the teacher as other learners were going to the

file box to file their logs She responded affirmatively and Eduardo went to

the file box The teacher said his name Eduardo said lsquoersquo (the first letter of his

JOHN HELLERMANN 393

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

first name) and put the reading log in the appropriate place in the file box

Having participated in one term of the mSSR and the literacy event of filling

in and filing reading logs (the term in which it was just noted that he was

given support by a peer and the teacher) the reinforcement of the rules the

modeling by the teacher as well as the personal reminder and reassurance

given by the teacher guided Eduardo into full participation in this literacy

event Later in this second term and in the third term as well Eduardo

was able to file the log independently By the beginning of the third term

(4103) he was also able to tell a newcomer to the class the purpose of the

reading log

Based on conversations with his teachers the evidence from his reading

logs and his interactions with other learners in the re-telling literacy event

Eduardo seemed to have developed a genuine interest in and enthusiasm for

reading In a more complex literacy skill involving the reading logs there is

evidence that Eduardo developed the ability to orally evaluate the books

he read adopting a term introduced by the teacher to describe several of

his books lsquoso-sorsquo In the later part of the first term of the mSSR Eduardorsquos

reading log was sporadically filled in and he wrote in Spanish for the

assessment portion of the log (Figure 1)

By the second term of the mSSR Eduardo was reading some books during

the silent reading period in class for four class periods in a row (an indication

of persistence and interest) and assessed one book (The Orange Grove) in his

reading log as lsquovery goodrsquo Through this assessment Eduardo displayed

part of a personal identity as a literate person in English But even by the

third term of the mSSR classes Eduardo did not elaborate on the assessments

of his books as the reading log prompted learners to do In a row at the top

of the reading log learners were to answer the question lsquoDid you like it

[the book]rsquo and then write why The teacher provided another written

prompt in the box that learners checked for a positive assessment lsquoYes

because rsquo In this place though Eduardo always indicated that he liked the

Figure 1 Part of Eduardorsquos reading log from the first term of the mSSR

394 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

books that he read he did not specify why he liked them giving evidence

of the limitations of his ability to evaluate his reading (as Figure 2 shows)

In contrast to Eduardo Abby did not have trouble filing her reading log

On the day the teacher explained to learners how they should file their

reading logs she used Abby as an example lsquoFor example Abby file your

paper under lsquolsquoArsquorsquo for Abbyrsquo In subsequent class periods Abby displayed

competence at filing her reading log in the appropriate slot in the file box

The content of Abbyrsquos reading logs also differed from Eduardorsquos in notable

ways Where Eduardo always checked the box marked lsquoeasyrsquo when

evaluating the level of difficulty of the books he read in most cases Abby

checked the lsquojust rightrsquo box and just a few times the box marked lsquoeasyrsquo for

the books she read Figure 3 shows one of her reading logs from the third

term of the mSSR

The notations in Abbyrsquos reading log in Figure 3 suggest that she was

choosing books that were appropriate to her ability (the box labeled

lsquojust rightrsquo is marked consistently) Also Abby was able to give some detail

(although limited) when prompted by the teacher for the reasons behind

her assessment of a book In response to the teacherrsquos written prompt on

the reading log lsquoyes I liked it because rsquo Abby had two responses she used

lsquoyes I did because interestingrsquo or lsquoyes I did because easyrsquo Abby indicated

Figure 2 Part of Eduardorsquos reading log from the third term of the mSSR

JOHN HELLERMANN 395

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

these more expanded assessments both in the second and third terms of the

mSSR classes

An important question for research on language socialization and

interactional competence in a classroom setting is to what degree these

processes result in increased engagement with literacy outside the classroom

A telling insight gained from the learnersrsquo in-home L1 interviews suggests

that for both these learners the socialization into literacy events in the

classroom lead to increased participation in literacy outside the classroom

In the interviews conducted with each learner before the start of the mSSR

treatment when asked what and how much they read in English for

pleasure Abby indicated that she read student picture books for ninety

minutes a week Eduardo reported reading newspapers for thirty minutes

a week In interviews conducted in June of 2004 after the learnersrsquo

completed their participation in the mSSR Abby reported reading

newspapers and books for 7 hours a week and Eduardo newspapers and

magazines for 2 hours a week Along with the development of interactive

practices in classroom literacy events highlighted in this paper these findings

show a remarkable increase in these learnersrsquo engagement with literacy

outside the classroom and evidence of their emerging identities as individuals

literate in English

Figure 3 Part of Abbyrsquos reading log from the third term of the mSSR

396 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

CONCLUSIONS

The findings uncovered in this study show two learnersrsquo development of

interactional competence through their socialization into classroom literacy

events This socialization occurred through the learnersrsquo engagement in

discursive practices in repeated literacy events which were part of a modified

sustained silent reading program The discursive practices for the literacy

events occurred within the context of the entire classroom community of

practice (Wenger 1998) and afforded learners the opportunities to move from

peripheral to more full participation in English literacy This community of

practice included (1) the teachers who provided instructions and support for

the activities through explicit instruction and modeling (2) learner peers

who also modeled appropriate interactive and language behavior and were

the interlocutors with whom some of the literacy practices were negotiated

and (3) the texts themselves which became a mediating object the third

part in a triadic dialogue for literacy (van Lier 2002) comprised of learnerndash

teacherndashtext or learnerndashlearnerndashtext

While neither learner had studied English formally before enrolling in

classes at the Lab School this study shows that Abby the learner with a high

school education from her home country was familiar with some of the

practices for literacy events including alphabetical filing book selection

and book assessment This research also showed that over the course of

three terms doing the mSSR activities Abby developed a wider range of

interactional practices for opening the dyadic interactions involved in the

story re-telling

Eduardo on the other hand began his participation in the mSSR activities

with much less experience with classroom literacy events having had just

two years of education in his home country The literacy events which were

part of the mSSR afforded Eduardo (van Lier 2000) the opportunity to

engage with literacy and by participating at first peripherally Eduardo

quickly understood and participated more fully in the book selection literacy

event Through interaction with his peers and the teacher in term two basic

literacy skills such as alphabetizing and filing his reading log developed

Though his teachersrsquo initial impressions suggested that he got very little

from his participation in the mSSR a review of his reading logs and his

participation in class show that Eduardo acquired knowledge of literacy

through a transformation (Lave and Wenger 1991) of his understanding of

and participation in literacy events

The development of these learnersrsquo interactional competence can be seen

in Eduardorsquos pursuit of understanding the practice of filing his reading log

which he accomplished through interaction with several members of the

classroom community This change in his participation in filing the logs

shows how learning is a situated practice accomplished through repeated

interactions with the entire classroom community In the analysis of the

story re-telling activities both Eduardo and Abby exhibited an increased

JOHN HELLERMANN 397

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

ability to use talk to initiate interaction by negotiating interlocutor

assignment and turn allocation to open their re-tellings Again the repeated

practice of the re-tellings afforded the learners opportunities to negotiate

a particular classroom and social action (opening a face-to-face interaction)

and both learners developed interactional skills that allowed them to

participate in the practice more fully

A quantitative analysis of standardized assessment measures30 for all the

learners at the Lab School shows that students who participated in the mSSR

method improved in their English language literacy skills to the same degree

as students who participated in classes which used a traditional skills-based

method for the teaching of reading (Reder et al forthcoming) This result

leads one to question what classroom practices might have contributed to

the increase in scores for each group Qualitative micro-analyses such as this

study are a first step toward understanding the discursive practices of the

mSSR classrooms which led to increases in those standardized tests of literacy

skills Also while we know that first-language education is a factor in

successful second language acquisition (Cole et al 1971) we know little

about how classroom interaction between experienced and inexperienced

learners differs In order to address this question this analysis used existing

social categorizations for participant selection (their degree of previous

education in their first language environment) and focused on two students

who would be categorized differently But the use of these macro-level

categorizations was not intended to reify the association of the characteristics

of each category to individual members Rather they were used to define

places from which to empirically examine the interactional language

behavior of members of each category This examination was done through

micro-analyses of the two studentsrsquo participation in the discursive practices

in mSSR literacy events that help L2 literacy develop The focus on the

day-to-day classroom interactions of the two learners allowed us to see

different paths to L2 literacy for learners who have different educational and

literacy experiences and uncover the complex interaction within a classroom

community of practice which results in the changes reported in traditional

language assessment measures

Final version received November 2005

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank the entire staff at the National Labsite for Adult ESOL at Portland State

University for their involvement in maintaining the Lab School as a place for adults to learn

English and as a state of the art research facility I would also like to thank Kathy Harris Sandra

Banke Reuel Kurzet Steve Reder Dominique Brillanceau and three anonymous readers for

their feedback on various versions of the paper

398 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

APPENDIX A

Some transcript conventions in conversation analysis (adapted from Schegloff

2000)

I Temporal and sequential relationships

[ Overlapping or simultaneous talk

frac14 lsquolatched utterancesrsquo no break or pause between utterances

(05) Numbers in parentheses indicate silence represented in tenths of a second

() A dot in parentheses indicates a lsquomicropausersquo

II Aspects of speech delivery including aspectsof intonation

period indicates a falling intonation contour not necessarily the end ofa sentence

question mark indicates rising intonation

a comma indicates lsquocontinuingrsquo intonation

Colons are used to indicate the prolongation or stretching of the soundjust preceding them The more colons the longer the stretching

- A hyphen after a word or part of a word indicates a cut-off or self-interruption word

Underlining is used to indicate some form of stress or emphasis either byincreased loudness or higher pitch The more underlining the greater theemphasis

The degree sign indicates that the talk following it was markedly quiet orsoft

The up and down arrows mark sharper rises or falls in pitch

45 The combination of lsquomore thanrsquo and lsquoless thanrsquo symbols indicates that thetalk between them is compressed or rushed

54 Used in the reverse order they can indicate that a stretch of talk ismarkedly slowed or drawn out

hhh Outbreath

hh Inbreath

(( )) Descriptions of events ((cough)) ((sniff)) ((telephone rings)) ((foot-steps))

(word) All or part of an utterance in parentheses indicates transcriber uncertainty

Creaky voice

NOTES

1 In order to get around the unwieldy

and theoretically-loaded terminology

for describing the use acquisition

and learning of a language that is

not the home or first language of the

participants of this study I will use

JOHN HELLERMANN 399

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

the abbreviation lsquoL2rsquo throughout the

paper to refer to a language that is

being attained through formal instruc-

tion For the students in this study

lsquoL2rsquo refers to English It may not be

however that English is these

studentsrsquo lsquosecondrsquo language as the

abbreviation implies

2 Students in the current study were in

lsquolevel Arsquo classes at the data collection

site SPL level 0ndash2

3 In Sustained Silent Reading

(McCracken 1971 Pilgreen 2000)

students are given a set time in the

classroom to read silently without

interruption by the teacher or other

students and without evaluation of

what is read and how it is read

The method was altered slightly at

the data collection site to meet the

needs of beginning adult language

learners and included activities

like post-reading re-telling activities

and studentsrsquo use of reading logs

to record their assessments of their

reading

4 The National Labsite for Adult ESOL

at Portland State University is sup-

ported in part by grant R309B6002

from the Institute for Education

Science US Dept of Education to

the National Center for the Study of

Adult Learning and Literacy The

Labsite is a partnership between

Portland State University and Portland

Community College The school

and research facilities are housed at

Portland State while the registration

curriculum and teachers of the

ESL students are from Portland

Community College

5 One reviewer asked about the inabil-

ity to see learnersrsquo eye gaze with

cameras embedded in the ceiling

While this is a problem when

students are sitting directly under

the two mobile cameras which

follow students wearing the wireless

microphones most often students

are sitting in a position where

studentsrsquo faces can be seen quite

directly For details of the data

collection see Reder et al (2003)

6 The Labsite Student Study (LSS)

conducts in-home interviews with a

subset of students in the lab school

(70 per year) in their home lan-

guages over the course of four

years regardless of whether the

student remains in lab school classes

or not The primary purpose of

the LSS study is to understand

language use and literacy develop-

ment outside the classroom context

and factors which influence program

persistence

7 All names used in this study are

pseudonyms

8 The teacher had different types of

books on a cart that she wheeled into

the room every class period She took

books off the cart and spread them

out on desks at the back of the room

9 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoselectsbookclass1]

10 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardohelping]

11 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoshowing]

12 Sarah Ouellette helped with the

Spanish transcription and provided

the translation to English Transcrip-

tion conventions are included in

Appendix A lsquoTrsquo indicates the class-

room teacher in all transcripts

13 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoexplaining]

400 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

14 At the time of this excerpt Eduardo

was a novice in Rederrsquos (1987) third

mode of literacy engagement

technical still struggling with basic

technical issues like decoding English

language lexicon

15 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Abbyreading]

16 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Abbynotetaking]

17 The classroom teachers noted the

frustration of doing mSSR with

students who have very low first

language literacy because of her

inability to help students organize

their reading in instances like note

taking (Banke and Brillanceau 2004)

18 A literacy assessment test (BEST

Literacy) was administered in the

classroom in terms one and two of

the mSSR program While the scores

increased for each learner for

Eduardo the increase is not as great

as Abbyrsquos Eduardorsquos overall literacy

score went from 35 in term one

to 42 in term two which is an

increase of one student performance

level (from 3 to 4) Abbyrsquos scores

increased from 45 in term one to

56 in term two which indicates

a jump from student performance

level 4 to 6 For information

on characteristics of student language

abilities at different student perfor-

mance levels (SPLs) see pp 5ndash6 of

wwwcalorgcaelaesl_resources

Part4-5pdf

19 One of the pedagogical advantages of

doing a dyadic re-telling in a lan-

guage classroom is that even if one

student doesnrsquot understand the

instructions for the task in an activity

like the mSSR the peerrsquos act of

posture shift moving a book into

a common space and looking

toward the partner strongly invite

collaboration in some interaction and

it is collaboration that is perhaps

the most important aspect of the

re-telling activity (Pilgreen 2000)

especially for language learners

20 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoopening1]

21 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoopening2]

22 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoorientsstorytelling]

23 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Abbyopening1]

24 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Abbypretasktalkterm2]

25 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Abbystartingretelling2]

26 While more empirical evidence is

warranted a provisional claim

can be mentioned here that such

re-telling activities and perhaps

in classroom pair activities in

general are organized with a two-

part move like that displayed in

(6) lsquoquery about readinessrsquo and

lsquoturn allocationrsquo before the first task

question

27 Notably absent from Abbyrsquos and

Eduardorsquos peer re-tellings are any

verbal greeting sequences Even

when one of the pair moves across

the room to sit with another student

Abby and Eduardo did not exchange

greetings with their partner for their

JOHN HELLERMANN 401

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

task This is something that other

students did as part of their openings

28 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoasksstudentforhelpfiling]

29 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoasksaboutfiling]

30 The assessment measures were the

BEST Plus and the Peabody Picture

Vocabulary tests

REFERENCES

Atkinson J M and J C Heritage 1984

Structures of Social Action Studies in Conversation

Analysis Cambridge Cambridge University Press

August G 2001 The Road to Second Language

Reading How do we get there Unpublished

PhD Dissertation City University of New York

New York

Banke S and D Brillanceu 2004 lsquoLiving

in Interventionrsquo Unpublished manuscript

Barton D (2001) lsquoDirections for literacy

research Analysing language and social practices

in a textually mediated worldrsquo Language and

Education 152ndash3 92ndash104

Bernhardt E B and M L Kamil 1995 lsquoInter-

preting relationships between L1 and L2 reading

Consolidating the linguistic threshold and the

linguistic interdependence hypothesesrsquo Applied

Linguistics 161 15ndash34

Bourdieu P 1991 Language and Symbolic Power

Cambridge MA Harvard University Press

Brandt D 1990 Literacy as Involvement The Acts

of Writers Readers and Texts Carbondale IL

Southern Illinois University Press

ButtonG andNCasey1984 lsquoGenerating topics

The use of topic initial elicitorsrsquo in J M Atkinson

and J C Heritage (eds) Structures of Social Action

Studies in Conversation Analysis Cambridge

Cambridge University Press

Canale M and M Swain 1980 lsquoTheoretical

bases of communicative approaches to second

language teaching and testingrsquoApplied Linguistics

1 1ndash47

Carrell P L 1991 lsquoSecond language reading

Reading ability or language proficiencyrsquo Applied

Linguistics 122 159ndash79

Chow P and C Chou 2000 Evaluating

Sustained Silent Reading in Reading Classes [Web]

I-TESL-J Available httpitesljorgArticlesChow-

mSSRhtml

Cole M J Gay J A Glick and D W Sharp

1971 The Cultural Context of Learning and Think-

ing An Exploration in Experimental Anthropology

New York Basic Books

Couper-Kuhlen E andMSelting 1996 Prosody

in Conversation Interactional Studies Cambridge

Cambridge University Press

Duff P 2002 lsquoThe discursive co-construction

of knowledge identity and difference An

ethnography of communication in the high

school mainstreamrsquo Applied Linguistics 233

289ndash322

Erickson F and J Schultz 1981 lsquoWhen is

a context Some issues and methods in the

analysis of social competencersquo in J Green and

C Wallat (eds) Ethnography and Language in

Educational Settings Norwood NJ Ablex

Felser C L Roberts T Marinis and R Gross

2003 lsquoThe processing of ambiguous sentences by

first and second language learners of Englishrsquo

Applied Psycholinguistics 243 453ndash89

Garfinkel H 1967 Studies in Ethnomethodology

Englewood Cliffs NJ Prentice Hall

Gee J P 1990 Social Linguistics and Literacies

Ideology in Discourses London Falmer Press

Goffman E 1959 The Presentation of Self

in Everyday Life New York Anchor Books

Doubleday

Goffman E 1961 Encounters Two Studies in

the Sociology of Interaction Indianapolis Bobbs-

Merrill

Goody J1977 TheDomestication of the SavageMind

Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Grabe W and F L Stoller 1997 lsquoReading and

vocabulary development in a second language

A case studyrsquo in J Coady and T Huckin (eds)

Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition A

Rationale for Pedagogy Cambridge Cambridge

University Press

402 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

Gumperz J J 1982 Discourse Strategies

Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Habermas J1976 lsquoSome distinctions in universal

pragmatics A working paperrsquo Theory and Society

32 155ndash67

Hall J K 1993 lsquoThe role of oral practices in

the accomplishment of our everyday lives

The sociocultural dimension of interaction

with implications for the learning of

another languagersquo Applied Linguistics 142

145ndash66

Hall J K 1995 lsquo lsquolsquoAw man where you goinrsquorsquorsquo

Classroom interaction and the development

of L2 interactional competencersquo Issues in Applied

Linguistics 62 37ndash62

Hall JK1997 lsquoA consideration of SLA as a theory

of practice A response to Firth and Wagnerrsquo

Modern Language Journal 813 301ndash306

He A W and R Young 1998 lsquoLanguage

proficiency interviews A discourse approachrsquo in

R Young and A W He (eds) Talking and Testing

Discourse Approaches to the Assessment of Oral

Proficiency Amsterdam John Benjamins

Heath S B 1982 lsquoWhat no bedtime story means

Narrative skills at home and schoolrsquo Language

in Society 11 49ndash76

Heath S B 1983 Ways with Words Language

Life and Work in Communities and Classrooms

Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Hellermann J 2004 lsquoPractices for opening dyadic

interactionrsquo paper presented at the annual

conference of the American Association for

Applied Linguistics Portland OR

Hellermann J forthcoming lsquoThe development of

practices for action in the classroom diadic

interaction focus on task openingsrsquo Modern

Language Journal

Hood S and H Joyce 1995 lsquoReading in the

adult ESL curriculum and classroomrsquo Prospect

102 52ndash64

Hymes D 1974 Foundations in Sociolinguistics

An Ethnographic Approach Philadelphia

University of Pennsylvania Press

Kramsch C 1986 lsquoFrom language proficiency

to interactional competencersquo Modern Language

Journal 70 372ndash66

Kramsch C 2002 lsquoHow can we tell the dancer

from the dancersquo in C Kramsch (ed) Language

Acquisition and Language Socialization An ecological

approach London Continuum

Lave J and E Wenger 1991 Situated Learning

Legitimate Peripheral Participation Cambridge

Cambridge University Press

Lerner G H 1995 lsquoTurn design and the organiza-

tion of participation in instructional activitiesrsquo

Discourse Processes 19 111ndash31

MacBethD2003 lsquoHugh MehanrsquosLearning Lessons

reconsidered On the differences between the

naturalistic and critical analysis of classroom

discoursersquo American Educational Research Journal

401 239ndash80

McCraken R A 1971 lsquoInitiating sustained silent

readingrsquo Journal of Reading 148 521ndash4 582ndash3

McDermott R and D Roth 1978 lsquoThe social

organization of behavior Interactional

approachesrsquo Annual Review of Anthropology 7

321ndash45

Markee N 2000 Conversation Analysis Marwah

NJ Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

Ochs E and B Schieffelin 1979 Developmental

Pragmatics New York Academic Press

Ochs E E A Schegloff and S A Thompson

1996 Interaction and Grammar Cambridge

Cambridge University Press

Ong W J 1982 Orality and Literacy The Technolo-

gizing of the Word London Routledge

Palacios I G 2002 An ESLLiteracy Center

A qualitative study of perspectives and practices

of immigrant adults and literacy facilitators

Unpublished PhD Dissertation Indiana

University Pennsylvania Indiana PA

Pilgreen J L 2000 The SSR Handbook How to

Organize and Manage a Sustained Silent Reading

Program Portsmouth NH BoyntonCook

Pulido D 2003 lsquoModeling the role of second

language proficiency and topic familiarity

in second language incidental vocabulary

acquisition through readingrsquo Language Learning

532 233ndash84

Reder S 1987 lsquoComparative aspects of functional

literacy development Three ethnic American

communitiesrsquo in D Wagner (ed) The Future

of Literacy in a Changing World Oxford Pergamon

Press

Reder S 1994 lsquoPractice engagement theory

A sociocultural approach to literacy across

languages and culturersquo in B M Ferdman

R M Weber and A G Ramırez (eds) Literacy

Across Languages and Cultures Albany NY State

University of New York Press

Reder S and E Davila (2005) lsquoContext

and literacy practicesrsquo Annual Review of Applied

Linguistics 25 170ndash87

Reder S K A Harris and K Setzler 2003

lsquoA multimedia adult learner corpusrsquo TESOL

Quarterly 373 546ndash57

JOHN HELLERMANN 403

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

Reder S K A Harris R Kurzet

D Brillanceau S Banke and JHellermann

forthcoming Using a modified Sustained Silent

Reading for low-level adult ESOL students

Boston National Center for the Study of Adult

Learning and Literacy

Sacks H E A Schegloff and G Jefferson

1974 lsquoA simplest systematics for the organiza-

tion of turn-taking for conversationsrsquo Language

504 696ndash735

Sagarra N 2000 The longitudinal role of working

memory on adult acquisition of L2 grammar

Unpublished PhD Dissertation University of

Illinois Urbana-Champaign

Schegloff E A 1968 lsquoSequencing in conversa-

tional openingsrsquo American Anthropologist 70

1075ndash95

Schegloff E A 1980 lsquoPreliminaries to prelimin-

aries lsquolsquoCan I ask you a questionrsquorsquo rsquo Sociological

Inquiry 50 104ndash52

Schegloff E A 1998 lsquoReflections on studying

prosody in talk-in-interactionrsquo Language and

Speech 413ndash4 235ndash63

Schegloff E A 2000 lsquoOverlapping talk and the

organization of turn-making for conversationrsquo

Language in Society 291 1ndash63

Schegloff E A 2002 lsquoOpening sequencingrsquo

in J E Katz and M Aakhus (eds) Perpetual

Contact Mobile Communication Private Talk Public

Performance Cambridge Cambridge University

Press

Schegloff E A and H Sacks 1973 lsquoOpening up

closingsrsquo Semiotica 8 289ndash327

Schieffelin B B and Ochs E (1986) lsquoLanguage

socializationrsquo Annual Review of Anthropology 15

163ndash91

Scribner S and M Cole 1981 The Psychology of

Literacy Cambridge MA Harvard University

Press

Segalowitz N C Poulsen and M Komoda

1991 lsquoLower level components of reading skill in

higher level bilinguals Implications for reading

instructionrsquo AILA Review 8 15ndash30

Streeck J 1983 Social Order in Child Communica-

tion Amsterdam John Benjamins

Streeck J and S Mihus 2005 lsquoMicroethno-

graphy The study of practicesrsquo In K L Fitch

and R E Sanders (eds) The Handbook of

Language and Social Interaction Marwah NJ

Lawrence Erlbaum

Street B 1998 lsquoNew literacies in theory

and practice What are the implications for

language in educationrsquo Linguistics and Education

10 1ndash24

Street B V 2001 Literacy and Development

Ethnographic perspectives London Routledge

Tang H 1997 lsquoThe relationship between reading

comprehension processes in L1 and L2rsquo Reading

Psychology 183 249ndash301

Treville M C 1996 lsquoLexical learning and reading

in L2 at the beginner level The advantage of

cognatesrsquo The Canadian Modern Language Review

531 173ndash90

Van Lier L 2000 lsquoFrom input to affordance

Social-interactive learning from an ecological

perspectiversquo in J Lantolf (ed) Sociocultural

Theory and Second Language Learning Oxford

Oxford University Press

van Lier L 2002 lsquoAn ecological-semiotic

perspective on language and linguisticsrsquo in

C Kramsch (ed) Language Acquisition and

Language Socialization An ecological approach

London Continuum

Wenger J 1998 Communities of Practice Learning

Meaning and Identity Cambridge Cambridge

University Press

Yang J 2000 lsquoOrthographic effect on word

recognition by learners of Chinese as a Foreign

Languagersquo Journal of the Chinese Language

Teachers Association 352 1ndash18

YoungR1999 lsquoSociolinguistic approaches toSLArsquo

Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 19 105ndash32

Young R 2000 lsquoInteractional competence

Challenges for validityrsquo Paper presented at the

annual conference of the American Association

for Applied Linguistics Vancouver BC

Young R F 2002 lsquoDiscourse approaches to oral

language assessmentrsquo Annual Review of Applied

Linguistics 22 243ndash62

404 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

Page 13: Classroom Interactive Practices for Developing L2 Literacy: A Microethnographic Study of Two Beginning Adult Learners of English

interactions for re-telling When he self-selected to start a re-telling it was

when there were long pauses or notable lack of initiation from his partner

(as in (2) and (3)) By the end of term two of the mSSR however there

is evidence of Eduardo making a reciprocal verbal elicitation for a re-telling

As Excerpt (4) shows after finishing his own re-telling and completing

a closing sequence to that telling (lines 4ndash7) Eduardo reciprocates in eliciting

a re-telling from his partner (line 8)

(4)

[B 5ndash13ndash03 23601 term III week 7]22

1 E fis

2 J flying fish ((flapping left hand like flying))

3 E this is flying fi[s() this (of the)

4 J [yeah yeah yeah yeah

5 J mm mm

6 E mm hmm

7 J mm hmm

8 E what is your

9 (20) ((J picks up his book))

10 J eh (started started) this story

11 E the mountain the mountain ((reads Jrsquos book cover))

While the elicitation in line 8 is abbreviated Eduardorsquos partner (Jin) orients

to line 8 as an elicitation by picking up his own book (line 9) and beginning

his re-telling (line 10) As Jin starts the re-telling Eduardo orients to the title

of the book as an important part of the re-telling event by reading the title of

Jinrsquos book (line 11)

Two aspects of the openings for the re-tellings that the other focal student

of this study Abby displayed but that did not occur in Eduardorsquos interactions

were her pre-activity talk checking on whether the peer was ready to do

the task and then talk about interlocutor assignment for the activity

Abby became more active in initiating these opening moves over the course

of the three terms of the mSSR Excerpts (5)ndash(7) show examples of this

development In (5) which comes from the very beginning of the second

term in the mSSR we see Abby interact with Fernando but not initiate the

interaction

(5)

[1-10ndash03 B 24452 Term II week 2]23

1 F whose talk to me

2 (10) ((Fernando facing Abby Abby turns to Fernando))

3 F ((to Abby)) you oh

4 (25)

JOHN HELLERMANN 389

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

5 F hhyeah okay

6 ((Abby sneezes))

7 F bless you () god bless you a[gain

8 A [thank you

9 F again [god bless you

10 A [huh hah hah [uh hih hih hih hih hhuh

11 F [eh huh heh heh heah

12 (20)

13 F what () is your book

14 A eh () my book is () my my book is easy () easy story press

15 F oh press [mm hmm

16 A [yeah ease story pres[s

17 F [eh

18 (35)

19 A what is (your) story

In line 1 Fernando makes the first verbal move to establish the peer

dyad and achieve mutual physical orientation asking about a partner

and after a sequence involving sneezing in line 13 Fernando asks the

first elicitation question for the activity Abby responds to each elicitation

non-verbally in line 2 and with the title of her book in line 14 Abby orients

to the activity of finding out about one anotherrsquos books by asking

the reciprocal question more specifically asking about Fernandorsquos lsquostoryrsquo in

line 19

The next example of one of Abbyrsquos opening move sequences comes from

the fifth week of the second term of the mSSR Excerpt (6) shows Abby

engaging in more pre-task opening talk (lines 3 and 6) interlocutor selection

(line 8) and the launch of the task (line 10)

(6)

[2703 B 204 24353 Term II week 5]24

1 T you need to talk ladies

2 (10)

3 Ab todayrsquos uh February ((looks to Ana then back to notebook))

4 An ((shifts posture toward Abby))

5 (70)

6 Ab seventh

7 (140) ((both ss write)

8 Ab I talk to you ((turning to Ana))

9 (250) ((Ana continues writing))

10 Ab my () my book uh life story one

11 (20)

12 An ((shifts posture a bit to A))

390 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

13 Ab are you finished

14 An go (go ahead) please () where is () where is your story

After the teacher exhorts the learners (line 1) to begin their pair task

(the story re-telling) Abby announces the date and after Ana shifts her

posture toward Abby proposes the pair assignment (line 8) Since the

learners sit at desks in pairs the pair assignment is somewhat of a given so

Abbyrsquos turn in line 8 may also act as a proposal for turn allocation If

interlocutor assignment is relatively self-evident the turn lsquoI talk to yoursquo is at

least a move to attempt to get Ana to enter the interaction and may be an

explicit move to tell Ana that she Abby is starting the activity There is no

uptake by Ana after this proposal and after a rather long pause (line 9) Abby

launches the task self-selecting to re-tell her story first When there is no

verbal uptake by Ana in line 11 after Abbyrsquos turn Abby orients to her

partnerrsquos preparation for the task and asks if Ana has finished (line 13) her

preparatory work (writing notes) Ana orients to Abbyrsquos question as a pre-

request to check whether Ana is ready to start her re-telling by encouraging

Abby to continue directly eliciting information about the location of her

story in line 14

The final excerpt from the third term of the mSSR illustrates Abbyrsquos further

development of interactional practices for opening the re-telling activity In (7)

while Inez is writing in her notebook Abby shifts her posture to Inez and asks

a question (line 2) which is preliminary to a question for the assigned activity

(7)

[5-9ndash03 B 206 24121 Term III week 7]25

((Teacherrsquos prompt for the interaction lsquoDo you like books about a story or

information what kind of book are you reading nowrsquo))

1 A ((shifts posture toward Inez))

2 I are you ready

3 (70) ((Inez is writing in her notebook))

4 I yeah sorry

5 (30)

6 I ((re-positions her posture to face Abby then gestures with

7 right hand pointing to Abby and back to herself))

8 (30)

9 A ((Abby looks at the board and reads the question)) what type

10 of a book are you reading now

11 ((Inez begins her re-telling))

While Abbyrsquos question in line 2 orients to the necessity of the completion of

the preparatory work for the re-telling literacy event it also works as part

of the opening for the re-telling task itself Inez finishes writing in her

notebook and orients to Abbyrsquos question as an opening to the assigned

JOHN HELLERMANN 391

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

re-telling task by answering Abbyrsquos question and apologizing for not starting

immediately (line 4) After Inez repositions her body and non-verbally

initiates a negotiation of turn allocation for the re-telling (lines 6 and 7)

Abby self-selects to elicit the re-telling from Inez by reading one of the

teacherrsquos prompts from the board (lines 9ndash10)

Abbyrsquos socialization to the mSSR re-telling activity can be seen in the

development of opening moves in the re-telling interactions with her peers

in Excerpts (5)ndash(7) The interaction from earlier in the mSSR (Excerpt (5))

shows Abby not actively initiating dyad assignment pre-task talk and task

launch In terms two and three the excerpts show her more actively

involved in starting these re-telling activities Her task-preliminary organiza-

tional talk and task launching later in the second and third terms of the

mSSR suggest that she is now more comfortable with the re-telling literacy

event and with the language as a whole

These excerpts of Abbyrsquos interaction in the re-telling literacy events show

two common moves by more advanced learners for opening dyadic

interactions (Hellermann 2004 forthcoming) the orientation to the previous

task completion (in Excerpt (6) lsquoare you finishedrsquo and Excerpt (7) lsquoare you

readyrsquo) and interlocutor selection (in Excerpt (6) lsquoI talk to yoursquo) As other

research in conversation shows such moves for opening talk enable

participants to work out basic features of talk-in-interaction such as avoiding

simultaneous talk and ensuring that the talk about to happen is the start of

something new not from the previous topic (Button and Casey 1984)26

The interactions by Abby and Eduardo in the re-telling literacy events also

show evidence for the learnersrsquo development of interactional competence

through their socialization into literacy events27 While both Abby and

Eduardo orient to the beginnings of the re-telling events creating spaces for

appropriate mutual participation for the event from the start of the mSSR

we see evidence for a change in their participation in the re-telling events

over the course of the three terms of the mSSR Eduardo uses a speech act

(lsquowhat is yourrsquo) in a more sophisticated modality (verbal rather than non-

verbal) to reciprocate an elicitation for a re-telling in his interaction with Jin

in Excerpt (4) In Abbyrsquos later interactions she explicitly orients to the

boundaries of the events by inquiring as to her partnersrsquo readiness to

participate (Excerpts (5) and (6)) and negotiates roles for participation

(Excerpt (6) lsquoI talk to yoursquo) and turn allocation (Excerpts (6) and (7))

Learner reading logs and filing of reading logs

A basic literacy skill activity that the teacher built into the mSSR classes was

having learners chart their reading activity in a reading log and then file their

own reading logs alphabetically in a file box at the end of every lesson In

the third class period of the first term some evidence of Eduardorsquos lack of

basic literacy skills appeared during the filing activity Near the end of this

class period the teacher asked learners to put their reading logs into a file

392 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

box organized by their first names Eduardo and another learner went to

the file box at the front of the room and stood by the box with their reading

logs looking for the appropriate place to put the logs After some time

Eduardo looked over to Carla (a learner from Brazil) and held out his right

hand palm up Carla oriented to this gesture as a request for help and got out

of her seat to help the two learners showing them the place in the files to

put their logs28 A bit later in this class period as the learners were packing

up to leave the class Eduardo solicited the teacherrsquos help in understanding

the name of the process of filing (Excerpt (8)) In so doing he is building on

the co-constructed filing practice with his classmate

(8)

[10-3ndash02 A 204 25149 Term I week 2]29

1 E want to ask (you something) ((walking to file box))

2 T yes you want to ask me something

3 E somebody ((puts hand in file box then touches head)) somebody

4 T file

5 E file file

6 T uh huh this is what () please file file you papers

In Exerpt (8) Eduardo is standing next to the teacher and utters a

pre-question (Schegloff 1980) in line 1 as he walks to the file box Once at

the box in line 3 he says lsquosomebodyrsquo a bare noun phrase which projects a

predicate Eduardo produces that predicate by modeling the relevant action

a hypothetical learner filing a paper This is followed by a gesture of his

hand to his head (which Eduardo commonly used to indicate that he did not

remember a particular word in English) and a repetition of the same bare

noun phrase In line 4 the teacher orients to Eduardorsquos talk as a request for

a word to name the action of putting the reading log into the box The fact

that this interaction is elicited by Eduardo shortly after his request for help

from Carla suggests that Carla may have helped him put the reading log

in the right place but did not give Eduardo the English word for that action

It is Eduardorsquos interactions with both a peer and with the teacher which

help him co-construct a name for this literacy event

While Eduardorsquos success in filing his reading log was sporadic throughout

the rest of this first term at the beginning of the next term on the first day

of class the teacher explained again that the reading logs were to be filed

alphabetically She explained and modeled this while standing next to the

file box to assist learners After explaining and modeling the procedure to the

class she reminded Eduardo again several minutes later lsquoyou need to put this

[reading log] away young manrsquo Several minutes after that Eduardo held up

his reading log showing it to the teacher as other learners were going to the

file box to file their logs She responded affirmatively and Eduardo went to

the file box The teacher said his name Eduardo said lsquoersquo (the first letter of his

JOHN HELLERMANN 393

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

first name) and put the reading log in the appropriate place in the file box

Having participated in one term of the mSSR and the literacy event of filling

in and filing reading logs (the term in which it was just noted that he was

given support by a peer and the teacher) the reinforcement of the rules the

modeling by the teacher as well as the personal reminder and reassurance

given by the teacher guided Eduardo into full participation in this literacy

event Later in this second term and in the third term as well Eduardo

was able to file the log independently By the beginning of the third term

(4103) he was also able to tell a newcomer to the class the purpose of the

reading log

Based on conversations with his teachers the evidence from his reading

logs and his interactions with other learners in the re-telling literacy event

Eduardo seemed to have developed a genuine interest in and enthusiasm for

reading In a more complex literacy skill involving the reading logs there is

evidence that Eduardo developed the ability to orally evaluate the books

he read adopting a term introduced by the teacher to describe several of

his books lsquoso-sorsquo In the later part of the first term of the mSSR Eduardorsquos

reading log was sporadically filled in and he wrote in Spanish for the

assessment portion of the log (Figure 1)

By the second term of the mSSR Eduardo was reading some books during

the silent reading period in class for four class periods in a row (an indication

of persistence and interest) and assessed one book (The Orange Grove) in his

reading log as lsquovery goodrsquo Through this assessment Eduardo displayed

part of a personal identity as a literate person in English But even by the

third term of the mSSR classes Eduardo did not elaborate on the assessments

of his books as the reading log prompted learners to do In a row at the top

of the reading log learners were to answer the question lsquoDid you like it

[the book]rsquo and then write why The teacher provided another written

prompt in the box that learners checked for a positive assessment lsquoYes

because rsquo In this place though Eduardo always indicated that he liked the

Figure 1 Part of Eduardorsquos reading log from the first term of the mSSR

394 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

books that he read he did not specify why he liked them giving evidence

of the limitations of his ability to evaluate his reading (as Figure 2 shows)

In contrast to Eduardo Abby did not have trouble filing her reading log

On the day the teacher explained to learners how they should file their

reading logs she used Abby as an example lsquoFor example Abby file your

paper under lsquolsquoArsquorsquo for Abbyrsquo In subsequent class periods Abby displayed

competence at filing her reading log in the appropriate slot in the file box

The content of Abbyrsquos reading logs also differed from Eduardorsquos in notable

ways Where Eduardo always checked the box marked lsquoeasyrsquo when

evaluating the level of difficulty of the books he read in most cases Abby

checked the lsquojust rightrsquo box and just a few times the box marked lsquoeasyrsquo for

the books she read Figure 3 shows one of her reading logs from the third

term of the mSSR

The notations in Abbyrsquos reading log in Figure 3 suggest that she was

choosing books that were appropriate to her ability (the box labeled

lsquojust rightrsquo is marked consistently) Also Abby was able to give some detail

(although limited) when prompted by the teacher for the reasons behind

her assessment of a book In response to the teacherrsquos written prompt on

the reading log lsquoyes I liked it because rsquo Abby had two responses she used

lsquoyes I did because interestingrsquo or lsquoyes I did because easyrsquo Abby indicated

Figure 2 Part of Eduardorsquos reading log from the third term of the mSSR

JOHN HELLERMANN 395

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

these more expanded assessments both in the second and third terms of the

mSSR classes

An important question for research on language socialization and

interactional competence in a classroom setting is to what degree these

processes result in increased engagement with literacy outside the classroom

A telling insight gained from the learnersrsquo in-home L1 interviews suggests

that for both these learners the socialization into literacy events in the

classroom lead to increased participation in literacy outside the classroom

In the interviews conducted with each learner before the start of the mSSR

treatment when asked what and how much they read in English for

pleasure Abby indicated that she read student picture books for ninety

minutes a week Eduardo reported reading newspapers for thirty minutes

a week In interviews conducted in June of 2004 after the learnersrsquo

completed their participation in the mSSR Abby reported reading

newspapers and books for 7 hours a week and Eduardo newspapers and

magazines for 2 hours a week Along with the development of interactive

practices in classroom literacy events highlighted in this paper these findings

show a remarkable increase in these learnersrsquo engagement with literacy

outside the classroom and evidence of their emerging identities as individuals

literate in English

Figure 3 Part of Abbyrsquos reading log from the third term of the mSSR

396 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

CONCLUSIONS

The findings uncovered in this study show two learnersrsquo development of

interactional competence through their socialization into classroom literacy

events This socialization occurred through the learnersrsquo engagement in

discursive practices in repeated literacy events which were part of a modified

sustained silent reading program The discursive practices for the literacy

events occurred within the context of the entire classroom community of

practice (Wenger 1998) and afforded learners the opportunities to move from

peripheral to more full participation in English literacy This community of

practice included (1) the teachers who provided instructions and support for

the activities through explicit instruction and modeling (2) learner peers

who also modeled appropriate interactive and language behavior and were

the interlocutors with whom some of the literacy practices were negotiated

and (3) the texts themselves which became a mediating object the third

part in a triadic dialogue for literacy (van Lier 2002) comprised of learnerndash

teacherndashtext or learnerndashlearnerndashtext

While neither learner had studied English formally before enrolling in

classes at the Lab School this study shows that Abby the learner with a high

school education from her home country was familiar with some of the

practices for literacy events including alphabetical filing book selection

and book assessment This research also showed that over the course of

three terms doing the mSSR activities Abby developed a wider range of

interactional practices for opening the dyadic interactions involved in the

story re-telling

Eduardo on the other hand began his participation in the mSSR activities

with much less experience with classroom literacy events having had just

two years of education in his home country The literacy events which were

part of the mSSR afforded Eduardo (van Lier 2000) the opportunity to

engage with literacy and by participating at first peripherally Eduardo

quickly understood and participated more fully in the book selection literacy

event Through interaction with his peers and the teacher in term two basic

literacy skills such as alphabetizing and filing his reading log developed

Though his teachersrsquo initial impressions suggested that he got very little

from his participation in the mSSR a review of his reading logs and his

participation in class show that Eduardo acquired knowledge of literacy

through a transformation (Lave and Wenger 1991) of his understanding of

and participation in literacy events

The development of these learnersrsquo interactional competence can be seen

in Eduardorsquos pursuit of understanding the practice of filing his reading log

which he accomplished through interaction with several members of the

classroom community This change in his participation in filing the logs

shows how learning is a situated practice accomplished through repeated

interactions with the entire classroom community In the analysis of the

story re-telling activities both Eduardo and Abby exhibited an increased

JOHN HELLERMANN 397

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

ability to use talk to initiate interaction by negotiating interlocutor

assignment and turn allocation to open their re-tellings Again the repeated

practice of the re-tellings afforded the learners opportunities to negotiate

a particular classroom and social action (opening a face-to-face interaction)

and both learners developed interactional skills that allowed them to

participate in the practice more fully

A quantitative analysis of standardized assessment measures30 for all the

learners at the Lab School shows that students who participated in the mSSR

method improved in their English language literacy skills to the same degree

as students who participated in classes which used a traditional skills-based

method for the teaching of reading (Reder et al forthcoming) This result

leads one to question what classroom practices might have contributed to

the increase in scores for each group Qualitative micro-analyses such as this

study are a first step toward understanding the discursive practices of the

mSSR classrooms which led to increases in those standardized tests of literacy

skills Also while we know that first-language education is a factor in

successful second language acquisition (Cole et al 1971) we know little

about how classroom interaction between experienced and inexperienced

learners differs In order to address this question this analysis used existing

social categorizations for participant selection (their degree of previous

education in their first language environment) and focused on two students

who would be categorized differently But the use of these macro-level

categorizations was not intended to reify the association of the characteristics

of each category to individual members Rather they were used to define

places from which to empirically examine the interactional language

behavior of members of each category This examination was done through

micro-analyses of the two studentsrsquo participation in the discursive practices

in mSSR literacy events that help L2 literacy develop The focus on the

day-to-day classroom interactions of the two learners allowed us to see

different paths to L2 literacy for learners who have different educational and

literacy experiences and uncover the complex interaction within a classroom

community of practice which results in the changes reported in traditional

language assessment measures

Final version received November 2005

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank the entire staff at the National Labsite for Adult ESOL at Portland State

University for their involvement in maintaining the Lab School as a place for adults to learn

English and as a state of the art research facility I would also like to thank Kathy Harris Sandra

Banke Reuel Kurzet Steve Reder Dominique Brillanceau and three anonymous readers for

their feedback on various versions of the paper

398 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

APPENDIX A

Some transcript conventions in conversation analysis (adapted from Schegloff

2000)

I Temporal and sequential relationships

[ Overlapping or simultaneous talk

frac14 lsquolatched utterancesrsquo no break or pause between utterances

(05) Numbers in parentheses indicate silence represented in tenths of a second

() A dot in parentheses indicates a lsquomicropausersquo

II Aspects of speech delivery including aspectsof intonation

period indicates a falling intonation contour not necessarily the end ofa sentence

question mark indicates rising intonation

a comma indicates lsquocontinuingrsquo intonation

Colons are used to indicate the prolongation or stretching of the soundjust preceding them The more colons the longer the stretching

- A hyphen after a word or part of a word indicates a cut-off or self-interruption word

Underlining is used to indicate some form of stress or emphasis either byincreased loudness or higher pitch The more underlining the greater theemphasis

The degree sign indicates that the talk following it was markedly quiet orsoft

The up and down arrows mark sharper rises or falls in pitch

45 The combination of lsquomore thanrsquo and lsquoless thanrsquo symbols indicates that thetalk between them is compressed or rushed

54 Used in the reverse order they can indicate that a stretch of talk ismarkedly slowed or drawn out

hhh Outbreath

hh Inbreath

(( )) Descriptions of events ((cough)) ((sniff)) ((telephone rings)) ((foot-steps))

(word) All or part of an utterance in parentheses indicates transcriber uncertainty

Creaky voice

NOTES

1 In order to get around the unwieldy

and theoretically-loaded terminology

for describing the use acquisition

and learning of a language that is

not the home or first language of the

participants of this study I will use

JOHN HELLERMANN 399

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

the abbreviation lsquoL2rsquo throughout the

paper to refer to a language that is

being attained through formal instruc-

tion For the students in this study

lsquoL2rsquo refers to English It may not be

however that English is these

studentsrsquo lsquosecondrsquo language as the

abbreviation implies

2 Students in the current study were in

lsquolevel Arsquo classes at the data collection

site SPL level 0ndash2

3 In Sustained Silent Reading

(McCracken 1971 Pilgreen 2000)

students are given a set time in the

classroom to read silently without

interruption by the teacher or other

students and without evaluation of

what is read and how it is read

The method was altered slightly at

the data collection site to meet the

needs of beginning adult language

learners and included activities

like post-reading re-telling activities

and studentsrsquo use of reading logs

to record their assessments of their

reading

4 The National Labsite for Adult ESOL

at Portland State University is sup-

ported in part by grant R309B6002

from the Institute for Education

Science US Dept of Education to

the National Center for the Study of

Adult Learning and Literacy The

Labsite is a partnership between

Portland State University and Portland

Community College The school

and research facilities are housed at

Portland State while the registration

curriculum and teachers of the

ESL students are from Portland

Community College

5 One reviewer asked about the inabil-

ity to see learnersrsquo eye gaze with

cameras embedded in the ceiling

While this is a problem when

students are sitting directly under

the two mobile cameras which

follow students wearing the wireless

microphones most often students

are sitting in a position where

studentsrsquo faces can be seen quite

directly For details of the data

collection see Reder et al (2003)

6 The Labsite Student Study (LSS)

conducts in-home interviews with a

subset of students in the lab school

(70 per year) in their home lan-

guages over the course of four

years regardless of whether the

student remains in lab school classes

or not The primary purpose of

the LSS study is to understand

language use and literacy develop-

ment outside the classroom context

and factors which influence program

persistence

7 All names used in this study are

pseudonyms

8 The teacher had different types of

books on a cart that she wheeled into

the room every class period She took

books off the cart and spread them

out on desks at the back of the room

9 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoselectsbookclass1]

10 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardohelping]

11 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoshowing]

12 Sarah Ouellette helped with the

Spanish transcription and provided

the translation to English Transcrip-

tion conventions are included in

Appendix A lsquoTrsquo indicates the class-

room teacher in all transcripts

13 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoexplaining]

400 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

14 At the time of this excerpt Eduardo

was a novice in Rederrsquos (1987) third

mode of literacy engagement

technical still struggling with basic

technical issues like decoding English

language lexicon

15 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Abbyreading]

16 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Abbynotetaking]

17 The classroom teachers noted the

frustration of doing mSSR with

students who have very low first

language literacy because of her

inability to help students organize

their reading in instances like note

taking (Banke and Brillanceau 2004)

18 A literacy assessment test (BEST

Literacy) was administered in the

classroom in terms one and two of

the mSSR program While the scores

increased for each learner for

Eduardo the increase is not as great

as Abbyrsquos Eduardorsquos overall literacy

score went from 35 in term one

to 42 in term two which is an

increase of one student performance

level (from 3 to 4) Abbyrsquos scores

increased from 45 in term one to

56 in term two which indicates

a jump from student performance

level 4 to 6 For information

on characteristics of student language

abilities at different student perfor-

mance levels (SPLs) see pp 5ndash6 of

wwwcalorgcaelaesl_resources

Part4-5pdf

19 One of the pedagogical advantages of

doing a dyadic re-telling in a lan-

guage classroom is that even if one

student doesnrsquot understand the

instructions for the task in an activity

like the mSSR the peerrsquos act of

posture shift moving a book into

a common space and looking

toward the partner strongly invite

collaboration in some interaction and

it is collaboration that is perhaps

the most important aspect of the

re-telling activity (Pilgreen 2000)

especially for language learners

20 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoopening1]

21 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoopening2]

22 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoorientsstorytelling]

23 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Abbyopening1]

24 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Abbypretasktalkterm2]

25 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Abbystartingretelling2]

26 While more empirical evidence is

warranted a provisional claim

can be mentioned here that such

re-telling activities and perhaps

in classroom pair activities in

general are organized with a two-

part move like that displayed in

(6) lsquoquery about readinessrsquo and

lsquoturn allocationrsquo before the first task

question

27 Notably absent from Abbyrsquos and

Eduardorsquos peer re-tellings are any

verbal greeting sequences Even

when one of the pair moves across

the room to sit with another student

Abby and Eduardo did not exchange

greetings with their partner for their

JOHN HELLERMANN 401

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

task This is something that other

students did as part of their openings

28 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoasksstudentforhelpfiling]

29 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoasksaboutfiling]

30 The assessment measures were the

BEST Plus and the Peabody Picture

Vocabulary tests

REFERENCES

Atkinson J M and J C Heritage 1984

Structures of Social Action Studies in Conversation

Analysis Cambridge Cambridge University Press

August G 2001 The Road to Second Language

Reading How do we get there Unpublished

PhD Dissertation City University of New York

New York

Banke S and D Brillanceu 2004 lsquoLiving

in Interventionrsquo Unpublished manuscript

Barton D (2001) lsquoDirections for literacy

research Analysing language and social practices

in a textually mediated worldrsquo Language and

Education 152ndash3 92ndash104

Bernhardt E B and M L Kamil 1995 lsquoInter-

preting relationships between L1 and L2 reading

Consolidating the linguistic threshold and the

linguistic interdependence hypothesesrsquo Applied

Linguistics 161 15ndash34

Bourdieu P 1991 Language and Symbolic Power

Cambridge MA Harvard University Press

Brandt D 1990 Literacy as Involvement The Acts

of Writers Readers and Texts Carbondale IL

Southern Illinois University Press

ButtonG andNCasey1984 lsquoGenerating topics

The use of topic initial elicitorsrsquo in J M Atkinson

and J C Heritage (eds) Structures of Social Action

Studies in Conversation Analysis Cambridge

Cambridge University Press

Canale M and M Swain 1980 lsquoTheoretical

bases of communicative approaches to second

language teaching and testingrsquoApplied Linguistics

1 1ndash47

Carrell P L 1991 lsquoSecond language reading

Reading ability or language proficiencyrsquo Applied

Linguistics 122 159ndash79

Chow P and C Chou 2000 Evaluating

Sustained Silent Reading in Reading Classes [Web]

I-TESL-J Available httpitesljorgArticlesChow-

mSSRhtml

Cole M J Gay J A Glick and D W Sharp

1971 The Cultural Context of Learning and Think-

ing An Exploration in Experimental Anthropology

New York Basic Books

Couper-Kuhlen E andMSelting 1996 Prosody

in Conversation Interactional Studies Cambridge

Cambridge University Press

Duff P 2002 lsquoThe discursive co-construction

of knowledge identity and difference An

ethnography of communication in the high

school mainstreamrsquo Applied Linguistics 233

289ndash322

Erickson F and J Schultz 1981 lsquoWhen is

a context Some issues and methods in the

analysis of social competencersquo in J Green and

C Wallat (eds) Ethnography and Language in

Educational Settings Norwood NJ Ablex

Felser C L Roberts T Marinis and R Gross

2003 lsquoThe processing of ambiguous sentences by

first and second language learners of Englishrsquo

Applied Psycholinguistics 243 453ndash89

Garfinkel H 1967 Studies in Ethnomethodology

Englewood Cliffs NJ Prentice Hall

Gee J P 1990 Social Linguistics and Literacies

Ideology in Discourses London Falmer Press

Goffman E 1959 The Presentation of Self

in Everyday Life New York Anchor Books

Doubleday

Goffman E 1961 Encounters Two Studies in

the Sociology of Interaction Indianapolis Bobbs-

Merrill

Goody J1977 TheDomestication of the SavageMind

Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Grabe W and F L Stoller 1997 lsquoReading and

vocabulary development in a second language

A case studyrsquo in J Coady and T Huckin (eds)

Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition A

Rationale for Pedagogy Cambridge Cambridge

University Press

402 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

Gumperz J J 1982 Discourse Strategies

Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Habermas J1976 lsquoSome distinctions in universal

pragmatics A working paperrsquo Theory and Society

32 155ndash67

Hall J K 1993 lsquoThe role of oral practices in

the accomplishment of our everyday lives

The sociocultural dimension of interaction

with implications for the learning of

another languagersquo Applied Linguistics 142

145ndash66

Hall J K 1995 lsquo lsquolsquoAw man where you goinrsquorsquorsquo

Classroom interaction and the development

of L2 interactional competencersquo Issues in Applied

Linguistics 62 37ndash62

Hall JK1997 lsquoA consideration of SLA as a theory

of practice A response to Firth and Wagnerrsquo

Modern Language Journal 813 301ndash306

He A W and R Young 1998 lsquoLanguage

proficiency interviews A discourse approachrsquo in

R Young and A W He (eds) Talking and Testing

Discourse Approaches to the Assessment of Oral

Proficiency Amsterdam John Benjamins

Heath S B 1982 lsquoWhat no bedtime story means

Narrative skills at home and schoolrsquo Language

in Society 11 49ndash76

Heath S B 1983 Ways with Words Language

Life and Work in Communities and Classrooms

Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Hellermann J 2004 lsquoPractices for opening dyadic

interactionrsquo paper presented at the annual

conference of the American Association for

Applied Linguistics Portland OR

Hellermann J forthcoming lsquoThe development of

practices for action in the classroom diadic

interaction focus on task openingsrsquo Modern

Language Journal

Hood S and H Joyce 1995 lsquoReading in the

adult ESL curriculum and classroomrsquo Prospect

102 52ndash64

Hymes D 1974 Foundations in Sociolinguistics

An Ethnographic Approach Philadelphia

University of Pennsylvania Press

Kramsch C 1986 lsquoFrom language proficiency

to interactional competencersquo Modern Language

Journal 70 372ndash66

Kramsch C 2002 lsquoHow can we tell the dancer

from the dancersquo in C Kramsch (ed) Language

Acquisition and Language Socialization An ecological

approach London Continuum

Lave J and E Wenger 1991 Situated Learning

Legitimate Peripheral Participation Cambridge

Cambridge University Press

Lerner G H 1995 lsquoTurn design and the organiza-

tion of participation in instructional activitiesrsquo

Discourse Processes 19 111ndash31

MacBethD2003 lsquoHugh MehanrsquosLearning Lessons

reconsidered On the differences between the

naturalistic and critical analysis of classroom

discoursersquo American Educational Research Journal

401 239ndash80

McCraken R A 1971 lsquoInitiating sustained silent

readingrsquo Journal of Reading 148 521ndash4 582ndash3

McDermott R and D Roth 1978 lsquoThe social

organization of behavior Interactional

approachesrsquo Annual Review of Anthropology 7

321ndash45

Markee N 2000 Conversation Analysis Marwah

NJ Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

Ochs E and B Schieffelin 1979 Developmental

Pragmatics New York Academic Press

Ochs E E A Schegloff and S A Thompson

1996 Interaction and Grammar Cambridge

Cambridge University Press

Ong W J 1982 Orality and Literacy The Technolo-

gizing of the Word London Routledge

Palacios I G 2002 An ESLLiteracy Center

A qualitative study of perspectives and practices

of immigrant adults and literacy facilitators

Unpublished PhD Dissertation Indiana

University Pennsylvania Indiana PA

Pilgreen J L 2000 The SSR Handbook How to

Organize and Manage a Sustained Silent Reading

Program Portsmouth NH BoyntonCook

Pulido D 2003 lsquoModeling the role of second

language proficiency and topic familiarity

in second language incidental vocabulary

acquisition through readingrsquo Language Learning

532 233ndash84

Reder S 1987 lsquoComparative aspects of functional

literacy development Three ethnic American

communitiesrsquo in D Wagner (ed) The Future

of Literacy in a Changing World Oxford Pergamon

Press

Reder S 1994 lsquoPractice engagement theory

A sociocultural approach to literacy across

languages and culturersquo in B M Ferdman

R M Weber and A G Ramırez (eds) Literacy

Across Languages and Cultures Albany NY State

University of New York Press

Reder S and E Davila (2005) lsquoContext

and literacy practicesrsquo Annual Review of Applied

Linguistics 25 170ndash87

Reder S K A Harris and K Setzler 2003

lsquoA multimedia adult learner corpusrsquo TESOL

Quarterly 373 546ndash57

JOHN HELLERMANN 403

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

Reder S K A Harris R Kurzet

D Brillanceau S Banke and JHellermann

forthcoming Using a modified Sustained Silent

Reading for low-level adult ESOL students

Boston National Center for the Study of Adult

Learning and Literacy

Sacks H E A Schegloff and G Jefferson

1974 lsquoA simplest systematics for the organiza-

tion of turn-taking for conversationsrsquo Language

504 696ndash735

Sagarra N 2000 The longitudinal role of working

memory on adult acquisition of L2 grammar

Unpublished PhD Dissertation University of

Illinois Urbana-Champaign

Schegloff E A 1968 lsquoSequencing in conversa-

tional openingsrsquo American Anthropologist 70

1075ndash95

Schegloff E A 1980 lsquoPreliminaries to prelimin-

aries lsquolsquoCan I ask you a questionrsquorsquo rsquo Sociological

Inquiry 50 104ndash52

Schegloff E A 1998 lsquoReflections on studying

prosody in talk-in-interactionrsquo Language and

Speech 413ndash4 235ndash63

Schegloff E A 2000 lsquoOverlapping talk and the

organization of turn-making for conversationrsquo

Language in Society 291 1ndash63

Schegloff E A 2002 lsquoOpening sequencingrsquo

in J E Katz and M Aakhus (eds) Perpetual

Contact Mobile Communication Private Talk Public

Performance Cambridge Cambridge University

Press

Schegloff E A and H Sacks 1973 lsquoOpening up

closingsrsquo Semiotica 8 289ndash327

Schieffelin B B and Ochs E (1986) lsquoLanguage

socializationrsquo Annual Review of Anthropology 15

163ndash91

Scribner S and M Cole 1981 The Psychology of

Literacy Cambridge MA Harvard University

Press

Segalowitz N C Poulsen and M Komoda

1991 lsquoLower level components of reading skill in

higher level bilinguals Implications for reading

instructionrsquo AILA Review 8 15ndash30

Streeck J 1983 Social Order in Child Communica-

tion Amsterdam John Benjamins

Streeck J and S Mihus 2005 lsquoMicroethno-

graphy The study of practicesrsquo In K L Fitch

and R E Sanders (eds) The Handbook of

Language and Social Interaction Marwah NJ

Lawrence Erlbaum

Street B 1998 lsquoNew literacies in theory

and practice What are the implications for

language in educationrsquo Linguistics and Education

10 1ndash24

Street B V 2001 Literacy and Development

Ethnographic perspectives London Routledge

Tang H 1997 lsquoThe relationship between reading

comprehension processes in L1 and L2rsquo Reading

Psychology 183 249ndash301

Treville M C 1996 lsquoLexical learning and reading

in L2 at the beginner level The advantage of

cognatesrsquo The Canadian Modern Language Review

531 173ndash90

Van Lier L 2000 lsquoFrom input to affordance

Social-interactive learning from an ecological

perspectiversquo in J Lantolf (ed) Sociocultural

Theory and Second Language Learning Oxford

Oxford University Press

van Lier L 2002 lsquoAn ecological-semiotic

perspective on language and linguisticsrsquo in

C Kramsch (ed) Language Acquisition and

Language Socialization An ecological approach

London Continuum

Wenger J 1998 Communities of Practice Learning

Meaning and Identity Cambridge Cambridge

University Press

Yang J 2000 lsquoOrthographic effect on word

recognition by learners of Chinese as a Foreign

Languagersquo Journal of the Chinese Language

Teachers Association 352 1ndash18

YoungR1999 lsquoSociolinguistic approaches toSLArsquo

Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 19 105ndash32

Young R 2000 lsquoInteractional competence

Challenges for validityrsquo Paper presented at the

annual conference of the American Association

for Applied Linguistics Vancouver BC

Young R F 2002 lsquoDiscourse approaches to oral

language assessmentrsquo Annual Review of Applied

Linguistics 22 243ndash62

404 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

Page 14: Classroom Interactive Practices for Developing L2 Literacy: A Microethnographic Study of Two Beginning Adult Learners of English

5 F hhyeah okay

6 ((Abby sneezes))

7 F bless you () god bless you a[gain

8 A [thank you

9 F again [god bless you

10 A [huh hah hah [uh hih hih hih hih hhuh

11 F [eh huh heh heh heah

12 (20)

13 F what () is your book

14 A eh () my book is () my my book is easy () easy story press

15 F oh press [mm hmm

16 A [yeah ease story pres[s

17 F [eh

18 (35)

19 A what is (your) story

In line 1 Fernando makes the first verbal move to establish the peer

dyad and achieve mutual physical orientation asking about a partner

and after a sequence involving sneezing in line 13 Fernando asks the

first elicitation question for the activity Abby responds to each elicitation

non-verbally in line 2 and with the title of her book in line 14 Abby orients

to the activity of finding out about one anotherrsquos books by asking

the reciprocal question more specifically asking about Fernandorsquos lsquostoryrsquo in

line 19

The next example of one of Abbyrsquos opening move sequences comes from

the fifth week of the second term of the mSSR Excerpt (6) shows Abby

engaging in more pre-task opening talk (lines 3 and 6) interlocutor selection

(line 8) and the launch of the task (line 10)

(6)

[2703 B 204 24353 Term II week 5]24

1 T you need to talk ladies

2 (10)

3 Ab todayrsquos uh February ((looks to Ana then back to notebook))

4 An ((shifts posture toward Abby))

5 (70)

6 Ab seventh

7 (140) ((both ss write)

8 Ab I talk to you ((turning to Ana))

9 (250) ((Ana continues writing))

10 Ab my () my book uh life story one

11 (20)

12 An ((shifts posture a bit to A))

390 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

13 Ab are you finished

14 An go (go ahead) please () where is () where is your story

After the teacher exhorts the learners (line 1) to begin their pair task

(the story re-telling) Abby announces the date and after Ana shifts her

posture toward Abby proposes the pair assignment (line 8) Since the

learners sit at desks in pairs the pair assignment is somewhat of a given so

Abbyrsquos turn in line 8 may also act as a proposal for turn allocation If

interlocutor assignment is relatively self-evident the turn lsquoI talk to yoursquo is at

least a move to attempt to get Ana to enter the interaction and may be an

explicit move to tell Ana that she Abby is starting the activity There is no

uptake by Ana after this proposal and after a rather long pause (line 9) Abby

launches the task self-selecting to re-tell her story first When there is no

verbal uptake by Ana in line 11 after Abbyrsquos turn Abby orients to her

partnerrsquos preparation for the task and asks if Ana has finished (line 13) her

preparatory work (writing notes) Ana orients to Abbyrsquos question as a pre-

request to check whether Ana is ready to start her re-telling by encouraging

Abby to continue directly eliciting information about the location of her

story in line 14

The final excerpt from the third term of the mSSR illustrates Abbyrsquos further

development of interactional practices for opening the re-telling activity In (7)

while Inez is writing in her notebook Abby shifts her posture to Inez and asks

a question (line 2) which is preliminary to a question for the assigned activity

(7)

[5-9ndash03 B 206 24121 Term III week 7]25

((Teacherrsquos prompt for the interaction lsquoDo you like books about a story or

information what kind of book are you reading nowrsquo))

1 A ((shifts posture toward Inez))

2 I are you ready

3 (70) ((Inez is writing in her notebook))

4 I yeah sorry

5 (30)

6 I ((re-positions her posture to face Abby then gestures with

7 right hand pointing to Abby and back to herself))

8 (30)

9 A ((Abby looks at the board and reads the question)) what type

10 of a book are you reading now

11 ((Inez begins her re-telling))

While Abbyrsquos question in line 2 orients to the necessity of the completion of

the preparatory work for the re-telling literacy event it also works as part

of the opening for the re-telling task itself Inez finishes writing in her

notebook and orients to Abbyrsquos question as an opening to the assigned

JOHN HELLERMANN 391

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

re-telling task by answering Abbyrsquos question and apologizing for not starting

immediately (line 4) After Inez repositions her body and non-verbally

initiates a negotiation of turn allocation for the re-telling (lines 6 and 7)

Abby self-selects to elicit the re-telling from Inez by reading one of the

teacherrsquos prompts from the board (lines 9ndash10)

Abbyrsquos socialization to the mSSR re-telling activity can be seen in the

development of opening moves in the re-telling interactions with her peers

in Excerpts (5)ndash(7) The interaction from earlier in the mSSR (Excerpt (5))

shows Abby not actively initiating dyad assignment pre-task talk and task

launch In terms two and three the excerpts show her more actively

involved in starting these re-telling activities Her task-preliminary organiza-

tional talk and task launching later in the second and third terms of the

mSSR suggest that she is now more comfortable with the re-telling literacy

event and with the language as a whole

These excerpts of Abbyrsquos interaction in the re-telling literacy events show

two common moves by more advanced learners for opening dyadic

interactions (Hellermann 2004 forthcoming) the orientation to the previous

task completion (in Excerpt (6) lsquoare you finishedrsquo and Excerpt (7) lsquoare you

readyrsquo) and interlocutor selection (in Excerpt (6) lsquoI talk to yoursquo) As other

research in conversation shows such moves for opening talk enable

participants to work out basic features of talk-in-interaction such as avoiding

simultaneous talk and ensuring that the talk about to happen is the start of

something new not from the previous topic (Button and Casey 1984)26

The interactions by Abby and Eduardo in the re-telling literacy events also

show evidence for the learnersrsquo development of interactional competence

through their socialization into literacy events27 While both Abby and

Eduardo orient to the beginnings of the re-telling events creating spaces for

appropriate mutual participation for the event from the start of the mSSR

we see evidence for a change in their participation in the re-telling events

over the course of the three terms of the mSSR Eduardo uses a speech act

(lsquowhat is yourrsquo) in a more sophisticated modality (verbal rather than non-

verbal) to reciprocate an elicitation for a re-telling in his interaction with Jin

in Excerpt (4) In Abbyrsquos later interactions she explicitly orients to the

boundaries of the events by inquiring as to her partnersrsquo readiness to

participate (Excerpts (5) and (6)) and negotiates roles for participation

(Excerpt (6) lsquoI talk to yoursquo) and turn allocation (Excerpts (6) and (7))

Learner reading logs and filing of reading logs

A basic literacy skill activity that the teacher built into the mSSR classes was

having learners chart their reading activity in a reading log and then file their

own reading logs alphabetically in a file box at the end of every lesson In

the third class period of the first term some evidence of Eduardorsquos lack of

basic literacy skills appeared during the filing activity Near the end of this

class period the teacher asked learners to put their reading logs into a file

392 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

box organized by their first names Eduardo and another learner went to

the file box at the front of the room and stood by the box with their reading

logs looking for the appropriate place to put the logs After some time

Eduardo looked over to Carla (a learner from Brazil) and held out his right

hand palm up Carla oriented to this gesture as a request for help and got out

of her seat to help the two learners showing them the place in the files to

put their logs28 A bit later in this class period as the learners were packing

up to leave the class Eduardo solicited the teacherrsquos help in understanding

the name of the process of filing (Excerpt (8)) In so doing he is building on

the co-constructed filing practice with his classmate

(8)

[10-3ndash02 A 204 25149 Term I week 2]29

1 E want to ask (you something) ((walking to file box))

2 T yes you want to ask me something

3 E somebody ((puts hand in file box then touches head)) somebody

4 T file

5 E file file

6 T uh huh this is what () please file file you papers

In Exerpt (8) Eduardo is standing next to the teacher and utters a

pre-question (Schegloff 1980) in line 1 as he walks to the file box Once at

the box in line 3 he says lsquosomebodyrsquo a bare noun phrase which projects a

predicate Eduardo produces that predicate by modeling the relevant action

a hypothetical learner filing a paper This is followed by a gesture of his

hand to his head (which Eduardo commonly used to indicate that he did not

remember a particular word in English) and a repetition of the same bare

noun phrase In line 4 the teacher orients to Eduardorsquos talk as a request for

a word to name the action of putting the reading log into the box The fact

that this interaction is elicited by Eduardo shortly after his request for help

from Carla suggests that Carla may have helped him put the reading log

in the right place but did not give Eduardo the English word for that action

It is Eduardorsquos interactions with both a peer and with the teacher which

help him co-construct a name for this literacy event

While Eduardorsquos success in filing his reading log was sporadic throughout

the rest of this first term at the beginning of the next term on the first day

of class the teacher explained again that the reading logs were to be filed

alphabetically She explained and modeled this while standing next to the

file box to assist learners After explaining and modeling the procedure to the

class she reminded Eduardo again several minutes later lsquoyou need to put this

[reading log] away young manrsquo Several minutes after that Eduardo held up

his reading log showing it to the teacher as other learners were going to the

file box to file their logs She responded affirmatively and Eduardo went to

the file box The teacher said his name Eduardo said lsquoersquo (the first letter of his

JOHN HELLERMANN 393

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

first name) and put the reading log in the appropriate place in the file box

Having participated in one term of the mSSR and the literacy event of filling

in and filing reading logs (the term in which it was just noted that he was

given support by a peer and the teacher) the reinforcement of the rules the

modeling by the teacher as well as the personal reminder and reassurance

given by the teacher guided Eduardo into full participation in this literacy

event Later in this second term and in the third term as well Eduardo

was able to file the log independently By the beginning of the third term

(4103) he was also able to tell a newcomer to the class the purpose of the

reading log

Based on conversations with his teachers the evidence from his reading

logs and his interactions with other learners in the re-telling literacy event

Eduardo seemed to have developed a genuine interest in and enthusiasm for

reading In a more complex literacy skill involving the reading logs there is

evidence that Eduardo developed the ability to orally evaluate the books

he read adopting a term introduced by the teacher to describe several of

his books lsquoso-sorsquo In the later part of the first term of the mSSR Eduardorsquos

reading log was sporadically filled in and he wrote in Spanish for the

assessment portion of the log (Figure 1)

By the second term of the mSSR Eduardo was reading some books during

the silent reading period in class for four class periods in a row (an indication

of persistence and interest) and assessed one book (The Orange Grove) in his

reading log as lsquovery goodrsquo Through this assessment Eduardo displayed

part of a personal identity as a literate person in English But even by the

third term of the mSSR classes Eduardo did not elaborate on the assessments

of his books as the reading log prompted learners to do In a row at the top

of the reading log learners were to answer the question lsquoDid you like it

[the book]rsquo and then write why The teacher provided another written

prompt in the box that learners checked for a positive assessment lsquoYes

because rsquo In this place though Eduardo always indicated that he liked the

Figure 1 Part of Eduardorsquos reading log from the first term of the mSSR

394 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

books that he read he did not specify why he liked them giving evidence

of the limitations of his ability to evaluate his reading (as Figure 2 shows)

In contrast to Eduardo Abby did not have trouble filing her reading log

On the day the teacher explained to learners how they should file their

reading logs she used Abby as an example lsquoFor example Abby file your

paper under lsquolsquoArsquorsquo for Abbyrsquo In subsequent class periods Abby displayed

competence at filing her reading log in the appropriate slot in the file box

The content of Abbyrsquos reading logs also differed from Eduardorsquos in notable

ways Where Eduardo always checked the box marked lsquoeasyrsquo when

evaluating the level of difficulty of the books he read in most cases Abby

checked the lsquojust rightrsquo box and just a few times the box marked lsquoeasyrsquo for

the books she read Figure 3 shows one of her reading logs from the third

term of the mSSR

The notations in Abbyrsquos reading log in Figure 3 suggest that she was

choosing books that were appropriate to her ability (the box labeled

lsquojust rightrsquo is marked consistently) Also Abby was able to give some detail

(although limited) when prompted by the teacher for the reasons behind

her assessment of a book In response to the teacherrsquos written prompt on

the reading log lsquoyes I liked it because rsquo Abby had two responses she used

lsquoyes I did because interestingrsquo or lsquoyes I did because easyrsquo Abby indicated

Figure 2 Part of Eduardorsquos reading log from the third term of the mSSR

JOHN HELLERMANN 395

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

these more expanded assessments both in the second and third terms of the

mSSR classes

An important question for research on language socialization and

interactional competence in a classroom setting is to what degree these

processes result in increased engagement with literacy outside the classroom

A telling insight gained from the learnersrsquo in-home L1 interviews suggests

that for both these learners the socialization into literacy events in the

classroom lead to increased participation in literacy outside the classroom

In the interviews conducted with each learner before the start of the mSSR

treatment when asked what and how much they read in English for

pleasure Abby indicated that she read student picture books for ninety

minutes a week Eduardo reported reading newspapers for thirty minutes

a week In interviews conducted in June of 2004 after the learnersrsquo

completed their participation in the mSSR Abby reported reading

newspapers and books for 7 hours a week and Eduardo newspapers and

magazines for 2 hours a week Along with the development of interactive

practices in classroom literacy events highlighted in this paper these findings

show a remarkable increase in these learnersrsquo engagement with literacy

outside the classroom and evidence of their emerging identities as individuals

literate in English

Figure 3 Part of Abbyrsquos reading log from the third term of the mSSR

396 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

CONCLUSIONS

The findings uncovered in this study show two learnersrsquo development of

interactional competence through their socialization into classroom literacy

events This socialization occurred through the learnersrsquo engagement in

discursive practices in repeated literacy events which were part of a modified

sustained silent reading program The discursive practices for the literacy

events occurred within the context of the entire classroom community of

practice (Wenger 1998) and afforded learners the opportunities to move from

peripheral to more full participation in English literacy This community of

practice included (1) the teachers who provided instructions and support for

the activities through explicit instruction and modeling (2) learner peers

who also modeled appropriate interactive and language behavior and were

the interlocutors with whom some of the literacy practices were negotiated

and (3) the texts themselves which became a mediating object the third

part in a triadic dialogue for literacy (van Lier 2002) comprised of learnerndash

teacherndashtext or learnerndashlearnerndashtext

While neither learner had studied English formally before enrolling in

classes at the Lab School this study shows that Abby the learner with a high

school education from her home country was familiar with some of the

practices for literacy events including alphabetical filing book selection

and book assessment This research also showed that over the course of

three terms doing the mSSR activities Abby developed a wider range of

interactional practices for opening the dyadic interactions involved in the

story re-telling

Eduardo on the other hand began his participation in the mSSR activities

with much less experience with classroom literacy events having had just

two years of education in his home country The literacy events which were

part of the mSSR afforded Eduardo (van Lier 2000) the opportunity to

engage with literacy and by participating at first peripherally Eduardo

quickly understood and participated more fully in the book selection literacy

event Through interaction with his peers and the teacher in term two basic

literacy skills such as alphabetizing and filing his reading log developed

Though his teachersrsquo initial impressions suggested that he got very little

from his participation in the mSSR a review of his reading logs and his

participation in class show that Eduardo acquired knowledge of literacy

through a transformation (Lave and Wenger 1991) of his understanding of

and participation in literacy events

The development of these learnersrsquo interactional competence can be seen

in Eduardorsquos pursuit of understanding the practice of filing his reading log

which he accomplished through interaction with several members of the

classroom community This change in his participation in filing the logs

shows how learning is a situated practice accomplished through repeated

interactions with the entire classroom community In the analysis of the

story re-telling activities both Eduardo and Abby exhibited an increased

JOHN HELLERMANN 397

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

ability to use talk to initiate interaction by negotiating interlocutor

assignment and turn allocation to open their re-tellings Again the repeated

practice of the re-tellings afforded the learners opportunities to negotiate

a particular classroom and social action (opening a face-to-face interaction)

and both learners developed interactional skills that allowed them to

participate in the practice more fully

A quantitative analysis of standardized assessment measures30 for all the

learners at the Lab School shows that students who participated in the mSSR

method improved in their English language literacy skills to the same degree

as students who participated in classes which used a traditional skills-based

method for the teaching of reading (Reder et al forthcoming) This result

leads one to question what classroom practices might have contributed to

the increase in scores for each group Qualitative micro-analyses such as this

study are a first step toward understanding the discursive practices of the

mSSR classrooms which led to increases in those standardized tests of literacy

skills Also while we know that first-language education is a factor in

successful second language acquisition (Cole et al 1971) we know little

about how classroom interaction between experienced and inexperienced

learners differs In order to address this question this analysis used existing

social categorizations for participant selection (their degree of previous

education in their first language environment) and focused on two students

who would be categorized differently But the use of these macro-level

categorizations was not intended to reify the association of the characteristics

of each category to individual members Rather they were used to define

places from which to empirically examine the interactional language

behavior of members of each category This examination was done through

micro-analyses of the two studentsrsquo participation in the discursive practices

in mSSR literacy events that help L2 literacy develop The focus on the

day-to-day classroom interactions of the two learners allowed us to see

different paths to L2 literacy for learners who have different educational and

literacy experiences and uncover the complex interaction within a classroom

community of practice which results in the changes reported in traditional

language assessment measures

Final version received November 2005

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank the entire staff at the National Labsite for Adult ESOL at Portland State

University for their involvement in maintaining the Lab School as a place for adults to learn

English and as a state of the art research facility I would also like to thank Kathy Harris Sandra

Banke Reuel Kurzet Steve Reder Dominique Brillanceau and three anonymous readers for

their feedback on various versions of the paper

398 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

APPENDIX A

Some transcript conventions in conversation analysis (adapted from Schegloff

2000)

I Temporal and sequential relationships

[ Overlapping or simultaneous talk

frac14 lsquolatched utterancesrsquo no break or pause between utterances

(05) Numbers in parentheses indicate silence represented in tenths of a second

() A dot in parentheses indicates a lsquomicropausersquo

II Aspects of speech delivery including aspectsof intonation

period indicates a falling intonation contour not necessarily the end ofa sentence

question mark indicates rising intonation

a comma indicates lsquocontinuingrsquo intonation

Colons are used to indicate the prolongation or stretching of the soundjust preceding them The more colons the longer the stretching

- A hyphen after a word or part of a word indicates a cut-off or self-interruption word

Underlining is used to indicate some form of stress or emphasis either byincreased loudness or higher pitch The more underlining the greater theemphasis

The degree sign indicates that the talk following it was markedly quiet orsoft

The up and down arrows mark sharper rises or falls in pitch

45 The combination of lsquomore thanrsquo and lsquoless thanrsquo symbols indicates that thetalk between them is compressed or rushed

54 Used in the reverse order they can indicate that a stretch of talk ismarkedly slowed or drawn out

hhh Outbreath

hh Inbreath

(( )) Descriptions of events ((cough)) ((sniff)) ((telephone rings)) ((foot-steps))

(word) All or part of an utterance in parentheses indicates transcriber uncertainty

Creaky voice

NOTES

1 In order to get around the unwieldy

and theoretically-loaded terminology

for describing the use acquisition

and learning of a language that is

not the home or first language of the

participants of this study I will use

JOHN HELLERMANN 399

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

the abbreviation lsquoL2rsquo throughout the

paper to refer to a language that is

being attained through formal instruc-

tion For the students in this study

lsquoL2rsquo refers to English It may not be

however that English is these

studentsrsquo lsquosecondrsquo language as the

abbreviation implies

2 Students in the current study were in

lsquolevel Arsquo classes at the data collection

site SPL level 0ndash2

3 In Sustained Silent Reading

(McCracken 1971 Pilgreen 2000)

students are given a set time in the

classroom to read silently without

interruption by the teacher or other

students and without evaluation of

what is read and how it is read

The method was altered slightly at

the data collection site to meet the

needs of beginning adult language

learners and included activities

like post-reading re-telling activities

and studentsrsquo use of reading logs

to record their assessments of their

reading

4 The National Labsite for Adult ESOL

at Portland State University is sup-

ported in part by grant R309B6002

from the Institute for Education

Science US Dept of Education to

the National Center for the Study of

Adult Learning and Literacy The

Labsite is a partnership between

Portland State University and Portland

Community College The school

and research facilities are housed at

Portland State while the registration

curriculum and teachers of the

ESL students are from Portland

Community College

5 One reviewer asked about the inabil-

ity to see learnersrsquo eye gaze with

cameras embedded in the ceiling

While this is a problem when

students are sitting directly under

the two mobile cameras which

follow students wearing the wireless

microphones most often students

are sitting in a position where

studentsrsquo faces can be seen quite

directly For details of the data

collection see Reder et al (2003)

6 The Labsite Student Study (LSS)

conducts in-home interviews with a

subset of students in the lab school

(70 per year) in their home lan-

guages over the course of four

years regardless of whether the

student remains in lab school classes

or not The primary purpose of

the LSS study is to understand

language use and literacy develop-

ment outside the classroom context

and factors which influence program

persistence

7 All names used in this study are

pseudonyms

8 The teacher had different types of

books on a cart that she wheeled into

the room every class period She took

books off the cart and spread them

out on desks at the back of the room

9 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoselectsbookclass1]

10 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardohelping]

11 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoshowing]

12 Sarah Ouellette helped with the

Spanish transcription and provided

the translation to English Transcrip-

tion conventions are included in

Appendix A lsquoTrsquo indicates the class-

room teacher in all transcripts

13 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoexplaining]

400 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

14 At the time of this excerpt Eduardo

was a novice in Rederrsquos (1987) third

mode of literacy engagement

technical still struggling with basic

technical issues like decoding English

language lexicon

15 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Abbyreading]

16 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Abbynotetaking]

17 The classroom teachers noted the

frustration of doing mSSR with

students who have very low first

language literacy because of her

inability to help students organize

their reading in instances like note

taking (Banke and Brillanceau 2004)

18 A literacy assessment test (BEST

Literacy) was administered in the

classroom in terms one and two of

the mSSR program While the scores

increased for each learner for

Eduardo the increase is not as great

as Abbyrsquos Eduardorsquos overall literacy

score went from 35 in term one

to 42 in term two which is an

increase of one student performance

level (from 3 to 4) Abbyrsquos scores

increased from 45 in term one to

56 in term two which indicates

a jump from student performance

level 4 to 6 For information

on characteristics of student language

abilities at different student perfor-

mance levels (SPLs) see pp 5ndash6 of

wwwcalorgcaelaesl_resources

Part4-5pdf

19 One of the pedagogical advantages of

doing a dyadic re-telling in a lan-

guage classroom is that even if one

student doesnrsquot understand the

instructions for the task in an activity

like the mSSR the peerrsquos act of

posture shift moving a book into

a common space and looking

toward the partner strongly invite

collaboration in some interaction and

it is collaboration that is perhaps

the most important aspect of the

re-telling activity (Pilgreen 2000)

especially for language learners

20 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoopening1]

21 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoopening2]

22 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoorientsstorytelling]

23 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Abbyopening1]

24 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Abbypretasktalkterm2]

25 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Abbystartingretelling2]

26 While more empirical evidence is

warranted a provisional claim

can be mentioned here that such

re-telling activities and perhaps

in classroom pair activities in

general are organized with a two-

part move like that displayed in

(6) lsquoquery about readinessrsquo and

lsquoturn allocationrsquo before the first task

question

27 Notably absent from Abbyrsquos and

Eduardorsquos peer re-tellings are any

verbal greeting sequences Even

when one of the pair moves across

the room to sit with another student

Abby and Eduardo did not exchange

greetings with their partner for their

JOHN HELLERMANN 401

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

task This is something that other

students did as part of their openings

28 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoasksstudentforhelpfiling]

29 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoasksaboutfiling]

30 The assessment measures were the

BEST Plus and the Peabody Picture

Vocabulary tests

REFERENCES

Atkinson J M and J C Heritage 1984

Structures of Social Action Studies in Conversation

Analysis Cambridge Cambridge University Press

August G 2001 The Road to Second Language

Reading How do we get there Unpublished

PhD Dissertation City University of New York

New York

Banke S and D Brillanceu 2004 lsquoLiving

in Interventionrsquo Unpublished manuscript

Barton D (2001) lsquoDirections for literacy

research Analysing language and social practices

in a textually mediated worldrsquo Language and

Education 152ndash3 92ndash104

Bernhardt E B and M L Kamil 1995 lsquoInter-

preting relationships between L1 and L2 reading

Consolidating the linguistic threshold and the

linguistic interdependence hypothesesrsquo Applied

Linguistics 161 15ndash34

Bourdieu P 1991 Language and Symbolic Power

Cambridge MA Harvard University Press

Brandt D 1990 Literacy as Involvement The Acts

of Writers Readers and Texts Carbondale IL

Southern Illinois University Press

ButtonG andNCasey1984 lsquoGenerating topics

The use of topic initial elicitorsrsquo in J M Atkinson

and J C Heritage (eds) Structures of Social Action

Studies in Conversation Analysis Cambridge

Cambridge University Press

Canale M and M Swain 1980 lsquoTheoretical

bases of communicative approaches to second

language teaching and testingrsquoApplied Linguistics

1 1ndash47

Carrell P L 1991 lsquoSecond language reading

Reading ability or language proficiencyrsquo Applied

Linguistics 122 159ndash79

Chow P and C Chou 2000 Evaluating

Sustained Silent Reading in Reading Classes [Web]

I-TESL-J Available httpitesljorgArticlesChow-

mSSRhtml

Cole M J Gay J A Glick and D W Sharp

1971 The Cultural Context of Learning and Think-

ing An Exploration in Experimental Anthropology

New York Basic Books

Couper-Kuhlen E andMSelting 1996 Prosody

in Conversation Interactional Studies Cambridge

Cambridge University Press

Duff P 2002 lsquoThe discursive co-construction

of knowledge identity and difference An

ethnography of communication in the high

school mainstreamrsquo Applied Linguistics 233

289ndash322

Erickson F and J Schultz 1981 lsquoWhen is

a context Some issues and methods in the

analysis of social competencersquo in J Green and

C Wallat (eds) Ethnography and Language in

Educational Settings Norwood NJ Ablex

Felser C L Roberts T Marinis and R Gross

2003 lsquoThe processing of ambiguous sentences by

first and second language learners of Englishrsquo

Applied Psycholinguistics 243 453ndash89

Garfinkel H 1967 Studies in Ethnomethodology

Englewood Cliffs NJ Prentice Hall

Gee J P 1990 Social Linguistics and Literacies

Ideology in Discourses London Falmer Press

Goffman E 1959 The Presentation of Self

in Everyday Life New York Anchor Books

Doubleday

Goffman E 1961 Encounters Two Studies in

the Sociology of Interaction Indianapolis Bobbs-

Merrill

Goody J1977 TheDomestication of the SavageMind

Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Grabe W and F L Stoller 1997 lsquoReading and

vocabulary development in a second language

A case studyrsquo in J Coady and T Huckin (eds)

Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition A

Rationale for Pedagogy Cambridge Cambridge

University Press

402 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

Gumperz J J 1982 Discourse Strategies

Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Habermas J1976 lsquoSome distinctions in universal

pragmatics A working paperrsquo Theory and Society

32 155ndash67

Hall J K 1993 lsquoThe role of oral practices in

the accomplishment of our everyday lives

The sociocultural dimension of interaction

with implications for the learning of

another languagersquo Applied Linguistics 142

145ndash66

Hall J K 1995 lsquo lsquolsquoAw man where you goinrsquorsquorsquo

Classroom interaction and the development

of L2 interactional competencersquo Issues in Applied

Linguistics 62 37ndash62

Hall JK1997 lsquoA consideration of SLA as a theory

of practice A response to Firth and Wagnerrsquo

Modern Language Journal 813 301ndash306

He A W and R Young 1998 lsquoLanguage

proficiency interviews A discourse approachrsquo in

R Young and A W He (eds) Talking and Testing

Discourse Approaches to the Assessment of Oral

Proficiency Amsterdam John Benjamins

Heath S B 1982 lsquoWhat no bedtime story means

Narrative skills at home and schoolrsquo Language

in Society 11 49ndash76

Heath S B 1983 Ways with Words Language

Life and Work in Communities and Classrooms

Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Hellermann J 2004 lsquoPractices for opening dyadic

interactionrsquo paper presented at the annual

conference of the American Association for

Applied Linguistics Portland OR

Hellermann J forthcoming lsquoThe development of

practices for action in the classroom diadic

interaction focus on task openingsrsquo Modern

Language Journal

Hood S and H Joyce 1995 lsquoReading in the

adult ESL curriculum and classroomrsquo Prospect

102 52ndash64

Hymes D 1974 Foundations in Sociolinguistics

An Ethnographic Approach Philadelphia

University of Pennsylvania Press

Kramsch C 1986 lsquoFrom language proficiency

to interactional competencersquo Modern Language

Journal 70 372ndash66

Kramsch C 2002 lsquoHow can we tell the dancer

from the dancersquo in C Kramsch (ed) Language

Acquisition and Language Socialization An ecological

approach London Continuum

Lave J and E Wenger 1991 Situated Learning

Legitimate Peripheral Participation Cambridge

Cambridge University Press

Lerner G H 1995 lsquoTurn design and the organiza-

tion of participation in instructional activitiesrsquo

Discourse Processes 19 111ndash31

MacBethD2003 lsquoHugh MehanrsquosLearning Lessons

reconsidered On the differences between the

naturalistic and critical analysis of classroom

discoursersquo American Educational Research Journal

401 239ndash80

McCraken R A 1971 lsquoInitiating sustained silent

readingrsquo Journal of Reading 148 521ndash4 582ndash3

McDermott R and D Roth 1978 lsquoThe social

organization of behavior Interactional

approachesrsquo Annual Review of Anthropology 7

321ndash45

Markee N 2000 Conversation Analysis Marwah

NJ Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

Ochs E and B Schieffelin 1979 Developmental

Pragmatics New York Academic Press

Ochs E E A Schegloff and S A Thompson

1996 Interaction and Grammar Cambridge

Cambridge University Press

Ong W J 1982 Orality and Literacy The Technolo-

gizing of the Word London Routledge

Palacios I G 2002 An ESLLiteracy Center

A qualitative study of perspectives and practices

of immigrant adults and literacy facilitators

Unpublished PhD Dissertation Indiana

University Pennsylvania Indiana PA

Pilgreen J L 2000 The SSR Handbook How to

Organize and Manage a Sustained Silent Reading

Program Portsmouth NH BoyntonCook

Pulido D 2003 lsquoModeling the role of second

language proficiency and topic familiarity

in second language incidental vocabulary

acquisition through readingrsquo Language Learning

532 233ndash84

Reder S 1987 lsquoComparative aspects of functional

literacy development Three ethnic American

communitiesrsquo in D Wagner (ed) The Future

of Literacy in a Changing World Oxford Pergamon

Press

Reder S 1994 lsquoPractice engagement theory

A sociocultural approach to literacy across

languages and culturersquo in B M Ferdman

R M Weber and A G Ramırez (eds) Literacy

Across Languages and Cultures Albany NY State

University of New York Press

Reder S and E Davila (2005) lsquoContext

and literacy practicesrsquo Annual Review of Applied

Linguistics 25 170ndash87

Reder S K A Harris and K Setzler 2003

lsquoA multimedia adult learner corpusrsquo TESOL

Quarterly 373 546ndash57

JOHN HELLERMANN 403

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

Reder S K A Harris R Kurzet

D Brillanceau S Banke and JHellermann

forthcoming Using a modified Sustained Silent

Reading for low-level adult ESOL students

Boston National Center for the Study of Adult

Learning and Literacy

Sacks H E A Schegloff and G Jefferson

1974 lsquoA simplest systematics for the organiza-

tion of turn-taking for conversationsrsquo Language

504 696ndash735

Sagarra N 2000 The longitudinal role of working

memory on adult acquisition of L2 grammar

Unpublished PhD Dissertation University of

Illinois Urbana-Champaign

Schegloff E A 1968 lsquoSequencing in conversa-

tional openingsrsquo American Anthropologist 70

1075ndash95

Schegloff E A 1980 lsquoPreliminaries to prelimin-

aries lsquolsquoCan I ask you a questionrsquorsquo rsquo Sociological

Inquiry 50 104ndash52

Schegloff E A 1998 lsquoReflections on studying

prosody in talk-in-interactionrsquo Language and

Speech 413ndash4 235ndash63

Schegloff E A 2000 lsquoOverlapping talk and the

organization of turn-making for conversationrsquo

Language in Society 291 1ndash63

Schegloff E A 2002 lsquoOpening sequencingrsquo

in J E Katz and M Aakhus (eds) Perpetual

Contact Mobile Communication Private Talk Public

Performance Cambridge Cambridge University

Press

Schegloff E A and H Sacks 1973 lsquoOpening up

closingsrsquo Semiotica 8 289ndash327

Schieffelin B B and Ochs E (1986) lsquoLanguage

socializationrsquo Annual Review of Anthropology 15

163ndash91

Scribner S and M Cole 1981 The Psychology of

Literacy Cambridge MA Harvard University

Press

Segalowitz N C Poulsen and M Komoda

1991 lsquoLower level components of reading skill in

higher level bilinguals Implications for reading

instructionrsquo AILA Review 8 15ndash30

Streeck J 1983 Social Order in Child Communica-

tion Amsterdam John Benjamins

Streeck J and S Mihus 2005 lsquoMicroethno-

graphy The study of practicesrsquo In K L Fitch

and R E Sanders (eds) The Handbook of

Language and Social Interaction Marwah NJ

Lawrence Erlbaum

Street B 1998 lsquoNew literacies in theory

and practice What are the implications for

language in educationrsquo Linguistics and Education

10 1ndash24

Street B V 2001 Literacy and Development

Ethnographic perspectives London Routledge

Tang H 1997 lsquoThe relationship between reading

comprehension processes in L1 and L2rsquo Reading

Psychology 183 249ndash301

Treville M C 1996 lsquoLexical learning and reading

in L2 at the beginner level The advantage of

cognatesrsquo The Canadian Modern Language Review

531 173ndash90

Van Lier L 2000 lsquoFrom input to affordance

Social-interactive learning from an ecological

perspectiversquo in J Lantolf (ed) Sociocultural

Theory and Second Language Learning Oxford

Oxford University Press

van Lier L 2002 lsquoAn ecological-semiotic

perspective on language and linguisticsrsquo in

C Kramsch (ed) Language Acquisition and

Language Socialization An ecological approach

London Continuum

Wenger J 1998 Communities of Practice Learning

Meaning and Identity Cambridge Cambridge

University Press

Yang J 2000 lsquoOrthographic effect on word

recognition by learners of Chinese as a Foreign

Languagersquo Journal of the Chinese Language

Teachers Association 352 1ndash18

YoungR1999 lsquoSociolinguistic approaches toSLArsquo

Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 19 105ndash32

Young R 2000 lsquoInteractional competence

Challenges for validityrsquo Paper presented at the

annual conference of the American Association

for Applied Linguistics Vancouver BC

Young R F 2002 lsquoDiscourse approaches to oral

language assessmentrsquo Annual Review of Applied

Linguistics 22 243ndash62

404 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

Page 15: Classroom Interactive Practices for Developing L2 Literacy: A Microethnographic Study of Two Beginning Adult Learners of English

13 Ab are you finished

14 An go (go ahead) please () where is () where is your story

After the teacher exhorts the learners (line 1) to begin their pair task

(the story re-telling) Abby announces the date and after Ana shifts her

posture toward Abby proposes the pair assignment (line 8) Since the

learners sit at desks in pairs the pair assignment is somewhat of a given so

Abbyrsquos turn in line 8 may also act as a proposal for turn allocation If

interlocutor assignment is relatively self-evident the turn lsquoI talk to yoursquo is at

least a move to attempt to get Ana to enter the interaction and may be an

explicit move to tell Ana that she Abby is starting the activity There is no

uptake by Ana after this proposal and after a rather long pause (line 9) Abby

launches the task self-selecting to re-tell her story first When there is no

verbal uptake by Ana in line 11 after Abbyrsquos turn Abby orients to her

partnerrsquos preparation for the task and asks if Ana has finished (line 13) her

preparatory work (writing notes) Ana orients to Abbyrsquos question as a pre-

request to check whether Ana is ready to start her re-telling by encouraging

Abby to continue directly eliciting information about the location of her

story in line 14

The final excerpt from the third term of the mSSR illustrates Abbyrsquos further

development of interactional practices for opening the re-telling activity In (7)

while Inez is writing in her notebook Abby shifts her posture to Inez and asks

a question (line 2) which is preliminary to a question for the assigned activity

(7)

[5-9ndash03 B 206 24121 Term III week 7]25

((Teacherrsquos prompt for the interaction lsquoDo you like books about a story or

information what kind of book are you reading nowrsquo))

1 A ((shifts posture toward Inez))

2 I are you ready

3 (70) ((Inez is writing in her notebook))

4 I yeah sorry

5 (30)

6 I ((re-positions her posture to face Abby then gestures with

7 right hand pointing to Abby and back to herself))

8 (30)

9 A ((Abby looks at the board and reads the question)) what type

10 of a book are you reading now

11 ((Inez begins her re-telling))

While Abbyrsquos question in line 2 orients to the necessity of the completion of

the preparatory work for the re-telling literacy event it also works as part

of the opening for the re-telling task itself Inez finishes writing in her

notebook and orients to Abbyrsquos question as an opening to the assigned

JOHN HELLERMANN 391

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

re-telling task by answering Abbyrsquos question and apologizing for not starting

immediately (line 4) After Inez repositions her body and non-verbally

initiates a negotiation of turn allocation for the re-telling (lines 6 and 7)

Abby self-selects to elicit the re-telling from Inez by reading one of the

teacherrsquos prompts from the board (lines 9ndash10)

Abbyrsquos socialization to the mSSR re-telling activity can be seen in the

development of opening moves in the re-telling interactions with her peers

in Excerpts (5)ndash(7) The interaction from earlier in the mSSR (Excerpt (5))

shows Abby not actively initiating dyad assignment pre-task talk and task

launch In terms two and three the excerpts show her more actively

involved in starting these re-telling activities Her task-preliminary organiza-

tional talk and task launching later in the second and third terms of the

mSSR suggest that she is now more comfortable with the re-telling literacy

event and with the language as a whole

These excerpts of Abbyrsquos interaction in the re-telling literacy events show

two common moves by more advanced learners for opening dyadic

interactions (Hellermann 2004 forthcoming) the orientation to the previous

task completion (in Excerpt (6) lsquoare you finishedrsquo and Excerpt (7) lsquoare you

readyrsquo) and interlocutor selection (in Excerpt (6) lsquoI talk to yoursquo) As other

research in conversation shows such moves for opening talk enable

participants to work out basic features of talk-in-interaction such as avoiding

simultaneous talk and ensuring that the talk about to happen is the start of

something new not from the previous topic (Button and Casey 1984)26

The interactions by Abby and Eduardo in the re-telling literacy events also

show evidence for the learnersrsquo development of interactional competence

through their socialization into literacy events27 While both Abby and

Eduardo orient to the beginnings of the re-telling events creating spaces for

appropriate mutual participation for the event from the start of the mSSR

we see evidence for a change in their participation in the re-telling events

over the course of the three terms of the mSSR Eduardo uses a speech act

(lsquowhat is yourrsquo) in a more sophisticated modality (verbal rather than non-

verbal) to reciprocate an elicitation for a re-telling in his interaction with Jin

in Excerpt (4) In Abbyrsquos later interactions she explicitly orients to the

boundaries of the events by inquiring as to her partnersrsquo readiness to

participate (Excerpts (5) and (6)) and negotiates roles for participation

(Excerpt (6) lsquoI talk to yoursquo) and turn allocation (Excerpts (6) and (7))

Learner reading logs and filing of reading logs

A basic literacy skill activity that the teacher built into the mSSR classes was

having learners chart their reading activity in a reading log and then file their

own reading logs alphabetically in a file box at the end of every lesson In

the third class period of the first term some evidence of Eduardorsquos lack of

basic literacy skills appeared during the filing activity Near the end of this

class period the teacher asked learners to put their reading logs into a file

392 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

box organized by their first names Eduardo and another learner went to

the file box at the front of the room and stood by the box with their reading

logs looking for the appropriate place to put the logs After some time

Eduardo looked over to Carla (a learner from Brazil) and held out his right

hand palm up Carla oriented to this gesture as a request for help and got out

of her seat to help the two learners showing them the place in the files to

put their logs28 A bit later in this class period as the learners were packing

up to leave the class Eduardo solicited the teacherrsquos help in understanding

the name of the process of filing (Excerpt (8)) In so doing he is building on

the co-constructed filing practice with his classmate

(8)

[10-3ndash02 A 204 25149 Term I week 2]29

1 E want to ask (you something) ((walking to file box))

2 T yes you want to ask me something

3 E somebody ((puts hand in file box then touches head)) somebody

4 T file

5 E file file

6 T uh huh this is what () please file file you papers

In Exerpt (8) Eduardo is standing next to the teacher and utters a

pre-question (Schegloff 1980) in line 1 as he walks to the file box Once at

the box in line 3 he says lsquosomebodyrsquo a bare noun phrase which projects a

predicate Eduardo produces that predicate by modeling the relevant action

a hypothetical learner filing a paper This is followed by a gesture of his

hand to his head (which Eduardo commonly used to indicate that he did not

remember a particular word in English) and a repetition of the same bare

noun phrase In line 4 the teacher orients to Eduardorsquos talk as a request for

a word to name the action of putting the reading log into the box The fact

that this interaction is elicited by Eduardo shortly after his request for help

from Carla suggests that Carla may have helped him put the reading log

in the right place but did not give Eduardo the English word for that action

It is Eduardorsquos interactions with both a peer and with the teacher which

help him co-construct a name for this literacy event

While Eduardorsquos success in filing his reading log was sporadic throughout

the rest of this first term at the beginning of the next term on the first day

of class the teacher explained again that the reading logs were to be filed

alphabetically She explained and modeled this while standing next to the

file box to assist learners After explaining and modeling the procedure to the

class she reminded Eduardo again several minutes later lsquoyou need to put this

[reading log] away young manrsquo Several minutes after that Eduardo held up

his reading log showing it to the teacher as other learners were going to the

file box to file their logs She responded affirmatively and Eduardo went to

the file box The teacher said his name Eduardo said lsquoersquo (the first letter of his

JOHN HELLERMANN 393

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

first name) and put the reading log in the appropriate place in the file box

Having participated in one term of the mSSR and the literacy event of filling

in and filing reading logs (the term in which it was just noted that he was

given support by a peer and the teacher) the reinforcement of the rules the

modeling by the teacher as well as the personal reminder and reassurance

given by the teacher guided Eduardo into full participation in this literacy

event Later in this second term and in the third term as well Eduardo

was able to file the log independently By the beginning of the third term

(4103) he was also able to tell a newcomer to the class the purpose of the

reading log

Based on conversations with his teachers the evidence from his reading

logs and his interactions with other learners in the re-telling literacy event

Eduardo seemed to have developed a genuine interest in and enthusiasm for

reading In a more complex literacy skill involving the reading logs there is

evidence that Eduardo developed the ability to orally evaluate the books

he read adopting a term introduced by the teacher to describe several of

his books lsquoso-sorsquo In the later part of the first term of the mSSR Eduardorsquos

reading log was sporadically filled in and he wrote in Spanish for the

assessment portion of the log (Figure 1)

By the second term of the mSSR Eduardo was reading some books during

the silent reading period in class for four class periods in a row (an indication

of persistence and interest) and assessed one book (The Orange Grove) in his

reading log as lsquovery goodrsquo Through this assessment Eduardo displayed

part of a personal identity as a literate person in English But even by the

third term of the mSSR classes Eduardo did not elaborate on the assessments

of his books as the reading log prompted learners to do In a row at the top

of the reading log learners were to answer the question lsquoDid you like it

[the book]rsquo and then write why The teacher provided another written

prompt in the box that learners checked for a positive assessment lsquoYes

because rsquo In this place though Eduardo always indicated that he liked the

Figure 1 Part of Eduardorsquos reading log from the first term of the mSSR

394 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

books that he read he did not specify why he liked them giving evidence

of the limitations of his ability to evaluate his reading (as Figure 2 shows)

In contrast to Eduardo Abby did not have trouble filing her reading log

On the day the teacher explained to learners how they should file their

reading logs she used Abby as an example lsquoFor example Abby file your

paper under lsquolsquoArsquorsquo for Abbyrsquo In subsequent class periods Abby displayed

competence at filing her reading log in the appropriate slot in the file box

The content of Abbyrsquos reading logs also differed from Eduardorsquos in notable

ways Where Eduardo always checked the box marked lsquoeasyrsquo when

evaluating the level of difficulty of the books he read in most cases Abby

checked the lsquojust rightrsquo box and just a few times the box marked lsquoeasyrsquo for

the books she read Figure 3 shows one of her reading logs from the third

term of the mSSR

The notations in Abbyrsquos reading log in Figure 3 suggest that she was

choosing books that were appropriate to her ability (the box labeled

lsquojust rightrsquo is marked consistently) Also Abby was able to give some detail

(although limited) when prompted by the teacher for the reasons behind

her assessment of a book In response to the teacherrsquos written prompt on

the reading log lsquoyes I liked it because rsquo Abby had two responses she used

lsquoyes I did because interestingrsquo or lsquoyes I did because easyrsquo Abby indicated

Figure 2 Part of Eduardorsquos reading log from the third term of the mSSR

JOHN HELLERMANN 395

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

these more expanded assessments both in the second and third terms of the

mSSR classes

An important question for research on language socialization and

interactional competence in a classroom setting is to what degree these

processes result in increased engagement with literacy outside the classroom

A telling insight gained from the learnersrsquo in-home L1 interviews suggests

that for both these learners the socialization into literacy events in the

classroom lead to increased participation in literacy outside the classroom

In the interviews conducted with each learner before the start of the mSSR

treatment when asked what and how much they read in English for

pleasure Abby indicated that she read student picture books for ninety

minutes a week Eduardo reported reading newspapers for thirty minutes

a week In interviews conducted in June of 2004 after the learnersrsquo

completed their participation in the mSSR Abby reported reading

newspapers and books for 7 hours a week and Eduardo newspapers and

magazines for 2 hours a week Along with the development of interactive

practices in classroom literacy events highlighted in this paper these findings

show a remarkable increase in these learnersrsquo engagement with literacy

outside the classroom and evidence of their emerging identities as individuals

literate in English

Figure 3 Part of Abbyrsquos reading log from the third term of the mSSR

396 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

CONCLUSIONS

The findings uncovered in this study show two learnersrsquo development of

interactional competence through their socialization into classroom literacy

events This socialization occurred through the learnersrsquo engagement in

discursive practices in repeated literacy events which were part of a modified

sustained silent reading program The discursive practices for the literacy

events occurred within the context of the entire classroom community of

practice (Wenger 1998) and afforded learners the opportunities to move from

peripheral to more full participation in English literacy This community of

practice included (1) the teachers who provided instructions and support for

the activities through explicit instruction and modeling (2) learner peers

who also modeled appropriate interactive and language behavior and were

the interlocutors with whom some of the literacy practices were negotiated

and (3) the texts themselves which became a mediating object the third

part in a triadic dialogue for literacy (van Lier 2002) comprised of learnerndash

teacherndashtext or learnerndashlearnerndashtext

While neither learner had studied English formally before enrolling in

classes at the Lab School this study shows that Abby the learner with a high

school education from her home country was familiar with some of the

practices for literacy events including alphabetical filing book selection

and book assessment This research also showed that over the course of

three terms doing the mSSR activities Abby developed a wider range of

interactional practices for opening the dyadic interactions involved in the

story re-telling

Eduardo on the other hand began his participation in the mSSR activities

with much less experience with classroom literacy events having had just

two years of education in his home country The literacy events which were

part of the mSSR afforded Eduardo (van Lier 2000) the opportunity to

engage with literacy and by participating at first peripherally Eduardo

quickly understood and participated more fully in the book selection literacy

event Through interaction with his peers and the teacher in term two basic

literacy skills such as alphabetizing and filing his reading log developed

Though his teachersrsquo initial impressions suggested that he got very little

from his participation in the mSSR a review of his reading logs and his

participation in class show that Eduardo acquired knowledge of literacy

through a transformation (Lave and Wenger 1991) of his understanding of

and participation in literacy events

The development of these learnersrsquo interactional competence can be seen

in Eduardorsquos pursuit of understanding the practice of filing his reading log

which he accomplished through interaction with several members of the

classroom community This change in his participation in filing the logs

shows how learning is a situated practice accomplished through repeated

interactions with the entire classroom community In the analysis of the

story re-telling activities both Eduardo and Abby exhibited an increased

JOHN HELLERMANN 397

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

ability to use talk to initiate interaction by negotiating interlocutor

assignment and turn allocation to open their re-tellings Again the repeated

practice of the re-tellings afforded the learners opportunities to negotiate

a particular classroom and social action (opening a face-to-face interaction)

and both learners developed interactional skills that allowed them to

participate in the practice more fully

A quantitative analysis of standardized assessment measures30 for all the

learners at the Lab School shows that students who participated in the mSSR

method improved in their English language literacy skills to the same degree

as students who participated in classes which used a traditional skills-based

method for the teaching of reading (Reder et al forthcoming) This result

leads one to question what classroom practices might have contributed to

the increase in scores for each group Qualitative micro-analyses such as this

study are a first step toward understanding the discursive practices of the

mSSR classrooms which led to increases in those standardized tests of literacy

skills Also while we know that first-language education is a factor in

successful second language acquisition (Cole et al 1971) we know little

about how classroom interaction between experienced and inexperienced

learners differs In order to address this question this analysis used existing

social categorizations for participant selection (their degree of previous

education in their first language environment) and focused on two students

who would be categorized differently But the use of these macro-level

categorizations was not intended to reify the association of the characteristics

of each category to individual members Rather they were used to define

places from which to empirically examine the interactional language

behavior of members of each category This examination was done through

micro-analyses of the two studentsrsquo participation in the discursive practices

in mSSR literacy events that help L2 literacy develop The focus on the

day-to-day classroom interactions of the two learners allowed us to see

different paths to L2 literacy for learners who have different educational and

literacy experiences and uncover the complex interaction within a classroom

community of practice which results in the changes reported in traditional

language assessment measures

Final version received November 2005

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank the entire staff at the National Labsite for Adult ESOL at Portland State

University for their involvement in maintaining the Lab School as a place for adults to learn

English and as a state of the art research facility I would also like to thank Kathy Harris Sandra

Banke Reuel Kurzet Steve Reder Dominique Brillanceau and three anonymous readers for

their feedback on various versions of the paper

398 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

APPENDIX A

Some transcript conventions in conversation analysis (adapted from Schegloff

2000)

I Temporal and sequential relationships

[ Overlapping or simultaneous talk

frac14 lsquolatched utterancesrsquo no break or pause between utterances

(05) Numbers in parentheses indicate silence represented in tenths of a second

() A dot in parentheses indicates a lsquomicropausersquo

II Aspects of speech delivery including aspectsof intonation

period indicates a falling intonation contour not necessarily the end ofa sentence

question mark indicates rising intonation

a comma indicates lsquocontinuingrsquo intonation

Colons are used to indicate the prolongation or stretching of the soundjust preceding them The more colons the longer the stretching

- A hyphen after a word or part of a word indicates a cut-off or self-interruption word

Underlining is used to indicate some form of stress or emphasis either byincreased loudness or higher pitch The more underlining the greater theemphasis

The degree sign indicates that the talk following it was markedly quiet orsoft

The up and down arrows mark sharper rises or falls in pitch

45 The combination of lsquomore thanrsquo and lsquoless thanrsquo symbols indicates that thetalk between them is compressed or rushed

54 Used in the reverse order they can indicate that a stretch of talk ismarkedly slowed or drawn out

hhh Outbreath

hh Inbreath

(( )) Descriptions of events ((cough)) ((sniff)) ((telephone rings)) ((foot-steps))

(word) All or part of an utterance in parentheses indicates transcriber uncertainty

Creaky voice

NOTES

1 In order to get around the unwieldy

and theoretically-loaded terminology

for describing the use acquisition

and learning of a language that is

not the home or first language of the

participants of this study I will use

JOHN HELLERMANN 399

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

the abbreviation lsquoL2rsquo throughout the

paper to refer to a language that is

being attained through formal instruc-

tion For the students in this study

lsquoL2rsquo refers to English It may not be

however that English is these

studentsrsquo lsquosecondrsquo language as the

abbreviation implies

2 Students in the current study were in

lsquolevel Arsquo classes at the data collection

site SPL level 0ndash2

3 In Sustained Silent Reading

(McCracken 1971 Pilgreen 2000)

students are given a set time in the

classroom to read silently without

interruption by the teacher or other

students and without evaluation of

what is read and how it is read

The method was altered slightly at

the data collection site to meet the

needs of beginning adult language

learners and included activities

like post-reading re-telling activities

and studentsrsquo use of reading logs

to record their assessments of their

reading

4 The National Labsite for Adult ESOL

at Portland State University is sup-

ported in part by grant R309B6002

from the Institute for Education

Science US Dept of Education to

the National Center for the Study of

Adult Learning and Literacy The

Labsite is a partnership between

Portland State University and Portland

Community College The school

and research facilities are housed at

Portland State while the registration

curriculum and teachers of the

ESL students are from Portland

Community College

5 One reviewer asked about the inabil-

ity to see learnersrsquo eye gaze with

cameras embedded in the ceiling

While this is a problem when

students are sitting directly under

the two mobile cameras which

follow students wearing the wireless

microphones most often students

are sitting in a position where

studentsrsquo faces can be seen quite

directly For details of the data

collection see Reder et al (2003)

6 The Labsite Student Study (LSS)

conducts in-home interviews with a

subset of students in the lab school

(70 per year) in their home lan-

guages over the course of four

years regardless of whether the

student remains in lab school classes

or not The primary purpose of

the LSS study is to understand

language use and literacy develop-

ment outside the classroom context

and factors which influence program

persistence

7 All names used in this study are

pseudonyms

8 The teacher had different types of

books on a cart that she wheeled into

the room every class period She took

books off the cart and spread them

out on desks at the back of the room

9 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoselectsbookclass1]

10 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardohelping]

11 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoshowing]

12 Sarah Ouellette helped with the

Spanish transcription and provided

the translation to English Transcrip-

tion conventions are included in

Appendix A lsquoTrsquo indicates the class-

room teacher in all transcripts

13 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoexplaining]

400 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

14 At the time of this excerpt Eduardo

was a novice in Rederrsquos (1987) third

mode of literacy engagement

technical still struggling with basic

technical issues like decoding English

language lexicon

15 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Abbyreading]

16 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Abbynotetaking]

17 The classroom teachers noted the

frustration of doing mSSR with

students who have very low first

language literacy because of her

inability to help students organize

their reading in instances like note

taking (Banke and Brillanceau 2004)

18 A literacy assessment test (BEST

Literacy) was administered in the

classroom in terms one and two of

the mSSR program While the scores

increased for each learner for

Eduardo the increase is not as great

as Abbyrsquos Eduardorsquos overall literacy

score went from 35 in term one

to 42 in term two which is an

increase of one student performance

level (from 3 to 4) Abbyrsquos scores

increased from 45 in term one to

56 in term two which indicates

a jump from student performance

level 4 to 6 For information

on characteristics of student language

abilities at different student perfor-

mance levels (SPLs) see pp 5ndash6 of

wwwcalorgcaelaesl_resources

Part4-5pdf

19 One of the pedagogical advantages of

doing a dyadic re-telling in a lan-

guage classroom is that even if one

student doesnrsquot understand the

instructions for the task in an activity

like the mSSR the peerrsquos act of

posture shift moving a book into

a common space and looking

toward the partner strongly invite

collaboration in some interaction and

it is collaboration that is perhaps

the most important aspect of the

re-telling activity (Pilgreen 2000)

especially for language learners

20 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoopening1]

21 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoopening2]

22 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoorientsstorytelling]

23 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Abbyopening1]

24 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Abbypretasktalkterm2]

25 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Abbystartingretelling2]

26 While more empirical evidence is

warranted a provisional claim

can be mentioned here that such

re-telling activities and perhaps

in classroom pair activities in

general are organized with a two-

part move like that displayed in

(6) lsquoquery about readinessrsquo and

lsquoturn allocationrsquo before the first task

question

27 Notably absent from Abbyrsquos and

Eduardorsquos peer re-tellings are any

verbal greeting sequences Even

when one of the pair moves across

the room to sit with another student

Abby and Eduardo did not exchange

greetings with their partner for their

JOHN HELLERMANN 401

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

task This is something that other

students did as part of their openings

28 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoasksstudentforhelpfiling]

29 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoasksaboutfiling]

30 The assessment measures were the

BEST Plus and the Peabody Picture

Vocabulary tests

REFERENCES

Atkinson J M and J C Heritage 1984

Structures of Social Action Studies in Conversation

Analysis Cambridge Cambridge University Press

August G 2001 The Road to Second Language

Reading How do we get there Unpublished

PhD Dissertation City University of New York

New York

Banke S and D Brillanceu 2004 lsquoLiving

in Interventionrsquo Unpublished manuscript

Barton D (2001) lsquoDirections for literacy

research Analysing language and social practices

in a textually mediated worldrsquo Language and

Education 152ndash3 92ndash104

Bernhardt E B and M L Kamil 1995 lsquoInter-

preting relationships between L1 and L2 reading

Consolidating the linguistic threshold and the

linguistic interdependence hypothesesrsquo Applied

Linguistics 161 15ndash34

Bourdieu P 1991 Language and Symbolic Power

Cambridge MA Harvard University Press

Brandt D 1990 Literacy as Involvement The Acts

of Writers Readers and Texts Carbondale IL

Southern Illinois University Press

ButtonG andNCasey1984 lsquoGenerating topics

The use of topic initial elicitorsrsquo in J M Atkinson

and J C Heritage (eds) Structures of Social Action

Studies in Conversation Analysis Cambridge

Cambridge University Press

Canale M and M Swain 1980 lsquoTheoretical

bases of communicative approaches to second

language teaching and testingrsquoApplied Linguistics

1 1ndash47

Carrell P L 1991 lsquoSecond language reading

Reading ability or language proficiencyrsquo Applied

Linguistics 122 159ndash79

Chow P and C Chou 2000 Evaluating

Sustained Silent Reading in Reading Classes [Web]

I-TESL-J Available httpitesljorgArticlesChow-

mSSRhtml

Cole M J Gay J A Glick and D W Sharp

1971 The Cultural Context of Learning and Think-

ing An Exploration in Experimental Anthropology

New York Basic Books

Couper-Kuhlen E andMSelting 1996 Prosody

in Conversation Interactional Studies Cambridge

Cambridge University Press

Duff P 2002 lsquoThe discursive co-construction

of knowledge identity and difference An

ethnography of communication in the high

school mainstreamrsquo Applied Linguistics 233

289ndash322

Erickson F and J Schultz 1981 lsquoWhen is

a context Some issues and methods in the

analysis of social competencersquo in J Green and

C Wallat (eds) Ethnography and Language in

Educational Settings Norwood NJ Ablex

Felser C L Roberts T Marinis and R Gross

2003 lsquoThe processing of ambiguous sentences by

first and second language learners of Englishrsquo

Applied Psycholinguistics 243 453ndash89

Garfinkel H 1967 Studies in Ethnomethodology

Englewood Cliffs NJ Prentice Hall

Gee J P 1990 Social Linguistics and Literacies

Ideology in Discourses London Falmer Press

Goffman E 1959 The Presentation of Self

in Everyday Life New York Anchor Books

Doubleday

Goffman E 1961 Encounters Two Studies in

the Sociology of Interaction Indianapolis Bobbs-

Merrill

Goody J1977 TheDomestication of the SavageMind

Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Grabe W and F L Stoller 1997 lsquoReading and

vocabulary development in a second language

A case studyrsquo in J Coady and T Huckin (eds)

Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition A

Rationale for Pedagogy Cambridge Cambridge

University Press

402 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

Gumperz J J 1982 Discourse Strategies

Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Habermas J1976 lsquoSome distinctions in universal

pragmatics A working paperrsquo Theory and Society

32 155ndash67

Hall J K 1993 lsquoThe role of oral practices in

the accomplishment of our everyday lives

The sociocultural dimension of interaction

with implications for the learning of

another languagersquo Applied Linguistics 142

145ndash66

Hall J K 1995 lsquo lsquolsquoAw man where you goinrsquorsquorsquo

Classroom interaction and the development

of L2 interactional competencersquo Issues in Applied

Linguistics 62 37ndash62

Hall JK1997 lsquoA consideration of SLA as a theory

of practice A response to Firth and Wagnerrsquo

Modern Language Journal 813 301ndash306

He A W and R Young 1998 lsquoLanguage

proficiency interviews A discourse approachrsquo in

R Young and A W He (eds) Talking and Testing

Discourse Approaches to the Assessment of Oral

Proficiency Amsterdam John Benjamins

Heath S B 1982 lsquoWhat no bedtime story means

Narrative skills at home and schoolrsquo Language

in Society 11 49ndash76

Heath S B 1983 Ways with Words Language

Life and Work in Communities and Classrooms

Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Hellermann J 2004 lsquoPractices for opening dyadic

interactionrsquo paper presented at the annual

conference of the American Association for

Applied Linguistics Portland OR

Hellermann J forthcoming lsquoThe development of

practices for action in the classroom diadic

interaction focus on task openingsrsquo Modern

Language Journal

Hood S and H Joyce 1995 lsquoReading in the

adult ESL curriculum and classroomrsquo Prospect

102 52ndash64

Hymes D 1974 Foundations in Sociolinguistics

An Ethnographic Approach Philadelphia

University of Pennsylvania Press

Kramsch C 1986 lsquoFrom language proficiency

to interactional competencersquo Modern Language

Journal 70 372ndash66

Kramsch C 2002 lsquoHow can we tell the dancer

from the dancersquo in C Kramsch (ed) Language

Acquisition and Language Socialization An ecological

approach London Continuum

Lave J and E Wenger 1991 Situated Learning

Legitimate Peripheral Participation Cambridge

Cambridge University Press

Lerner G H 1995 lsquoTurn design and the organiza-

tion of participation in instructional activitiesrsquo

Discourse Processes 19 111ndash31

MacBethD2003 lsquoHugh MehanrsquosLearning Lessons

reconsidered On the differences between the

naturalistic and critical analysis of classroom

discoursersquo American Educational Research Journal

401 239ndash80

McCraken R A 1971 lsquoInitiating sustained silent

readingrsquo Journal of Reading 148 521ndash4 582ndash3

McDermott R and D Roth 1978 lsquoThe social

organization of behavior Interactional

approachesrsquo Annual Review of Anthropology 7

321ndash45

Markee N 2000 Conversation Analysis Marwah

NJ Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

Ochs E and B Schieffelin 1979 Developmental

Pragmatics New York Academic Press

Ochs E E A Schegloff and S A Thompson

1996 Interaction and Grammar Cambridge

Cambridge University Press

Ong W J 1982 Orality and Literacy The Technolo-

gizing of the Word London Routledge

Palacios I G 2002 An ESLLiteracy Center

A qualitative study of perspectives and practices

of immigrant adults and literacy facilitators

Unpublished PhD Dissertation Indiana

University Pennsylvania Indiana PA

Pilgreen J L 2000 The SSR Handbook How to

Organize and Manage a Sustained Silent Reading

Program Portsmouth NH BoyntonCook

Pulido D 2003 lsquoModeling the role of second

language proficiency and topic familiarity

in second language incidental vocabulary

acquisition through readingrsquo Language Learning

532 233ndash84

Reder S 1987 lsquoComparative aspects of functional

literacy development Three ethnic American

communitiesrsquo in D Wagner (ed) The Future

of Literacy in a Changing World Oxford Pergamon

Press

Reder S 1994 lsquoPractice engagement theory

A sociocultural approach to literacy across

languages and culturersquo in B M Ferdman

R M Weber and A G Ramırez (eds) Literacy

Across Languages and Cultures Albany NY State

University of New York Press

Reder S and E Davila (2005) lsquoContext

and literacy practicesrsquo Annual Review of Applied

Linguistics 25 170ndash87

Reder S K A Harris and K Setzler 2003

lsquoA multimedia adult learner corpusrsquo TESOL

Quarterly 373 546ndash57

JOHN HELLERMANN 403

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

Reder S K A Harris R Kurzet

D Brillanceau S Banke and JHellermann

forthcoming Using a modified Sustained Silent

Reading for low-level adult ESOL students

Boston National Center for the Study of Adult

Learning and Literacy

Sacks H E A Schegloff and G Jefferson

1974 lsquoA simplest systematics for the organiza-

tion of turn-taking for conversationsrsquo Language

504 696ndash735

Sagarra N 2000 The longitudinal role of working

memory on adult acquisition of L2 grammar

Unpublished PhD Dissertation University of

Illinois Urbana-Champaign

Schegloff E A 1968 lsquoSequencing in conversa-

tional openingsrsquo American Anthropologist 70

1075ndash95

Schegloff E A 1980 lsquoPreliminaries to prelimin-

aries lsquolsquoCan I ask you a questionrsquorsquo rsquo Sociological

Inquiry 50 104ndash52

Schegloff E A 1998 lsquoReflections on studying

prosody in talk-in-interactionrsquo Language and

Speech 413ndash4 235ndash63

Schegloff E A 2000 lsquoOverlapping talk and the

organization of turn-making for conversationrsquo

Language in Society 291 1ndash63

Schegloff E A 2002 lsquoOpening sequencingrsquo

in J E Katz and M Aakhus (eds) Perpetual

Contact Mobile Communication Private Talk Public

Performance Cambridge Cambridge University

Press

Schegloff E A and H Sacks 1973 lsquoOpening up

closingsrsquo Semiotica 8 289ndash327

Schieffelin B B and Ochs E (1986) lsquoLanguage

socializationrsquo Annual Review of Anthropology 15

163ndash91

Scribner S and M Cole 1981 The Psychology of

Literacy Cambridge MA Harvard University

Press

Segalowitz N C Poulsen and M Komoda

1991 lsquoLower level components of reading skill in

higher level bilinguals Implications for reading

instructionrsquo AILA Review 8 15ndash30

Streeck J 1983 Social Order in Child Communica-

tion Amsterdam John Benjamins

Streeck J and S Mihus 2005 lsquoMicroethno-

graphy The study of practicesrsquo In K L Fitch

and R E Sanders (eds) The Handbook of

Language and Social Interaction Marwah NJ

Lawrence Erlbaum

Street B 1998 lsquoNew literacies in theory

and practice What are the implications for

language in educationrsquo Linguistics and Education

10 1ndash24

Street B V 2001 Literacy and Development

Ethnographic perspectives London Routledge

Tang H 1997 lsquoThe relationship between reading

comprehension processes in L1 and L2rsquo Reading

Psychology 183 249ndash301

Treville M C 1996 lsquoLexical learning and reading

in L2 at the beginner level The advantage of

cognatesrsquo The Canadian Modern Language Review

531 173ndash90

Van Lier L 2000 lsquoFrom input to affordance

Social-interactive learning from an ecological

perspectiversquo in J Lantolf (ed) Sociocultural

Theory and Second Language Learning Oxford

Oxford University Press

van Lier L 2002 lsquoAn ecological-semiotic

perspective on language and linguisticsrsquo in

C Kramsch (ed) Language Acquisition and

Language Socialization An ecological approach

London Continuum

Wenger J 1998 Communities of Practice Learning

Meaning and Identity Cambridge Cambridge

University Press

Yang J 2000 lsquoOrthographic effect on word

recognition by learners of Chinese as a Foreign

Languagersquo Journal of the Chinese Language

Teachers Association 352 1ndash18

YoungR1999 lsquoSociolinguistic approaches toSLArsquo

Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 19 105ndash32

Young R 2000 lsquoInteractional competence

Challenges for validityrsquo Paper presented at the

annual conference of the American Association

for Applied Linguistics Vancouver BC

Young R F 2002 lsquoDiscourse approaches to oral

language assessmentrsquo Annual Review of Applied

Linguistics 22 243ndash62

404 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

Page 16: Classroom Interactive Practices for Developing L2 Literacy: A Microethnographic Study of Two Beginning Adult Learners of English

re-telling task by answering Abbyrsquos question and apologizing for not starting

immediately (line 4) After Inez repositions her body and non-verbally

initiates a negotiation of turn allocation for the re-telling (lines 6 and 7)

Abby self-selects to elicit the re-telling from Inez by reading one of the

teacherrsquos prompts from the board (lines 9ndash10)

Abbyrsquos socialization to the mSSR re-telling activity can be seen in the

development of opening moves in the re-telling interactions with her peers

in Excerpts (5)ndash(7) The interaction from earlier in the mSSR (Excerpt (5))

shows Abby not actively initiating dyad assignment pre-task talk and task

launch In terms two and three the excerpts show her more actively

involved in starting these re-telling activities Her task-preliminary organiza-

tional talk and task launching later in the second and third terms of the

mSSR suggest that she is now more comfortable with the re-telling literacy

event and with the language as a whole

These excerpts of Abbyrsquos interaction in the re-telling literacy events show

two common moves by more advanced learners for opening dyadic

interactions (Hellermann 2004 forthcoming) the orientation to the previous

task completion (in Excerpt (6) lsquoare you finishedrsquo and Excerpt (7) lsquoare you

readyrsquo) and interlocutor selection (in Excerpt (6) lsquoI talk to yoursquo) As other

research in conversation shows such moves for opening talk enable

participants to work out basic features of talk-in-interaction such as avoiding

simultaneous talk and ensuring that the talk about to happen is the start of

something new not from the previous topic (Button and Casey 1984)26

The interactions by Abby and Eduardo in the re-telling literacy events also

show evidence for the learnersrsquo development of interactional competence

through their socialization into literacy events27 While both Abby and

Eduardo orient to the beginnings of the re-telling events creating spaces for

appropriate mutual participation for the event from the start of the mSSR

we see evidence for a change in their participation in the re-telling events

over the course of the three terms of the mSSR Eduardo uses a speech act

(lsquowhat is yourrsquo) in a more sophisticated modality (verbal rather than non-

verbal) to reciprocate an elicitation for a re-telling in his interaction with Jin

in Excerpt (4) In Abbyrsquos later interactions she explicitly orients to the

boundaries of the events by inquiring as to her partnersrsquo readiness to

participate (Excerpts (5) and (6)) and negotiates roles for participation

(Excerpt (6) lsquoI talk to yoursquo) and turn allocation (Excerpts (6) and (7))

Learner reading logs and filing of reading logs

A basic literacy skill activity that the teacher built into the mSSR classes was

having learners chart their reading activity in a reading log and then file their

own reading logs alphabetically in a file box at the end of every lesson In

the third class period of the first term some evidence of Eduardorsquos lack of

basic literacy skills appeared during the filing activity Near the end of this

class period the teacher asked learners to put their reading logs into a file

392 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

box organized by their first names Eduardo and another learner went to

the file box at the front of the room and stood by the box with their reading

logs looking for the appropriate place to put the logs After some time

Eduardo looked over to Carla (a learner from Brazil) and held out his right

hand palm up Carla oriented to this gesture as a request for help and got out

of her seat to help the two learners showing them the place in the files to

put their logs28 A bit later in this class period as the learners were packing

up to leave the class Eduardo solicited the teacherrsquos help in understanding

the name of the process of filing (Excerpt (8)) In so doing he is building on

the co-constructed filing practice with his classmate

(8)

[10-3ndash02 A 204 25149 Term I week 2]29

1 E want to ask (you something) ((walking to file box))

2 T yes you want to ask me something

3 E somebody ((puts hand in file box then touches head)) somebody

4 T file

5 E file file

6 T uh huh this is what () please file file you papers

In Exerpt (8) Eduardo is standing next to the teacher and utters a

pre-question (Schegloff 1980) in line 1 as he walks to the file box Once at

the box in line 3 he says lsquosomebodyrsquo a bare noun phrase which projects a

predicate Eduardo produces that predicate by modeling the relevant action

a hypothetical learner filing a paper This is followed by a gesture of his

hand to his head (which Eduardo commonly used to indicate that he did not

remember a particular word in English) and a repetition of the same bare

noun phrase In line 4 the teacher orients to Eduardorsquos talk as a request for

a word to name the action of putting the reading log into the box The fact

that this interaction is elicited by Eduardo shortly after his request for help

from Carla suggests that Carla may have helped him put the reading log

in the right place but did not give Eduardo the English word for that action

It is Eduardorsquos interactions with both a peer and with the teacher which

help him co-construct a name for this literacy event

While Eduardorsquos success in filing his reading log was sporadic throughout

the rest of this first term at the beginning of the next term on the first day

of class the teacher explained again that the reading logs were to be filed

alphabetically She explained and modeled this while standing next to the

file box to assist learners After explaining and modeling the procedure to the

class she reminded Eduardo again several minutes later lsquoyou need to put this

[reading log] away young manrsquo Several minutes after that Eduardo held up

his reading log showing it to the teacher as other learners were going to the

file box to file their logs She responded affirmatively and Eduardo went to

the file box The teacher said his name Eduardo said lsquoersquo (the first letter of his

JOHN HELLERMANN 393

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

first name) and put the reading log in the appropriate place in the file box

Having participated in one term of the mSSR and the literacy event of filling

in and filing reading logs (the term in which it was just noted that he was

given support by a peer and the teacher) the reinforcement of the rules the

modeling by the teacher as well as the personal reminder and reassurance

given by the teacher guided Eduardo into full participation in this literacy

event Later in this second term and in the third term as well Eduardo

was able to file the log independently By the beginning of the third term

(4103) he was also able to tell a newcomer to the class the purpose of the

reading log

Based on conversations with his teachers the evidence from his reading

logs and his interactions with other learners in the re-telling literacy event

Eduardo seemed to have developed a genuine interest in and enthusiasm for

reading In a more complex literacy skill involving the reading logs there is

evidence that Eduardo developed the ability to orally evaluate the books

he read adopting a term introduced by the teacher to describe several of

his books lsquoso-sorsquo In the later part of the first term of the mSSR Eduardorsquos

reading log was sporadically filled in and he wrote in Spanish for the

assessment portion of the log (Figure 1)

By the second term of the mSSR Eduardo was reading some books during

the silent reading period in class for four class periods in a row (an indication

of persistence and interest) and assessed one book (The Orange Grove) in his

reading log as lsquovery goodrsquo Through this assessment Eduardo displayed

part of a personal identity as a literate person in English But even by the

third term of the mSSR classes Eduardo did not elaborate on the assessments

of his books as the reading log prompted learners to do In a row at the top

of the reading log learners were to answer the question lsquoDid you like it

[the book]rsquo and then write why The teacher provided another written

prompt in the box that learners checked for a positive assessment lsquoYes

because rsquo In this place though Eduardo always indicated that he liked the

Figure 1 Part of Eduardorsquos reading log from the first term of the mSSR

394 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

books that he read he did not specify why he liked them giving evidence

of the limitations of his ability to evaluate his reading (as Figure 2 shows)

In contrast to Eduardo Abby did not have trouble filing her reading log

On the day the teacher explained to learners how they should file their

reading logs she used Abby as an example lsquoFor example Abby file your

paper under lsquolsquoArsquorsquo for Abbyrsquo In subsequent class periods Abby displayed

competence at filing her reading log in the appropriate slot in the file box

The content of Abbyrsquos reading logs also differed from Eduardorsquos in notable

ways Where Eduardo always checked the box marked lsquoeasyrsquo when

evaluating the level of difficulty of the books he read in most cases Abby

checked the lsquojust rightrsquo box and just a few times the box marked lsquoeasyrsquo for

the books she read Figure 3 shows one of her reading logs from the third

term of the mSSR

The notations in Abbyrsquos reading log in Figure 3 suggest that she was

choosing books that were appropriate to her ability (the box labeled

lsquojust rightrsquo is marked consistently) Also Abby was able to give some detail

(although limited) when prompted by the teacher for the reasons behind

her assessment of a book In response to the teacherrsquos written prompt on

the reading log lsquoyes I liked it because rsquo Abby had two responses she used

lsquoyes I did because interestingrsquo or lsquoyes I did because easyrsquo Abby indicated

Figure 2 Part of Eduardorsquos reading log from the third term of the mSSR

JOHN HELLERMANN 395

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

these more expanded assessments both in the second and third terms of the

mSSR classes

An important question for research on language socialization and

interactional competence in a classroom setting is to what degree these

processes result in increased engagement with literacy outside the classroom

A telling insight gained from the learnersrsquo in-home L1 interviews suggests

that for both these learners the socialization into literacy events in the

classroom lead to increased participation in literacy outside the classroom

In the interviews conducted with each learner before the start of the mSSR

treatment when asked what and how much they read in English for

pleasure Abby indicated that she read student picture books for ninety

minutes a week Eduardo reported reading newspapers for thirty minutes

a week In interviews conducted in June of 2004 after the learnersrsquo

completed their participation in the mSSR Abby reported reading

newspapers and books for 7 hours a week and Eduardo newspapers and

magazines for 2 hours a week Along with the development of interactive

practices in classroom literacy events highlighted in this paper these findings

show a remarkable increase in these learnersrsquo engagement with literacy

outside the classroom and evidence of their emerging identities as individuals

literate in English

Figure 3 Part of Abbyrsquos reading log from the third term of the mSSR

396 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

CONCLUSIONS

The findings uncovered in this study show two learnersrsquo development of

interactional competence through their socialization into classroom literacy

events This socialization occurred through the learnersrsquo engagement in

discursive practices in repeated literacy events which were part of a modified

sustained silent reading program The discursive practices for the literacy

events occurred within the context of the entire classroom community of

practice (Wenger 1998) and afforded learners the opportunities to move from

peripheral to more full participation in English literacy This community of

practice included (1) the teachers who provided instructions and support for

the activities through explicit instruction and modeling (2) learner peers

who also modeled appropriate interactive and language behavior and were

the interlocutors with whom some of the literacy practices were negotiated

and (3) the texts themselves which became a mediating object the third

part in a triadic dialogue for literacy (van Lier 2002) comprised of learnerndash

teacherndashtext or learnerndashlearnerndashtext

While neither learner had studied English formally before enrolling in

classes at the Lab School this study shows that Abby the learner with a high

school education from her home country was familiar with some of the

practices for literacy events including alphabetical filing book selection

and book assessment This research also showed that over the course of

three terms doing the mSSR activities Abby developed a wider range of

interactional practices for opening the dyadic interactions involved in the

story re-telling

Eduardo on the other hand began his participation in the mSSR activities

with much less experience with classroom literacy events having had just

two years of education in his home country The literacy events which were

part of the mSSR afforded Eduardo (van Lier 2000) the opportunity to

engage with literacy and by participating at first peripherally Eduardo

quickly understood and participated more fully in the book selection literacy

event Through interaction with his peers and the teacher in term two basic

literacy skills such as alphabetizing and filing his reading log developed

Though his teachersrsquo initial impressions suggested that he got very little

from his participation in the mSSR a review of his reading logs and his

participation in class show that Eduardo acquired knowledge of literacy

through a transformation (Lave and Wenger 1991) of his understanding of

and participation in literacy events

The development of these learnersrsquo interactional competence can be seen

in Eduardorsquos pursuit of understanding the practice of filing his reading log

which he accomplished through interaction with several members of the

classroom community This change in his participation in filing the logs

shows how learning is a situated practice accomplished through repeated

interactions with the entire classroom community In the analysis of the

story re-telling activities both Eduardo and Abby exhibited an increased

JOHN HELLERMANN 397

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

ability to use talk to initiate interaction by negotiating interlocutor

assignment and turn allocation to open their re-tellings Again the repeated

practice of the re-tellings afforded the learners opportunities to negotiate

a particular classroom and social action (opening a face-to-face interaction)

and both learners developed interactional skills that allowed them to

participate in the practice more fully

A quantitative analysis of standardized assessment measures30 for all the

learners at the Lab School shows that students who participated in the mSSR

method improved in their English language literacy skills to the same degree

as students who participated in classes which used a traditional skills-based

method for the teaching of reading (Reder et al forthcoming) This result

leads one to question what classroom practices might have contributed to

the increase in scores for each group Qualitative micro-analyses such as this

study are a first step toward understanding the discursive practices of the

mSSR classrooms which led to increases in those standardized tests of literacy

skills Also while we know that first-language education is a factor in

successful second language acquisition (Cole et al 1971) we know little

about how classroom interaction between experienced and inexperienced

learners differs In order to address this question this analysis used existing

social categorizations for participant selection (their degree of previous

education in their first language environment) and focused on two students

who would be categorized differently But the use of these macro-level

categorizations was not intended to reify the association of the characteristics

of each category to individual members Rather they were used to define

places from which to empirically examine the interactional language

behavior of members of each category This examination was done through

micro-analyses of the two studentsrsquo participation in the discursive practices

in mSSR literacy events that help L2 literacy develop The focus on the

day-to-day classroom interactions of the two learners allowed us to see

different paths to L2 literacy for learners who have different educational and

literacy experiences and uncover the complex interaction within a classroom

community of practice which results in the changes reported in traditional

language assessment measures

Final version received November 2005

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank the entire staff at the National Labsite for Adult ESOL at Portland State

University for their involvement in maintaining the Lab School as a place for adults to learn

English and as a state of the art research facility I would also like to thank Kathy Harris Sandra

Banke Reuel Kurzet Steve Reder Dominique Brillanceau and three anonymous readers for

their feedback on various versions of the paper

398 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

APPENDIX A

Some transcript conventions in conversation analysis (adapted from Schegloff

2000)

I Temporal and sequential relationships

[ Overlapping or simultaneous talk

frac14 lsquolatched utterancesrsquo no break or pause between utterances

(05) Numbers in parentheses indicate silence represented in tenths of a second

() A dot in parentheses indicates a lsquomicropausersquo

II Aspects of speech delivery including aspectsof intonation

period indicates a falling intonation contour not necessarily the end ofa sentence

question mark indicates rising intonation

a comma indicates lsquocontinuingrsquo intonation

Colons are used to indicate the prolongation or stretching of the soundjust preceding them The more colons the longer the stretching

- A hyphen after a word or part of a word indicates a cut-off or self-interruption word

Underlining is used to indicate some form of stress or emphasis either byincreased loudness or higher pitch The more underlining the greater theemphasis

The degree sign indicates that the talk following it was markedly quiet orsoft

The up and down arrows mark sharper rises or falls in pitch

45 The combination of lsquomore thanrsquo and lsquoless thanrsquo symbols indicates that thetalk between them is compressed or rushed

54 Used in the reverse order they can indicate that a stretch of talk ismarkedly slowed or drawn out

hhh Outbreath

hh Inbreath

(( )) Descriptions of events ((cough)) ((sniff)) ((telephone rings)) ((foot-steps))

(word) All or part of an utterance in parentheses indicates transcriber uncertainty

Creaky voice

NOTES

1 In order to get around the unwieldy

and theoretically-loaded terminology

for describing the use acquisition

and learning of a language that is

not the home or first language of the

participants of this study I will use

JOHN HELLERMANN 399

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

the abbreviation lsquoL2rsquo throughout the

paper to refer to a language that is

being attained through formal instruc-

tion For the students in this study

lsquoL2rsquo refers to English It may not be

however that English is these

studentsrsquo lsquosecondrsquo language as the

abbreviation implies

2 Students in the current study were in

lsquolevel Arsquo classes at the data collection

site SPL level 0ndash2

3 In Sustained Silent Reading

(McCracken 1971 Pilgreen 2000)

students are given a set time in the

classroom to read silently without

interruption by the teacher or other

students and without evaluation of

what is read and how it is read

The method was altered slightly at

the data collection site to meet the

needs of beginning adult language

learners and included activities

like post-reading re-telling activities

and studentsrsquo use of reading logs

to record their assessments of their

reading

4 The National Labsite for Adult ESOL

at Portland State University is sup-

ported in part by grant R309B6002

from the Institute for Education

Science US Dept of Education to

the National Center for the Study of

Adult Learning and Literacy The

Labsite is a partnership between

Portland State University and Portland

Community College The school

and research facilities are housed at

Portland State while the registration

curriculum and teachers of the

ESL students are from Portland

Community College

5 One reviewer asked about the inabil-

ity to see learnersrsquo eye gaze with

cameras embedded in the ceiling

While this is a problem when

students are sitting directly under

the two mobile cameras which

follow students wearing the wireless

microphones most often students

are sitting in a position where

studentsrsquo faces can be seen quite

directly For details of the data

collection see Reder et al (2003)

6 The Labsite Student Study (LSS)

conducts in-home interviews with a

subset of students in the lab school

(70 per year) in their home lan-

guages over the course of four

years regardless of whether the

student remains in lab school classes

or not The primary purpose of

the LSS study is to understand

language use and literacy develop-

ment outside the classroom context

and factors which influence program

persistence

7 All names used in this study are

pseudonyms

8 The teacher had different types of

books on a cart that she wheeled into

the room every class period She took

books off the cart and spread them

out on desks at the back of the room

9 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoselectsbookclass1]

10 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardohelping]

11 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoshowing]

12 Sarah Ouellette helped with the

Spanish transcription and provided

the translation to English Transcrip-

tion conventions are included in

Appendix A lsquoTrsquo indicates the class-

room teacher in all transcripts

13 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoexplaining]

400 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

14 At the time of this excerpt Eduardo

was a novice in Rederrsquos (1987) third

mode of literacy engagement

technical still struggling with basic

technical issues like decoding English

language lexicon

15 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Abbyreading]

16 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Abbynotetaking]

17 The classroom teachers noted the

frustration of doing mSSR with

students who have very low first

language literacy because of her

inability to help students organize

their reading in instances like note

taking (Banke and Brillanceau 2004)

18 A literacy assessment test (BEST

Literacy) was administered in the

classroom in terms one and two of

the mSSR program While the scores

increased for each learner for

Eduardo the increase is not as great

as Abbyrsquos Eduardorsquos overall literacy

score went from 35 in term one

to 42 in term two which is an

increase of one student performance

level (from 3 to 4) Abbyrsquos scores

increased from 45 in term one to

56 in term two which indicates

a jump from student performance

level 4 to 6 For information

on characteristics of student language

abilities at different student perfor-

mance levels (SPLs) see pp 5ndash6 of

wwwcalorgcaelaesl_resources

Part4-5pdf

19 One of the pedagogical advantages of

doing a dyadic re-telling in a lan-

guage classroom is that even if one

student doesnrsquot understand the

instructions for the task in an activity

like the mSSR the peerrsquos act of

posture shift moving a book into

a common space and looking

toward the partner strongly invite

collaboration in some interaction and

it is collaboration that is perhaps

the most important aspect of the

re-telling activity (Pilgreen 2000)

especially for language learners

20 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoopening1]

21 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoopening2]

22 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoorientsstorytelling]

23 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Abbyopening1]

24 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Abbypretasktalkterm2]

25 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Abbystartingretelling2]

26 While more empirical evidence is

warranted a provisional claim

can be mentioned here that such

re-telling activities and perhaps

in classroom pair activities in

general are organized with a two-

part move like that displayed in

(6) lsquoquery about readinessrsquo and

lsquoturn allocationrsquo before the first task

question

27 Notably absent from Abbyrsquos and

Eduardorsquos peer re-tellings are any

verbal greeting sequences Even

when one of the pair moves across

the room to sit with another student

Abby and Eduardo did not exchange

greetings with their partner for their

JOHN HELLERMANN 401

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

task This is something that other

students did as part of their openings

28 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoasksstudentforhelpfiling]

29 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoasksaboutfiling]

30 The assessment measures were the

BEST Plus and the Peabody Picture

Vocabulary tests

REFERENCES

Atkinson J M and J C Heritage 1984

Structures of Social Action Studies in Conversation

Analysis Cambridge Cambridge University Press

August G 2001 The Road to Second Language

Reading How do we get there Unpublished

PhD Dissertation City University of New York

New York

Banke S and D Brillanceu 2004 lsquoLiving

in Interventionrsquo Unpublished manuscript

Barton D (2001) lsquoDirections for literacy

research Analysing language and social practices

in a textually mediated worldrsquo Language and

Education 152ndash3 92ndash104

Bernhardt E B and M L Kamil 1995 lsquoInter-

preting relationships between L1 and L2 reading

Consolidating the linguistic threshold and the

linguistic interdependence hypothesesrsquo Applied

Linguistics 161 15ndash34

Bourdieu P 1991 Language and Symbolic Power

Cambridge MA Harvard University Press

Brandt D 1990 Literacy as Involvement The Acts

of Writers Readers and Texts Carbondale IL

Southern Illinois University Press

ButtonG andNCasey1984 lsquoGenerating topics

The use of topic initial elicitorsrsquo in J M Atkinson

and J C Heritage (eds) Structures of Social Action

Studies in Conversation Analysis Cambridge

Cambridge University Press

Canale M and M Swain 1980 lsquoTheoretical

bases of communicative approaches to second

language teaching and testingrsquoApplied Linguistics

1 1ndash47

Carrell P L 1991 lsquoSecond language reading

Reading ability or language proficiencyrsquo Applied

Linguistics 122 159ndash79

Chow P and C Chou 2000 Evaluating

Sustained Silent Reading in Reading Classes [Web]

I-TESL-J Available httpitesljorgArticlesChow-

mSSRhtml

Cole M J Gay J A Glick and D W Sharp

1971 The Cultural Context of Learning and Think-

ing An Exploration in Experimental Anthropology

New York Basic Books

Couper-Kuhlen E andMSelting 1996 Prosody

in Conversation Interactional Studies Cambridge

Cambridge University Press

Duff P 2002 lsquoThe discursive co-construction

of knowledge identity and difference An

ethnography of communication in the high

school mainstreamrsquo Applied Linguistics 233

289ndash322

Erickson F and J Schultz 1981 lsquoWhen is

a context Some issues and methods in the

analysis of social competencersquo in J Green and

C Wallat (eds) Ethnography and Language in

Educational Settings Norwood NJ Ablex

Felser C L Roberts T Marinis and R Gross

2003 lsquoThe processing of ambiguous sentences by

first and second language learners of Englishrsquo

Applied Psycholinguistics 243 453ndash89

Garfinkel H 1967 Studies in Ethnomethodology

Englewood Cliffs NJ Prentice Hall

Gee J P 1990 Social Linguistics and Literacies

Ideology in Discourses London Falmer Press

Goffman E 1959 The Presentation of Self

in Everyday Life New York Anchor Books

Doubleday

Goffman E 1961 Encounters Two Studies in

the Sociology of Interaction Indianapolis Bobbs-

Merrill

Goody J1977 TheDomestication of the SavageMind

Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Grabe W and F L Stoller 1997 lsquoReading and

vocabulary development in a second language

A case studyrsquo in J Coady and T Huckin (eds)

Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition A

Rationale for Pedagogy Cambridge Cambridge

University Press

402 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

Gumperz J J 1982 Discourse Strategies

Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Habermas J1976 lsquoSome distinctions in universal

pragmatics A working paperrsquo Theory and Society

32 155ndash67

Hall J K 1993 lsquoThe role of oral practices in

the accomplishment of our everyday lives

The sociocultural dimension of interaction

with implications for the learning of

another languagersquo Applied Linguistics 142

145ndash66

Hall J K 1995 lsquo lsquolsquoAw man where you goinrsquorsquorsquo

Classroom interaction and the development

of L2 interactional competencersquo Issues in Applied

Linguistics 62 37ndash62

Hall JK1997 lsquoA consideration of SLA as a theory

of practice A response to Firth and Wagnerrsquo

Modern Language Journal 813 301ndash306

He A W and R Young 1998 lsquoLanguage

proficiency interviews A discourse approachrsquo in

R Young and A W He (eds) Talking and Testing

Discourse Approaches to the Assessment of Oral

Proficiency Amsterdam John Benjamins

Heath S B 1982 lsquoWhat no bedtime story means

Narrative skills at home and schoolrsquo Language

in Society 11 49ndash76

Heath S B 1983 Ways with Words Language

Life and Work in Communities and Classrooms

Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Hellermann J 2004 lsquoPractices for opening dyadic

interactionrsquo paper presented at the annual

conference of the American Association for

Applied Linguistics Portland OR

Hellermann J forthcoming lsquoThe development of

practices for action in the classroom diadic

interaction focus on task openingsrsquo Modern

Language Journal

Hood S and H Joyce 1995 lsquoReading in the

adult ESL curriculum and classroomrsquo Prospect

102 52ndash64

Hymes D 1974 Foundations in Sociolinguistics

An Ethnographic Approach Philadelphia

University of Pennsylvania Press

Kramsch C 1986 lsquoFrom language proficiency

to interactional competencersquo Modern Language

Journal 70 372ndash66

Kramsch C 2002 lsquoHow can we tell the dancer

from the dancersquo in C Kramsch (ed) Language

Acquisition and Language Socialization An ecological

approach London Continuum

Lave J and E Wenger 1991 Situated Learning

Legitimate Peripheral Participation Cambridge

Cambridge University Press

Lerner G H 1995 lsquoTurn design and the organiza-

tion of participation in instructional activitiesrsquo

Discourse Processes 19 111ndash31

MacBethD2003 lsquoHugh MehanrsquosLearning Lessons

reconsidered On the differences between the

naturalistic and critical analysis of classroom

discoursersquo American Educational Research Journal

401 239ndash80

McCraken R A 1971 lsquoInitiating sustained silent

readingrsquo Journal of Reading 148 521ndash4 582ndash3

McDermott R and D Roth 1978 lsquoThe social

organization of behavior Interactional

approachesrsquo Annual Review of Anthropology 7

321ndash45

Markee N 2000 Conversation Analysis Marwah

NJ Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

Ochs E and B Schieffelin 1979 Developmental

Pragmatics New York Academic Press

Ochs E E A Schegloff and S A Thompson

1996 Interaction and Grammar Cambridge

Cambridge University Press

Ong W J 1982 Orality and Literacy The Technolo-

gizing of the Word London Routledge

Palacios I G 2002 An ESLLiteracy Center

A qualitative study of perspectives and practices

of immigrant adults and literacy facilitators

Unpublished PhD Dissertation Indiana

University Pennsylvania Indiana PA

Pilgreen J L 2000 The SSR Handbook How to

Organize and Manage a Sustained Silent Reading

Program Portsmouth NH BoyntonCook

Pulido D 2003 lsquoModeling the role of second

language proficiency and topic familiarity

in second language incidental vocabulary

acquisition through readingrsquo Language Learning

532 233ndash84

Reder S 1987 lsquoComparative aspects of functional

literacy development Three ethnic American

communitiesrsquo in D Wagner (ed) The Future

of Literacy in a Changing World Oxford Pergamon

Press

Reder S 1994 lsquoPractice engagement theory

A sociocultural approach to literacy across

languages and culturersquo in B M Ferdman

R M Weber and A G Ramırez (eds) Literacy

Across Languages and Cultures Albany NY State

University of New York Press

Reder S and E Davila (2005) lsquoContext

and literacy practicesrsquo Annual Review of Applied

Linguistics 25 170ndash87

Reder S K A Harris and K Setzler 2003

lsquoA multimedia adult learner corpusrsquo TESOL

Quarterly 373 546ndash57

JOHN HELLERMANN 403

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

Reder S K A Harris R Kurzet

D Brillanceau S Banke and JHellermann

forthcoming Using a modified Sustained Silent

Reading for low-level adult ESOL students

Boston National Center for the Study of Adult

Learning and Literacy

Sacks H E A Schegloff and G Jefferson

1974 lsquoA simplest systematics for the organiza-

tion of turn-taking for conversationsrsquo Language

504 696ndash735

Sagarra N 2000 The longitudinal role of working

memory on adult acquisition of L2 grammar

Unpublished PhD Dissertation University of

Illinois Urbana-Champaign

Schegloff E A 1968 lsquoSequencing in conversa-

tional openingsrsquo American Anthropologist 70

1075ndash95

Schegloff E A 1980 lsquoPreliminaries to prelimin-

aries lsquolsquoCan I ask you a questionrsquorsquo rsquo Sociological

Inquiry 50 104ndash52

Schegloff E A 1998 lsquoReflections on studying

prosody in talk-in-interactionrsquo Language and

Speech 413ndash4 235ndash63

Schegloff E A 2000 lsquoOverlapping talk and the

organization of turn-making for conversationrsquo

Language in Society 291 1ndash63

Schegloff E A 2002 lsquoOpening sequencingrsquo

in J E Katz and M Aakhus (eds) Perpetual

Contact Mobile Communication Private Talk Public

Performance Cambridge Cambridge University

Press

Schegloff E A and H Sacks 1973 lsquoOpening up

closingsrsquo Semiotica 8 289ndash327

Schieffelin B B and Ochs E (1986) lsquoLanguage

socializationrsquo Annual Review of Anthropology 15

163ndash91

Scribner S and M Cole 1981 The Psychology of

Literacy Cambridge MA Harvard University

Press

Segalowitz N C Poulsen and M Komoda

1991 lsquoLower level components of reading skill in

higher level bilinguals Implications for reading

instructionrsquo AILA Review 8 15ndash30

Streeck J 1983 Social Order in Child Communica-

tion Amsterdam John Benjamins

Streeck J and S Mihus 2005 lsquoMicroethno-

graphy The study of practicesrsquo In K L Fitch

and R E Sanders (eds) The Handbook of

Language and Social Interaction Marwah NJ

Lawrence Erlbaum

Street B 1998 lsquoNew literacies in theory

and practice What are the implications for

language in educationrsquo Linguistics and Education

10 1ndash24

Street B V 2001 Literacy and Development

Ethnographic perspectives London Routledge

Tang H 1997 lsquoThe relationship between reading

comprehension processes in L1 and L2rsquo Reading

Psychology 183 249ndash301

Treville M C 1996 lsquoLexical learning and reading

in L2 at the beginner level The advantage of

cognatesrsquo The Canadian Modern Language Review

531 173ndash90

Van Lier L 2000 lsquoFrom input to affordance

Social-interactive learning from an ecological

perspectiversquo in J Lantolf (ed) Sociocultural

Theory and Second Language Learning Oxford

Oxford University Press

van Lier L 2002 lsquoAn ecological-semiotic

perspective on language and linguisticsrsquo in

C Kramsch (ed) Language Acquisition and

Language Socialization An ecological approach

London Continuum

Wenger J 1998 Communities of Practice Learning

Meaning and Identity Cambridge Cambridge

University Press

Yang J 2000 lsquoOrthographic effect on word

recognition by learners of Chinese as a Foreign

Languagersquo Journal of the Chinese Language

Teachers Association 352 1ndash18

YoungR1999 lsquoSociolinguistic approaches toSLArsquo

Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 19 105ndash32

Young R 2000 lsquoInteractional competence

Challenges for validityrsquo Paper presented at the

annual conference of the American Association

for Applied Linguistics Vancouver BC

Young R F 2002 lsquoDiscourse approaches to oral

language assessmentrsquo Annual Review of Applied

Linguistics 22 243ndash62

404 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

Page 17: Classroom Interactive Practices for Developing L2 Literacy: A Microethnographic Study of Two Beginning Adult Learners of English

box organized by their first names Eduardo and another learner went to

the file box at the front of the room and stood by the box with their reading

logs looking for the appropriate place to put the logs After some time

Eduardo looked over to Carla (a learner from Brazil) and held out his right

hand palm up Carla oriented to this gesture as a request for help and got out

of her seat to help the two learners showing them the place in the files to

put their logs28 A bit later in this class period as the learners were packing

up to leave the class Eduardo solicited the teacherrsquos help in understanding

the name of the process of filing (Excerpt (8)) In so doing he is building on

the co-constructed filing practice with his classmate

(8)

[10-3ndash02 A 204 25149 Term I week 2]29

1 E want to ask (you something) ((walking to file box))

2 T yes you want to ask me something

3 E somebody ((puts hand in file box then touches head)) somebody

4 T file

5 E file file

6 T uh huh this is what () please file file you papers

In Exerpt (8) Eduardo is standing next to the teacher and utters a

pre-question (Schegloff 1980) in line 1 as he walks to the file box Once at

the box in line 3 he says lsquosomebodyrsquo a bare noun phrase which projects a

predicate Eduardo produces that predicate by modeling the relevant action

a hypothetical learner filing a paper This is followed by a gesture of his

hand to his head (which Eduardo commonly used to indicate that he did not

remember a particular word in English) and a repetition of the same bare

noun phrase In line 4 the teacher orients to Eduardorsquos talk as a request for

a word to name the action of putting the reading log into the box The fact

that this interaction is elicited by Eduardo shortly after his request for help

from Carla suggests that Carla may have helped him put the reading log

in the right place but did not give Eduardo the English word for that action

It is Eduardorsquos interactions with both a peer and with the teacher which

help him co-construct a name for this literacy event

While Eduardorsquos success in filing his reading log was sporadic throughout

the rest of this first term at the beginning of the next term on the first day

of class the teacher explained again that the reading logs were to be filed

alphabetically She explained and modeled this while standing next to the

file box to assist learners After explaining and modeling the procedure to the

class she reminded Eduardo again several minutes later lsquoyou need to put this

[reading log] away young manrsquo Several minutes after that Eduardo held up

his reading log showing it to the teacher as other learners were going to the

file box to file their logs She responded affirmatively and Eduardo went to

the file box The teacher said his name Eduardo said lsquoersquo (the first letter of his

JOHN HELLERMANN 393

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

first name) and put the reading log in the appropriate place in the file box

Having participated in one term of the mSSR and the literacy event of filling

in and filing reading logs (the term in which it was just noted that he was

given support by a peer and the teacher) the reinforcement of the rules the

modeling by the teacher as well as the personal reminder and reassurance

given by the teacher guided Eduardo into full participation in this literacy

event Later in this second term and in the third term as well Eduardo

was able to file the log independently By the beginning of the third term

(4103) he was also able to tell a newcomer to the class the purpose of the

reading log

Based on conversations with his teachers the evidence from his reading

logs and his interactions with other learners in the re-telling literacy event

Eduardo seemed to have developed a genuine interest in and enthusiasm for

reading In a more complex literacy skill involving the reading logs there is

evidence that Eduardo developed the ability to orally evaluate the books

he read adopting a term introduced by the teacher to describe several of

his books lsquoso-sorsquo In the later part of the first term of the mSSR Eduardorsquos

reading log was sporadically filled in and he wrote in Spanish for the

assessment portion of the log (Figure 1)

By the second term of the mSSR Eduardo was reading some books during

the silent reading period in class for four class periods in a row (an indication

of persistence and interest) and assessed one book (The Orange Grove) in his

reading log as lsquovery goodrsquo Through this assessment Eduardo displayed

part of a personal identity as a literate person in English But even by the

third term of the mSSR classes Eduardo did not elaborate on the assessments

of his books as the reading log prompted learners to do In a row at the top

of the reading log learners were to answer the question lsquoDid you like it

[the book]rsquo and then write why The teacher provided another written

prompt in the box that learners checked for a positive assessment lsquoYes

because rsquo In this place though Eduardo always indicated that he liked the

Figure 1 Part of Eduardorsquos reading log from the first term of the mSSR

394 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

books that he read he did not specify why he liked them giving evidence

of the limitations of his ability to evaluate his reading (as Figure 2 shows)

In contrast to Eduardo Abby did not have trouble filing her reading log

On the day the teacher explained to learners how they should file their

reading logs she used Abby as an example lsquoFor example Abby file your

paper under lsquolsquoArsquorsquo for Abbyrsquo In subsequent class periods Abby displayed

competence at filing her reading log in the appropriate slot in the file box

The content of Abbyrsquos reading logs also differed from Eduardorsquos in notable

ways Where Eduardo always checked the box marked lsquoeasyrsquo when

evaluating the level of difficulty of the books he read in most cases Abby

checked the lsquojust rightrsquo box and just a few times the box marked lsquoeasyrsquo for

the books she read Figure 3 shows one of her reading logs from the third

term of the mSSR

The notations in Abbyrsquos reading log in Figure 3 suggest that she was

choosing books that were appropriate to her ability (the box labeled

lsquojust rightrsquo is marked consistently) Also Abby was able to give some detail

(although limited) when prompted by the teacher for the reasons behind

her assessment of a book In response to the teacherrsquos written prompt on

the reading log lsquoyes I liked it because rsquo Abby had two responses she used

lsquoyes I did because interestingrsquo or lsquoyes I did because easyrsquo Abby indicated

Figure 2 Part of Eduardorsquos reading log from the third term of the mSSR

JOHN HELLERMANN 395

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

these more expanded assessments both in the second and third terms of the

mSSR classes

An important question for research on language socialization and

interactional competence in a classroom setting is to what degree these

processes result in increased engagement with literacy outside the classroom

A telling insight gained from the learnersrsquo in-home L1 interviews suggests

that for both these learners the socialization into literacy events in the

classroom lead to increased participation in literacy outside the classroom

In the interviews conducted with each learner before the start of the mSSR

treatment when asked what and how much they read in English for

pleasure Abby indicated that she read student picture books for ninety

minutes a week Eduardo reported reading newspapers for thirty minutes

a week In interviews conducted in June of 2004 after the learnersrsquo

completed their participation in the mSSR Abby reported reading

newspapers and books for 7 hours a week and Eduardo newspapers and

magazines for 2 hours a week Along with the development of interactive

practices in classroom literacy events highlighted in this paper these findings

show a remarkable increase in these learnersrsquo engagement with literacy

outside the classroom and evidence of their emerging identities as individuals

literate in English

Figure 3 Part of Abbyrsquos reading log from the third term of the mSSR

396 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

CONCLUSIONS

The findings uncovered in this study show two learnersrsquo development of

interactional competence through their socialization into classroom literacy

events This socialization occurred through the learnersrsquo engagement in

discursive practices in repeated literacy events which were part of a modified

sustained silent reading program The discursive practices for the literacy

events occurred within the context of the entire classroom community of

practice (Wenger 1998) and afforded learners the opportunities to move from

peripheral to more full participation in English literacy This community of

practice included (1) the teachers who provided instructions and support for

the activities through explicit instruction and modeling (2) learner peers

who also modeled appropriate interactive and language behavior and were

the interlocutors with whom some of the literacy practices were negotiated

and (3) the texts themselves which became a mediating object the third

part in a triadic dialogue for literacy (van Lier 2002) comprised of learnerndash

teacherndashtext or learnerndashlearnerndashtext

While neither learner had studied English formally before enrolling in

classes at the Lab School this study shows that Abby the learner with a high

school education from her home country was familiar with some of the

practices for literacy events including alphabetical filing book selection

and book assessment This research also showed that over the course of

three terms doing the mSSR activities Abby developed a wider range of

interactional practices for opening the dyadic interactions involved in the

story re-telling

Eduardo on the other hand began his participation in the mSSR activities

with much less experience with classroom literacy events having had just

two years of education in his home country The literacy events which were

part of the mSSR afforded Eduardo (van Lier 2000) the opportunity to

engage with literacy and by participating at first peripherally Eduardo

quickly understood and participated more fully in the book selection literacy

event Through interaction with his peers and the teacher in term two basic

literacy skills such as alphabetizing and filing his reading log developed

Though his teachersrsquo initial impressions suggested that he got very little

from his participation in the mSSR a review of his reading logs and his

participation in class show that Eduardo acquired knowledge of literacy

through a transformation (Lave and Wenger 1991) of his understanding of

and participation in literacy events

The development of these learnersrsquo interactional competence can be seen

in Eduardorsquos pursuit of understanding the practice of filing his reading log

which he accomplished through interaction with several members of the

classroom community This change in his participation in filing the logs

shows how learning is a situated practice accomplished through repeated

interactions with the entire classroom community In the analysis of the

story re-telling activities both Eduardo and Abby exhibited an increased

JOHN HELLERMANN 397

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

ability to use talk to initiate interaction by negotiating interlocutor

assignment and turn allocation to open their re-tellings Again the repeated

practice of the re-tellings afforded the learners opportunities to negotiate

a particular classroom and social action (opening a face-to-face interaction)

and both learners developed interactional skills that allowed them to

participate in the practice more fully

A quantitative analysis of standardized assessment measures30 for all the

learners at the Lab School shows that students who participated in the mSSR

method improved in their English language literacy skills to the same degree

as students who participated in classes which used a traditional skills-based

method for the teaching of reading (Reder et al forthcoming) This result

leads one to question what classroom practices might have contributed to

the increase in scores for each group Qualitative micro-analyses such as this

study are a first step toward understanding the discursive practices of the

mSSR classrooms which led to increases in those standardized tests of literacy

skills Also while we know that first-language education is a factor in

successful second language acquisition (Cole et al 1971) we know little

about how classroom interaction between experienced and inexperienced

learners differs In order to address this question this analysis used existing

social categorizations for participant selection (their degree of previous

education in their first language environment) and focused on two students

who would be categorized differently But the use of these macro-level

categorizations was not intended to reify the association of the characteristics

of each category to individual members Rather they were used to define

places from which to empirically examine the interactional language

behavior of members of each category This examination was done through

micro-analyses of the two studentsrsquo participation in the discursive practices

in mSSR literacy events that help L2 literacy develop The focus on the

day-to-day classroom interactions of the two learners allowed us to see

different paths to L2 literacy for learners who have different educational and

literacy experiences and uncover the complex interaction within a classroom

community of practice which results in the changes reported in traditional

language assessment measures

Final version received November 2005

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank the entire staff at the National Labsite for Adult ESOL at Portland State

University for their involvement in maintaining the Lab School as a place for adults to learn

English and as a state of the art research facility I would also like to thank Kathy Harris Sandra

Banke Reuel Kurzet Steve Reder Dominique Brillanceau and three anonymous readers for

their feedback on various versions of the paper

398 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

APPENDIX A

Some transcript conventions in conversation analysis (adapted from Schegloff

2000)

I Temporal and sequential relationships

[ Overlapping or simultaneous talk

frac14 lsquolatched utterancesrsquo no break or pause between utterances

(05) Numbers in parentheses indicate silence represented in tenths of a second

() A dot in parentheses indicates a lsquomicropausersquo

II Aspects of speech delivery including aspectsof intonation

period indicates a falling intonation contour not necessarily the end ofa sentence

question mark indicates rising intonation

a comma indicates lsquocontinuingrsquo intonation

Colons are used to indicate the prolongation or stretching of the soundjust preceding them The more colons the longer the stretching

- A hyphen after a word or part of a word indicates a cut-off or self-interruption word

Underlining is used to indicate some form of stress or emphasis either byincreased loudness or higher pitch The more underlining the greater theemphasis

The degree sign indicates that the talk following it was markedly quiet orsoft

The up and down arrows mark sharper rises or falls in pitch

45 The combination of lsquomore thanrsquo and lsquoless thanrsquo symbols indicates that thetalk between them is compressed or rushed

54 Used in the reverse order they can indicate that a stretch of talk ismarkedly slowed or drawn out

hhh Outbreath

hh Inbreath

(( )) Descriptions of events ((cough)) ((sniff)) ((telephone rings)) ((foot-steps))

(word) All or part of an utterance in parentheses indicates transcriber uncertainty

Creaky voice

NOTES

1 In order to get around the unwieldy

and theoretically-loaded terminology

for describing the use acquisition

and learning of a language that is

not the home or first language of the

participants of this study I will use

JOHN HELLERMANN 399

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

the abbreviation lsquoL2rsquo throughout the

paper to refer to a language that is

being attained through formal instruc-

tion For the students in this study

lsquoL2rsquo refers to English It may not be

however that English is these

studentsrsquo lsquosecondrsquo language as the

abbreviation implies

2 Students in the current study were in

lsquolevel Arsquo classes at the data collection

site SPL level 0ndash2

3 In Sustained Silent Reading

(McCracken 1971 Pilgreen 2000)

students are given a set time in the

classroom to read silently without

interruption by the teacher or other

students and without evaluation of

what is read and how it is read

The method was altered slightly at

the data collection site to meet the

needs of beginning adult language

learners and included activities

like post-reading re-telling activities

and studentsrsquo use of reading logs

to record their assessments of their

reading

4 The National Labsite for Adult ESOL

at Portland State University is sup-

ported in part by grant R309B6002

from the Institute for Education

Science US Dept of Education to

the National Center for the Study of

Adult Learning and Literacy The

Labsite is a partnership between

Portland State University and Portland

Community College The school

and research facilities are housed at

Portland State while the registration

curriculum and teachers of the

ESL students are from Portland

Community College

5 One reviewer asked about the inabil-

ity to see learnersrsquo eye gaze with

cameras embedded in the ceiling

While this is a problem when

students are sitting directly under

the two mobile cameras which

follow students wearing the wireless

microphones most often students

are sitting in a position where

studentsrsquo faces can be seen quite

directly For details of the data

collection see Reder et al (2003)

6 The Labsite Student Study (LSS)

conducts in-home interviews with a

subset of students in the lab school

(70 per year) in their home lan-

guages over the course of four

years regardless of whether the

student remains in lab school classes

or not The primary purpose of

the LSS study is to understand

language use and literacy develop-

ment outside the classroom context

and factors which influence program

persistence

7 All names used in this study are

pseudonyms

8 The teacher had different types of

books on a cart that she wheeled into

the room every class period She took

books off the cart and spread them

out on desks at the back of the room

9 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoselectsbookclass1]

10 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardohelping]

11 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoshowing]

12 Sarah Ouellette helped with the

Spanish transcription and provided

the translation to English Transcrip-

tion conventions are included in

Appendix A lsquoTrsquo indicates the class-

room teacher in all transcripts

13 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoexplaining]

400 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

14 At the time of this excerpt Eduardo

was a novice in Rederrsquos (1987) third

mode of literacy engagement

technical still struggling with basic

technical issues like decoding English

language lexicon

15 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Abbyreading]

16 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Abbynotetaking]

17 The classroom teachers noted the

frustration of doing mSSR with

students who have very low first

language literacy because of her

inability to help students organize

their reading in instances like note

taking (Banke and Brillanceau 2004)

18 A literacy assessment test (BEST

Literacy) was administered in the

classroom in terms one and two of

the mSSR program While the scores

increased for each learner for

Eduardo the increase is not as great

as Abbyrsquos Eduardorsquos overall literacy

score went from 35 in term one

to 42 in term two which is an

increase of one student performance

level (from 3 to 4) Abbyrsquos scores

increased from 45 in term one to

56 in term two which indicates

a jump from student performance

level 4 to 6 For information

on characteristics of student language

abilities at different student perfor-

mance levels (SPLs) see pp 5ndash6 of

wwwcalorgcaelaesl_resources

Part4-5pdf

19 One of the pedagogical advantages of

doing a dyadic re-telling in a lan-

guage classroom is that even if one

student doesnrsquot understand the

instructions for the task in an activity

like the mSSR the peerrsquos act of

posture shift moving a book into

a common space and looking

toward the partner strongly invite

collaboration in some interaction and

it is collaboration that is perhaps

the most important aspect of the

re-telling activity (Pilgreen 2000)

especially for language learners

20 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoopening1]

21 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoopening2]

22 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoorientsstorytelling]

23 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Abbyopening1]

24 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Abbypretasktalkterm2]

25 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Abbystartingretelling2]

26 While more empirical evidence is

warranted a provisional claim

can be mentioned here that such

re-telling activities and perhaps

in classroom pair activities in

general are organized with a two-

part move like that displayed in

(6) lsquoquery about readinessrsquo and

lsquoturn allocationrsquo before the first task

question

27 Notably absent from Abbyrsquos and

Eduardorsquos peer re-tellings are any

verbal greeting sequences Even

when one of the pair moves across

the room to sit with another student

Abby and Eduardo did not exchange

greetings with their partner for their

JOHN HELLERMANN 401

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

task This is something that other

students did as part of their openings

28 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoasksstudentforhelpfiling]

29 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoasksaboutfiling]

30 The assessment measures were the

BEST Plus and the Peabody Picture

Vocabulary tests

REFERENCES

Atkinson J M and J C Heritage 1984

Structures of Social Action Studies in Conversation

Analysis Cambridge Cambridge University Press

August G 2001 The Road to Second Language

Reading How do we get there Unpublished

PhD Dissertation City University of New York

New York

Banke S and D Brillanceu 2004 lsquoLiving

in Interventionrsquo Unpublished manuscript

Barton D (2001) lsquoDirections for literacy

research Analysing language and social practices

in a textually mediated worldrsquo Language and

Education 152ndash3 92ndash104

Bernhardt E B and M L Kamil 1995 lsquoInter-

preting relationships between L1 and L2 reading

Consolidating the linguistic threshold and the

linguistic interdependence hypothesesrsquo Applied

Linguistics 161 15ndash34

Bourdieu P 1991 Language and Symbolic Power

Cambridge MA Harvard University Press

Brandt D 1990 Literacy as Involvement The Acts

of Writers Readers and Texts Carbondale IL

Southern Illinois University Press

ButtonG andNCasey1984 lsquoGenerating topics

The use of topic initial elicitorsrsquo in J M Atkinson

and J C Heritage (eds) Structures of Social Action

Studies in Conversation Analysis Cambridge

Cambridge University Press

Canale M and M Swain 1980 lsquoTheoretical

bases of communicative approaches to second

language teaching and testingrsquoApplied Linguistics

1 1ndash47

Carrell P L 1991 lsquoSecond language reading

Reading ability or language proficiencyrsquo Applied

Linguistics 122 159ndash79

Chow P and C Chou 2000 Evaluating

Sustained Silent Reading in Reading Classes [Web]

I-TESL-J Available httpitesljorgArticlesChow-

mSSRhtml

Cole M J Gay J A Glick and D W Sharp

1971 The Cultural Context of Learning and Think-

ing An Exploration in Experimental Anthropology

New York Basic Books

Couper-Kuhlen E andMSelting 1996 Prosody

in Conversation Interactional Studies Cambridge

Cambridge University Press

Duff P 2002 lsquoThe discursive co-construction

of knowledge identity and difference An

ethnography of communication in the high

school mainstreamrsquo Applied Linguistics 233

289ndash322

Erickson F and J Schultz 1981 lsquoWhen is

a context Some issues and methods in the

analysis of social competencersquo in J Green and

C Wallat (eds) Ethnography and Language in

Educational Settings Norwood NJ Ablex

Felser C L Roberts T Marinis and R Gross

2003 lsquoThe processing of ambiguous sentences by

first and second language learners of Englishrsquo

Applied Psycholinguistics 243 453ndash89

Garfinkel H 1967 Studies in Ethnomethodology

Englewood Cliffs NJ Prentice Hall

Gee J P 1990 Social Linguistics and Literacies

Ideology in Discourses London Falmer Press

Goffman E 1959 The Presentation of Self

in Everyday Life New York Anchor Books

Doubleday

Goffman E 1961 Encounters Two Studies in

the Sociology of Interaction Indianapolis Bobbs-

Merrill

Goody J1977 TheDomestication of the SavageMind

Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Grabe W and F L Stoller 1997 lsquoReading and

vocabulary development in a second language

A case studyrsquo in J Coady and T Huckin (eds)

Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition A

Rationale for Pedagogy Cambridge Cambridge

University Press

402 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

Gumperz J J 1982 Discourse Strategies

Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Habermas J1976 lsquoSome distinctions in universal

pragmatics A working paperrsquo Theory and Society

32 155ndash67

Hall J K 1993 lsquoThe role of oral practices in

the accomplishment of our everyday lives

The sociocultural dimension of interaction

with implications for the learning of

another languagersquo Applied Linguistics 142

145ndash66

Hall J K 1995 lsquo lsquolsquoAw man where you goinrsquorsquorsquo

Classroom interaction and the development

of L2 interactional competencersquo Issues in Applied

Linguistics 62 37ndash62

Hall JK1997 lsquoA consideration of SLA as a theory

of practice A response to Firth and Wagnerrsquo

Modern Language Journal 813 301ndash306

He A W and R Young 1998 lsquoLanguage

proficiency interviews A discourse approachrsquo in

R Young and A W He (eds) Talking and Testing

Discourse Approaches to the Assessment of Oral

Proficiency Amsterdam John Benjamins

Heath S B 1982 lsquoWhat no bedtime story means

Narrative skills at home and schoolrsquo Language

in Society 11 49ndash76

Heath S B 1983 Ways with Words Language

Life and Work in Communities and Classrooms

Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Hellermann J 2004 lsquoPractices for opening dyadic

interactionrsquo paper presented at the annual

conference of the American Association for

Applied Linguistics Portland OR

Hellermann J forthcoming lsquoThe development of

practices for action in the classroom diadic

interaction focus on task openingsrsquo Modern

Language Journal

Hood S and H Joyce 1995 lsquoReading in the

adult ESL curriculum and classroomrsquo Prospect

102 52ndash64

Hymes D 1974 Foundations in Sociolinguistics

An Ethnographic Approach Philadelphia

University of Pennsylvania Press

Kramsch C 1986 lsquoFrom language proficiency

to interactional competencersquo Modern Language

Journal 70 372ndash66

Kramsch C 2002 lsquoHow can we tell the dancer

from the dancersquo in C Kramsch (ed) Language

Acquisition and Language Socialization An ecological

approach London Continuum

Lave J and E Wenger 1991 Situated Learning

Legitimate Peripheral Participation Cambridge

Cambridge University Press

Lerner G H 1995 lsquoTurn design and the organiza-

tion of participation in instructional activitiesrsquo

Discourse Processes 19 111ndash31

MacBethD2003 lsquoHugh MehanrsquosLearning Lessons

reconsidered On the differences between the

naturalistic and critical analysis of classroom

discoursersquo American Educational Research Journal

401 239ndash80

McCraken R A 1971 lsquoInitiating sustained silent

readingrsquo Journal of Reading 148 521ndash4 582ndash3

McDermott R and D Roth 1978 lsquoThe social

organization of behavior Interactional

approachesrsquo Annual Review of Anthropology 7

321ndash45

Markee N 2000 Conversation Analysis Marwah

NJ Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

Ochs E and B Schieffelin 1979 Developmental

Pragmatics New York Academic Press

Ochs E E A Schegloff and S A Thompson

1996 Interaction and Grammar Cambridge

Cambridge University Press

Ong W J 1982 Orality and Literacy The Technolo-

gizing of the Word London Routledge

Palacios I G 2002 An ESLLiteracy Center

A qualitative study of perspectives and practices

of immigrant adults and literacy facilitators

Unpublished PhD Dissertation Indiana

University Pennsylvania Indiana PA

Pilgreen J L 2000 The SSR Handbook How to

Organize and Manage a Sustained Silent Reading

Program Portsmouth NH BoyntonCook

Pulido D 2003 lsquoModeling the role of second

language proficiency and topic familiarity

in second language incidental vocabulary

acquisition through readingrsquo Language Learning

532 233ndash84

Reder S 1987 lsquoComparative aspects of functional

literacy development Three ethnic American

communitiesrsquo in D Wagner (ed) The Future

of Literacy in a Changing World Oxford Pergamon

Press

Reder S 1994 lsquoPractice engagement theory

A sociocultural approach to literacy across

languages and culturersquo in B M Ferdman

R M Weber and A G Ramırez (eds) Literacy

Across Languages and Cultures Albany NY State

University of New York Press

Reder S and E Davila (2005) lsquoContext

and literacy practicesrsquo Annual Review of Applied

Linguistics 25 170ndash87

Reder S K A Harris and K Setzler 2003

lsquoA multimedia adult learner corpusrsquo TESOL

Quarterly 373 546ndash57

JOHN HELLERMANN 403

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

Reder S K A Harris R Kurzet

D Brillanceau S Banke and JHellermann

forthcoming Using a modified Sustained Silent

Reading for low-level adult ESOL students

Boston National Center for the Study of Adult

Learning and Literacy

Sacks H E A Schegloff and G Jefferson

1974 lsquoA simplest systematics for the organiza-

tion of turn-taking for conversationsrsquo Language

504 696ndash735

Sagarra N 2000 The longitudinal role of working

memory on adult acquisition of L2 grammar

Unpublished PhD Dissertation University of

Illinois Urbana-Champaign

Schegloff E A 1968 lsquoSequencing in conversa-

tional openingsrsquo American Anthropologist 70

1075ndash95

Schegloff E A 1980 lsquoPreliminaries to prelimin-

aries lsquolsquoCan I ask you a questionrsquorsquo rsquo Sociological

Inquiry 50 104ndash52

Schegloff E A 1998 lsquoReflections on studying

prosody in talk-in-interactionrsquo Language and

Speech 413ndash4 235ndash63

Schegloff E A 2000 lsquoOverlapping talk and the

organization of turn-making for conversationrsquo

Language in Society 291 1ndash63

Schegloff E A 2002 lsquoOpening sequencingrsquo

in J E Katz and M Aakhus (eds) Perpetual

Contact Mobile Communication Private Talk Public

Performance Cambridge Cambridge University

Press

Schegloff E A and H Sacks 1973 lsquoOpening up

closingsrsquo Semiotica 8 289ndash327

Schieffelin B B and Ochs E (1986) lsquoLanguage

socializationrsquo Annual Review of Anthropology 15

163ndash91

Scribner S and M Cole 1981 The Psychology of

Literacy Cambridge MA Harvard University

Press

Segalowitz N C Poulsen and M Komoda

1991 lsquoLower level components of reading skill in

higher level bilinguals Implications for reading

instructionrsquo AILA Review 8 15ndash30

Streeck J 1983 Social Order in Child Communica-

tion Amsterdam John Benjamins

Streeck J and S Mihus 2005 lsquoMicroethno-

graphy The study of practicesrsquo In K L Fitch

and R E Sanders (eds) The Handbook of

Language and Social Interaction Marwah NJ

Lawrence Erlbaum

Street B 1998 lsquoNew literacies in theory

and practice What are the implications for

language in educationrsquo Linguistics and Education

10 1ndash24

Street B V 2001 Literacy and Development

Ethnographic perspectives London Routledge

Tang H 1997 lsquoThe relationship between reading

comprehension processes in L1 and L2rsquo Reading

Psychology 183 249ndash301

Treville M C 1996 lsquoLexical learning and reading

in L2 at the beginner level The advantage of

cognatesrsquo The Canadian Modern Language Review

531 173ndash90

Van Lier L 2000 lsquoFrom input to affordance

Social-interactive learning from an ecological

perspectiversquo in J Lantolf (ed) Sociocultural

Theory and Second Language Learning Oxford

Oxford University Press

van Lier L 2002 lsquoAn ecological-semiotic

perspective on language and linguisticsrsquo in

C Kramsch (ed) Language Acquisition and

Language Socialization An ecological approach

London Continuum

Wenger J 1998 Communities of Practice Learning

Meaning and Identity Cambridge Cambridge

University Press

Yang J 2000 lsquoOrthographic effect on word

recognition by learners of Chinese as a Foreign

Languagersquo Journal of the Chinese Language

Teachers Association 352 1ndash18

YoungR1999 lsquoSociolinguistic approaches toSLArsquo

Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 19 105ndash32

Young R 2000 lsquoInteractional competence

Challenges for validityrsquo Paper presented at the

annual conference of the American Association

for Applied Linguistics Vancouver BC

Young R F 2002 lsquoDiscourse approaches to oral

language assessmentrsquo Annual Review of Applied

Linguistics 22 243ndash62

404 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

Page 18: Classroom Interactive Practices for Developing L2 Literacy: A Microethnographic Study of Two Beginning Adult Learners of English

first name) and put the reading log in the appropriate place in the file box

Having participated in one term of the mSSR and the literacy event of filling

in and filing reading logs (the term in which it was just noted that he was

given support by a peer and the teacher) the reinforcement of the rules the

modeling by the teacher as well as the personal reminder and reassurance

given by the teacher guided Eduardo into full participation in this literacy

event Later in this second term and in the third term as well Eduardo

was able to file the log independently By the beginning of the third term

(4103) he was also able to tell a newcomer to the class the purpose of the

reading log

Based on conversations with his teachers the evidence from his reading

logs and his interactions with other learners in the re-telling literacy event

Eduardo seemed to have developed a genuine interest in and enthusiasm for

reading In a more complex literacy skill involving the reading logs there is

evidence that Eduardo developed the ability to orally evaluate the books

he read adopting a term introduced by the teacher to describe several of

his books lsquoso-sorsquo In the later part of the first term of the mSSR Eduardorsquos

reading log was sporadically filled in and he wrote in Spanish for the

assessment portion of the log (Figure 1)

By the second term of the mSSR Eduardo was reading some books during

the silent reading period in class for four class periods in a row (an indication

of persistence and interest) and assessed one book (The Orange Grove) in his

reading log as lsquovery goodrsquo Through this assessment Eduardo displayed

part of a personal identity as a literate person in English But even by the

third term of the mSSR classes Eduardo did not elaborate on the assessments

of his books as the reading log prompted learners to do In a row at the top

of the reading log learners were to answer the question lsquoDid you like it

[the book]rsquo and then write why The teacher provided another written

prompt in the box that learners checked for a positive assessment lsquoYes

because rsquo In this place though Eduardo always indicated that he liked the

Figure 1 Part of Eduardorsquos reading log from the first term of the mSSR

394 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

books that he read he did not specify why he liked them giving evidence

of the limitations of his ability to evaluate his reading (as Figure 2 shows)

In contrast to Eduardo Abby did not have trouble filing her reading log

On the day the teacher explained to learners how they should file their

reading logs she used Abby as an example lsquoFor example Abby file your

paper under lsquolsquoArsquorsquo for Abbyrsquo In subsequent class periods Abby displayed

competence at filing her reading log in the appropriate slot in the file box

The content of Abbyrsquos reading logs also differed from Eduardorsquos in notable

ways Where Eduardo always checked the box marked lsquoeasyrsquo when

evaluating the level of difficulty of the books he read in most cases Abby

checked the lsquojust rightrsquo box and just a few times the box marked lsquoeasyrsquo for

the books she read Figure 3 shows one of her reading logs from the third

term of the mSSR

The notations in Abbyrsquos reading log in Figure 3 suggest that she was

choosing books that were appropriate to her ability (the box labeled

lsquojust rightrsquo is marked consistently) Also Abby was able to give some detail

(although limited) when prompted by the teacher for the reasons behind

her assessment of a book In response to the teacherrsquos written prompt on

the reading log lsquoyes I liked it because rsquo Abby had two responses she used

lsquoyes I did because interestingrsquo or lsquoyes I did because easyrsquo Abby indicated

Figure 2 Part of Eduardorsquos reading log from the third term of the mSSR

JOHN HELLERMANN 395

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

these more expanded assessments both in the second and third terms of the

mSSR classes

An important question for research on language socialization and

interactional competence in a classroom setting is to what degree these

processes result in increased engagement with literacy outside the classroom

A telling insight gained from the learnersrsquo in-home L1 interviews suggests

that for both these learners the socialization into literacy events in the

classroom lead to increased participation in literacy outside the classroom

In the interviews conducted with each learner before the start of the mSSR

treatment when asked what and how much they read in English for

pleasure Abby indicated that she read student picture books for ninety

minutes a week Eduardo reported reading newspapers for thirty minutes

a week In interviews conducted in June of 2004 after the learnersrsquo

completed their participation in the mSSR Abby reported reading

newspapers and books for 7 hours a week and Eduardo newspapers and

magazines for 2 hours a week Along with the development of interactive

practices in classroom literacy events highlighted in this paper these findings

show a remarkable increase in these learnersrsquo engagement with literacy

outside the classroom and evidence of their emerging identities as individuals

literate in English

Figure 3 Part of Abbyrsquos reading log from the third term of the mSSR

396 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

CONCLUSIONS

The findings uncovered in this study show two learnersrsquo development of

interactional competence through their socialization into classroom literacy

events This socialization occurred through the learnersrsquo engagement in

discursive practices in repeated literacy events which were part of a modified

sustained silent reading program The discursive practices for the literacy

events occurred within the context of the entire classroom community of

practice (Wenger 1998) and afforded learners the opportunities to move from

peripheral to more full participation in English literacy This community of

practice included (1) the teachers who provided instructions and support for

the activities through explicit instruction and modeling (2) learner peers

who also modeled appropriate interactive and language behavior and were

the interlocutors with whom some of the literacy practices were negotiated

and (3) the texts themselves which became a mediating object the third

part in a triadic dialogue for literacy (van Lier 2002) comprised of learnerndash

teacherndashtext or learnerndashlearnerndashtext

While neither learner had studied English formally before enrolling in

classes at the Lab School this study shows that Abby the learner with a high

school education from her home country was familiar with some of the

practices for literacy events including alphabetical filing book selection

and book assessment This research also showed that over the course of

three terms doing the mSSR activities Abby developed a wider range of

interactional practices for opening the dyadic interactions involved in the

story re-telling

Eduardo on the other hand began his participation in the mSSR activities

with much less experience with classroom literacy events having had just

two years of education in his home country The literacy events which were

part of the mSSR afforded Eduardo (van Lier 2000) the opportunity to

engage with literacy and by participating at first peripherally Eduardo

quickly understood and participated more fully in the book selection literacy

event Through interaction with his peers and the teacher in term two basic

literacy skills such as alphabetizing and filing his reading log developed

Though his teachersrsquo initial impressions suggested that he got very little

from his participation in the mSSR a review of his reading logs and his

participation in class show that Eduardo acquired knowledge of literacy

through a transformation (Lave and Wenger 1991) of his understanding of

and participation in literacy events

The development of these learnersrsquo interactional competence can be seen

in Eduardorsquos pursuit of understanding the practice of filing his reading log

which he accomplished through interaction with several members of the

classroom community This change in his participation in filing the logs

shows how learning is a situated practice accomplished through repeated

interactions with the entire classroom community In the analysis of the

story re-telling activities both Eduardo and Abby exhibited an increased

JOHN HELLERMANN 397

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

ability to use talk to initiate interaction by negotiating interlocutor

assignment and turn allocation to open their re-tellings Again the repeated

practice of the re-tellings afforded the learners opportunities to negotiate

a particular classroom and social action (opening a face-to-face interaction)

and both learners developed interactional skills that allowed them to

participate in the practice more fully

A quantitative analysis of standardized assessment measures30 for all the

learners at the Lab School shows that students who participated in the mSSR

method improved in their English language literacy skills to the same degree

as students who participated in classes which used a traditional skills-based

method for the teaching of reading (Reder et al forthcoming) This result

leads one to question what classroom practices might have contributed to

the increase in scores for each group Qualitative micro-analyses such as this

study are a first step toward understanding the discursive practices of the

mSSR classrooms which led to increases in those standardized tests of literacy

skills Also while we know that first-language education is a factor in

successful second language acquisition (Cole et al 1971) we know little

about how classroom interaction between experienced and inexperienced

learners differs In order to address this question this analysis used existing

social categorizations for participant selection (their degree of previous

education in their first language environment) and focused on two students

who would be categorized differently But the use of these macro-level

categorizations was not intended to reify the association of the characteristics

of each category to individual members Rather they were used to define

places from which to empirically examine the interactional language

behavior of members of each category This examination was done through

micro-analyses of the two studentsrsquo participation in the discursive practices

in mSSR literacy events that help L2 literacy develop The focus on the

day-to-day classroom interactions of the two learners allowed us to see

different paths to L2 literacy for learners who have different educational and

literacy experiences and uncover the complex interaction within a classroom

community of practice which results in the changes reported in traditional

language assessment measures

Final version received November 2005

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank the entire staff at the National Labsite for Adult ESOL at Portland State

University for their involvement in maintaining the Lab School as a place for adults to learn

English and as a state of the art research facility I would also like to thank Kathy Harris Sandra

Banke Reuel Kurzet Steve Reder Dominique Brillanceau and three anonymous readers for

their feedback on various versions of the paper

398 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

APPENDIX A

Some transcript conventions in conversation analysis (adapted from Schegloff

2000)

I Temporal and sequential relationships

[ Overlapping or simultaneous talk

frac14 lsquolatched utterancesrsquo no break or pause between utterances

(05) Numbers in parentheses indicate silence represented in tenths of a second

() A dot in parentheses indicates a lsquomicropausersquo

II Aspects of speech delivery including aspectsof intonation

period indicates a falling intonation contour not necessarily the end ofa sentence

question mark indicates rising intonation

a comma indicates lsquocontinuingrsquo intonation

Colons are used to indicate the prolongation or stretching of the soundjust preceding them The more colons the longer the stretching

- A hyphen after a word or part of a word indicates a cut-off or self-interruption word

Underlining is used to indicate some form of stress or emphasis either byincreased loudness or higher pitch The more underlining the greater theemphasis

The degree sign indicates that the talk following it was markedly quiet orsoft

The up and down arrows mark sharper rises or falls in pitch

45 The combination of lsquomore thanrsquo and lsquoless thanrsquo symbols indicates that thetalk between them is compressed or rushed

54 Used in the reverse order they can indicate that a stretch of talk ismarkedly slowed or drawn out

hhh Outbreath

hh Inbreath

(( )) Descriptions of events ((cough)) ((sniff)) ((telephone rings)) ((foot-steps))

(word) All or part of an utterance in parentheses indicates transcriber uncertainty

Creaky voice

NOTES

1 In order to get around the unwieldy

and theoretically-loaded terminology

for describing the use acquisition

and learning of a language that is

not the home or first language of the

participants of this study I will use

JOHN HELLERMANN 399

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

the abbreviation lsquoL2rsquo throughout the

paper to refer to a language that is

being attained through formal instruc-

tion For the students in this study

lsquoL2rsquo refers to English It may not be

however that English is these

studentsrsquo lsquosecondrsquo language as the

abbreviation implies

2 Students in the current study were in

lsquolevel Arsquo classes at the data collection

site SPL level 0ndash2

3 In Sustained Silent Reading

(McCracken 1971 Pilgreen 2000)

students are given a set time in the

classroom to read silently without

interruption by the teacher or other

students and without evaluation of

what is read and how it is read

The method was altered slightly at

the data collection site to meet the

needs of beginning adult language

learners and included activities

like post-reading re-telling activities

and studentsrsquo use of reading logs

to record their assessments of their

reading

4 The National Labsite for Adult ESOL

at Portland State University is sup-

ported in part by grant R309B6002

from the Institute for Education

Science US Dept of Education to

the National Center for the Study of

Adult Learning and Literacy The

Labsite is a partnership between

Portland State University and Portland

Community College The school

and research facilities are housed at

Portland State while the registration

curriculum and teachers of the

ESL students are from Portland

Community College

5 One reviewer asked about the inabil-

ity to see learnersrsquo eye gaze with

cameras embedded in the ceiling

While this is a problem when

students are sitting directly under

the two mobile cameras which

follow students wearing the wireless

microphones most often students

are sitting in a position where

studentsrsquo faces can be seen quite

directly For details of the data

collection see Reder et al (2003)

6 The Labsite Student Study (LSS)

conducts in-home interviews with a

subset of students in the lab school

(70 per year) in their home lan-

guages over the course of four

years regardless of whether the

student remains in lab school classes

or not The primary purpose of

the LSS study is to understand

language use and literacy develop-

ment outside the classroom context

and factors which influence program

persistence

7 All names used in this study are

pseudonyms

8 The teacher had different types of

books on a cart that she wheeled into

the room every class period She took

books off the cart and spread them

out on desks at the back of the room

9 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoselectsbookclass1]

10 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardohelping]

11 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoshowing]

12 Sarah Ouellette helped with the

Spanish transcription and provided

the translation to English Transcrip-

tion conventions are included in

Appendix A lsquoTrsquo indicates the class-

room teacher in all transcripts

13 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoexplaining]

400 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

14 At the time of this excerpt Eduardo

was a novice in Rederrsquos (1987) third

mode of literacy engagement

technical still struggling with basic

technical issues like decoding English

language lexicon

15 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Abbyreading]

16 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Abbynotetaking]

17 The classroom teachers noted the

frustration of doing mSSR with

students who have very low first

language literacy because of her

inability to help students organize

their reading in instances like note

taking (Banke and Brillanceau 2004)

18 A literacy assessment test (BEST

Literacy) was administered in the

classroom in terms one and two of

the mSSR program While the scores

increased for each learner for

Eduardo the increase is not as great

as Abbyrsquos Eduardorsquos overall literacy

score went from 35 in term one

to 42 in term two which is an

increase of one student performance

level (from 3 to 4) Abbyrsquos scores

increased from 45 in term one to

56 in term two which indicates

a jump from student performance

level 4 to 6 For information

on characteristics of student language

abilities at different student perfor-

mance levels (SPLs) see pp 5ndash6 of

wwwcalorgcaelaesl_resources

Part4-5pdf

19 One of the pedagogical advantages of

doing a dyadic re-telling in a lan-

guage classroom is that even if one

student doesnrsquot understand the

instructions for the task in an activity

like the mSSR the peerrsquos act of

posture shift moving a book into

a common space and looking

toward the partner strongly invite

collaboration in some interaction and

it is collaboration that is perhaps

the most important aspect of the

re-telling activity (Pilgreen 2000)

especially for language learners

20 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoopening1]

21 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoopening2]

22 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoorientsstorytelling]

23 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Abbyopening1]

24 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Abbypretasktalkterm2]

25 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Abbystartingretelling2]

26 While more empirical evidence is

warranted a provisional claim

can be mentioned here that such

re-telling activities and perhaps

in classroom pair activities in

general are organized with a two-

part move like that displayed in

(6) lsquoquery about readinessrsquo and

lsquoturn allocationrsquo before the first task

question

27 Notably absent from Abbyrsquos and

Eduardorsquos peer re-tellings are any

verbal greeting sequences Even

when one of the pair moves across

the room to sit with another student

Abby and Eduardo did not exchange

greetings with their partner for their

JOHN HELLERMANN 401

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

task This is something that other

students did as part of their openings

28 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoasksstudentforhelpfiling]

29 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoasksaboutfiling]

30 The assessment measures were the

BEST Plus and the Peabody Picture

Vocabulary tests

REFERENCES

Atkinson J M and J C Heritage 1984

Structures of Social Action Studies in Conversation

Analysis Cambridge Cambridge University Press

August G 2001 The Road to Second Language

Reading How do we get there Unpublished

PhD Dissertation City University of New York

New York

Banke S and D Brillanceu 2004 lsquoLiving

in Interventionrsquo Unpublished manuscript

Barton D (2001) lsquoDirections for literacy

research Analysing language and social practices

in a textually mediated worldrsquo Language and

Education 152ndash3 92ndash104

Bernhardt E B and M L Kamil 1995 lsquoInter-

preting relationships between L1 and L2 reading

Consolidating the linguistic threshold and the

linguistic interdependence hypothesesrsquo Applied

Linguistics 161 15ndash34

Bourdieu P 1991 Language and Symbolic Power

Cambridge MA Harvard University Press

Brandt D 1990 Literacy as Involvement The Acts

of Writers Readers and Texts Carbondale IL

Southern Illinois University Press

ButtonG andNCasey1984 lsquoGenerating topics

The use of topic initial elicitorsrsquo in J M Atkinson

and J C Heritage (eds) Structures of Social Action

Studies in Conversation Analysis Cambridge

Cambridge University Press

Canale M and M Swain 1980 lsquoTheoretical

bases of communicative approaches to second

language teaching and testingrsquoApplied Linguistics

1 1ndash47

Carrell P L 1991 lsquoSecond language reading

Reading ability or language proficiencyrsquo Applied

Linguistics 122 159ndash79

Chow P and C Chou 2000 Evaluating

Sustained Silent Reading in Reading Classes [Web]

I-TESL-J Available httpitesljorgArticlesChow-

mSSRhtml

Cole M J Gay J A Glick and D W Sharp

1971 The Cultural Context of Learning and Think-

ing An Exploration in Experimental Anthropology

New York Basic Books

Couper-Kuhlen E andMSelting 1996 Prosody

in Conversation Interactional Studies Cambridge

Cambridge University Press

Duff P 2002 lsquoThe discursive co-construction

of knowledge identity and difference An

ethnography of communication in the high

school mainstreamrsquo Applied Linguistics 233

289ndash322

Erickson F and J Schultz 1981 lsquoWhen is

a context Some issues and methods in the

analysis of social competencersquo in J Green and

C Wallat (eds) Ethnography and Language in

Educational Settings Norwood NJ Ablex

Felser C L Roberts T Marinis and R Gross

2003 lsquoThe processing of ambiguous sentences by

first and second language learners of Englishrsquo

Applied Psycholinguistics 243 453ndash89

Garfinkel H 1967 Studies in Ethnomethodology

Englewood Cliffs NJ Prentice Hall

Gee J P 1990 Social Linguistics and Literacies

Ideology in Discourses London Falmer Press

Goffman E 1959 The Presentation of Self

in Everyday Life New York Anchor Books

Doubleday

Goffman E 1961 Encounters Two Studies in

the Sociology of Interaction Indianapolis Bobbs-

Merrill

Goody J1977 TheDomestication of the SavageMind

Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Grabe W and F L Stoller 1997 lsquoReading and

vocabulary development in a second language

A case studyrsquo in J Coady and T Huckin (eds)

Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition A

Rationale for Pedagogy Cambridge Cambridge

University Press

402 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

Gumperz J J 1982 Discourse Strategies

Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Habermas J1976 lsquoSome distinctions in universal

pragmatics A working paperrsquo Theory and Society

32 155ndash67

Hall J K 1993 lsquoThe role of oral practices in

the accomplishment of our everyday lives

The sociocultural dimension of interaction

with implications for the learning of

another languagersquo Applied Linguistics 142

145ndash66

Hall J K 1995 lsquo lsquolsquoAw man where you goinrsquorsquorsquo

Classroom interaction and the development

of L2 interactional competencersquo Issues in Applied

Linguistics 62 37ndash62

Hall JK1997 lsquoA consideration of SLA as a theory

of practice A response to Firth and Wagnerrsquo

Modern Language Journal 813 301ndash306

He A W and R Young 1998 lsquoLanguage

proficiency interviews A discourse approachrsquo in

R Young and A W He (eds) Talking and Testing

Discourse Approaches to the Assessment of Oral

Proficiency Amsterdam John Benjamins

Heath S B 1982 lsquoWhat no bedtime story means

Narrative skills at home and schoolrsquo Language

in Society 11 49ndash76

Heath S B 1983 Ways with Words Language

Life and Work in Communities and Classrooms

Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Hellermann J 2004 lsquoPractices for opening dyadic

interactionrsquo paper presented at the annual

conference of the American Association for

Applied Linguistics Portland OR

Hellermann J forthcoming lsquoThe development of

practices for action in the classroom diadic

interaction focus on task openingsrsquo Modern

Language Journal

Hood S and H Joyce 1995 lsquoReading in the

adult ESL curriculum and classroomrsquo Prospect

102 52ndash64

Hymes D 1974 Foundations in Sociolinguistics

An Ethnographic Approach Philadelphia

University of Pennsylvania Press

Kramsch C 1986 lsquoFrom language proficiency

to interactional competencersquo Modern Language

Journal 70 372ndash66

Kramsch C 2002 lsquoHow can we tell the dancer

from the dancersquo in C Kramsch (ed) Language

Acquisition and Language Socialization An ecological

approach London Continuum

Lave J and E Wenger 1991 Situated Learning

Legitimate Peripheral Participation Cambridge

Cambridge University Press

Lerner G H 1995 lsquoTurn design and the organiza-

tion of participation in instructional activitiesrsquo

Discourse Processes 19 111ndash31

MacBethD2003 lsquoHugh MehanrsquosLearning Lessons

reconsidered On the differences between the

naturalistic and critical analysis of classroom

discoursersquo American Educational Research Journal

401 239ndash80

McCraken R A 1971 lsquoInitiating sustained silent

readingrsquo Journal of Reading 148 521ndash4 582ndash3

McDermott R and D Roth 1978 lsquoThe social

organization of behavior Interactional

approachesrsquo Annual Review of Anthropology 7

321ndash45

Markee N 2000 Conversation Analysis Marwah

NJ Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

Ochs E and B Schieffelin 1979 Developmental

Pragmatics New York Academic Press

Ochs E E A Schegloff and S A Thompson

1996 Interaction and Grammar Cambridge

Cambridge University Press

Ong W J 1982 Orality and Literacy The Technolo-

gizing of the Word London Routledge

Palacios I G 2002 An ESLLiteracy Center

A qualitative study of perspectives and practices

of immigrant adults and literacy facilitators

Unpublished PhD Dissertation Indiana

University Pennsylvania Indiana PA

Pilgreen J L 2000 The SSR Handbook How to

Organize and Manage a Sustained Silent Reading

Program Portsmouth NH BoyntonCook

Pulido D 2003 lsquoModeling the role of second

language proficiency and topic familiarity

in second language incidental vocabulary

acquisition through readingrsquo Language Learning

532 233ndash84

Reder S 1987 lsquoComparative aspects of functional

literacy development Three ethnic American

communitiesrsquo in D Wagner (ed) The Future

of Literacy in a Changing World Oxford Pergamon

Press

Reder S 1994 lsquoPractice engagement theory

A sociocultural approach to literacy across

languages and culturersquo in B M Ferdman

R M Weber and A G Ramırez (eds) Literacy

Across Languages and Cultures Albany NY State

University of New York Press

Reder S and E Davila (2005) lsquoContext

and literacy practicesrsquo Annual Review of Applied

Linguistics 25 170ndash87

Reder S K A Harris and K Setzler 2003

lsquoA multimedia adult learner corpusrsquo TESOL

Quarterly 373 546ndash57

JOHN HELLERMANN 403

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

Reder S K A Harris R Kurzet

D Brillanceau S Banke and JHellermann

forthcoming Using a modified Sustained Silent

Reading for low-level adult ESOL students

Boston National Center for the Study of Adult

Learning and Literacy

Sacks H E A Schegloff and G Jefferson

1974 lsquoA simplest systematics for the organiza-

tion of turn-taking for conversationsrsquo Language

504 696ndash735

Sagarra N 2000 The longitudinal role of working

memory on adult acquisition of L2 grammar

Unpublished PhD Dissertation University of

Illinois Urbana-Champaign

Schegloff E A 1968 lsquoSequencing in conversa-

tional openingsrsquo American Anthropologist 70

1075ndash95

Schegloff E A 1980 lsquoPreliminaries to prelimin-

aries lsquolsquoCan I ask you a questionrsquorsquo rsquo Sociological

Inquiry 50 104ndash52

Schegloff E A 1998 lsquoReflections on studying

prosody in talk-in-interactionrsquo Language and

Speech 413ndash4 235ndash63

Schegloff E A 2000 lsquoOverlapping talk and the

organization of turn-making for conversationrsquo

Language in Society 291 1ndash63

Schegloff E A 2002 lsquoOpening sequencingrsquo

in J E Katz and M Aakhus (eds) Perpetual

Contact Mobile Communication Private Talk Public

Performance Cambridge Cambridge University

Press

Schegloff E A and H Sacks 1973 lsquoOpening up

closingsrsquo Semiotica 8 289ndash327

Schieffelin B B and Ochs E (1986) lsquoLanguage

socializationrsquo Annual Review of Anthropology 15

163ndash91

Scribner S and M Cole 1981 The Psychology of

Literacy Cambridge MA Harvard University

Press

Segalowitz N C Poulsen and M Komoda

1991 lsquoLower level components of reading skill in

higher level bilinguals Implications for reading

instructionrsquo AILA Review 8 15ndash30

Streeck J 1983 Social Order in Child Communica-

tion Amsterdam John Benjamins

Streeck J and S Mihus 2005 lsquoMicroethno-

graphy The study of practicesrsquo In K L Fitch

and R E Sanders (eds) The Handbook of

Language and Social Interaction Marwah NJ

Lawrence Erlbaum

Street B 1998 lsquoNew literacies in theory

and practice What are the implications for

language in educationrsquo Linguistics and Education

10 1ndash24

Street B V 2001 Literacy and Development

Ethnographic perspectives London Routledge

Tang H 1997 lsquoThe relationship between reading

comprehension processes in L1 and L2rsquo Reading

Psychology 183 249ndash301

Treville M C 1996 lsquoLexical learning and reading

in L2 at the beginner level The advantage of

cognatesrsquo The Canadian Modern Language Review

531 173ndash90

Van Lier L 2000 lsquoFrom input to affordance

Social-interactive learning from an ecological

perspectiversquo in J Lantolf (ed) Sociocultural

Theory and Second Language Learning Oxford

Oxford University Press

van Lier L 2002 lsquoAn ecological-semiotic

perspective on language and linguisticsrsquo in

C Kramsch (ed) Language Acquisition and

Language Socialization An ecological approach

London Continuum

Wenger J 1998 Communities of Practice Learning

Meaning and Identity Cambridge Cambridge

University Press

Yang J 2000 lsquoOrthographic effect on word

recognition by learners of Chinese as a Foreign

Languagersquo Journal of the Chinese Language

Teachers Association 352 1ndash18

YoungR1999 lsquoSociolinguistic approaches toSLArsquo

Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 19 105ndash32

Young R 2000 lsquoInteractional competence

Challenges for validityrsquo Paper presented at the

annual conference of the American Association

for Applied Linguistics Vancouver BC

Young R F 2002 lsquoDiscourse approaches to oral

language assessmentrsquo Annual Review of Applied

Linguistics 22 243ndash62

404 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

Page 19: Classroom Interactive Practices for Developing L2 Literacy: A Microethnographic Study of Two Beginning Adult Learners of English

books that he read he did not specify why he liked them giving evidence

of the limitations of his ability to evaluate his reading (as Figure 2 shows)

In contrast to Eduardo Abby did not have trouble filing her reading log

On the day the teacher explained to learners how they should file their

reading logs she used Abby as an example lsquoFor example Abby file your

paper under lsquolsquoArsquorsquo for Abbyrsquo In subsequent class periods Abby displayed

competence at filing her reading log in the appropriate slot in the file box

The content of Abbyrsquos reading logs also differed from Eduardorsquos in notable

ways Where Eduardo always checked the box marked lsquoeasyrsquo when

evaluating the level of difficulty of the books he read in most cases Abby

checked the lsquojust rightrsquo box and just a few times the box marked lsquoeasyrsquo for

the books she read Figure 3 shows one of her reading logs from the third

term of the mSSR

The notations in Abbyrsquos reading log in Figure 3 suggest that she was

choosing books that were appropriate to her ability (the box labeled

lsquojust rightrsquo is marked consistently) Also Abby was able to give some detail

(although limited) when prompted by the teacher for the reasons behind

her assessment of a book In response to the teacherrsquos written prompt on

the reading log lsquoyes I liked it because rsquo Abby had two responses she used

lsquoyes I did because interestingrsquo or lsquoyes I did because easyrsquo Abby indicated

Figure 2 Part of Eduardorsquos reading log from the third term of the mSSR

JOHN HELLERMANN 395

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

these more expanded assessments both in the second and third terms of the

mSSR classes

An important question for research on language socialization and

interactional competence in a classroom setting is to what degree these

processes result in increased engagement with literacy outside the classroom

A telling insight gained from the learnersrsquo in-home L1 interviews suggests

that for both these learners the socialization into literacy events in the

classroom lead to increased participation in literacy outside the classroom

In the interviews conducted with each learner before the start of the mSSR

treatment when asked what and how much they read in English for

pleasure Abby indicated that she read student picture books for ninety

minutes a week Eduardo reported reading newspapers for thirty minutes

a week In interviews conducted in June of 2004 after the learnersrsquo

completed their participation in the mSSR Abby reported reading

newspapers and books for 7 hours a week and Eduardo newspapers and

magazines for 2 hours a week Along with the development of interactive

practices in classroom literacy events highlighted in this paper these findings

show a remarkable increase in these learnersrsquo engagement with literacy

outside the classroom and evidence of their emerging identities as individuals

literate in English

Figure 3 Part of Abbyrsquos reading log from the third term of the mSSR

396 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

CONCLUSIONS

The findings uncovered in this study show two learnersrsquo development of

interactional competence through their socialization into classroom literacy

events This socialization occurred through the learnersrsquo engagement in

discursive practices in repeated literacy events which were part of a modified

sustained silent reading program The discursive practices for the literacy

events occurred within the context of the entire classroom community of

practice (Wenger 1998) and afforded learners the opportunities to move from

peripheral to more full participation in English literacy This community of

practice included (1) the teachers who provided instructions and support for

the activities through explicit instruction and modeling (2) learner peers

who also modeled appropriate interactive and language behavior and were

the interlocutors with whom some of the literacy practices were negotiated

and (3) the texts themselves which became a mediating object the third

part in a triadic dialogue for literacy (van Lier 2002) comprised of learnerndash

teacherndashtext or learnerndashlearnerndashtext

While neither learner had studied English formally before enrolling in

classes at the Lab School this study shows that Abby the learner with a high

school education from her home country was familiar with some of the

practices for literacy events including alphabetical filing book selection

and book assessment This research also showed that over the course of

three terms doing the mSSR activities Abby developed a wider range of

interactional practices for opening the dyadic interactions involved in the

story re-telling

Eduardo on the other hand began his participation in the mSSR activities

with much less experience with classroom literacy events having had just

two years of education in his home country The literacy events which were

part of the mSSR afforded Eduardo (van Lier 2000) the opportunity to

engage with literacy and by participating at first peripherally Eduardo

quickly understood and participated more fully in the book selection literacy

event Through interaction with his peers and the teacher in term two basic

literacy skills such as alphabetizing and filing his reading log developed

Though his teachersrsquo initial impressions suggested that he got very little

from his participation in the mSSR a review of his reading logs and his

participation in class show that Eduardo acquired knowledge of literacy

through a transformation (Lave and Wenger 1991) of his understanding of

and participation in literacy events

The development of these learnersrsquo interactional competence can be seen

in Eduardorsquos pursuit of understanding the practice of filing his reading log

which he accomplished through interaction with several members of the

classroom community This change in his participation in filing the logs

shows how learning is a situated practice accomplished through repeated

interactions with the entire classroom community In the analysis of the

story re-telling activities both Eduardo and Abby exhibited an increased

JOHN HELLERMANN 397

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

ability to use talk to initiate interaction by negotiating interlocutor

assignment and turn allocation to open their re-tellings Again the repeated

practice of the re-tellings afforded the learners opportunities to negotiate

a particular classroom and social action (opening a face-to-face interaction)

and both learners developed interactional skills that allowed them to

participate in the practice more fully

A quantitative analysis of standardized assessment measures30 for all the

learners at the Lab School shows that students who participated in the mSSR

method improved in their English language literacy skills to the same degree

as students who participated in classes which used a traditional skills-based

method for the teaching of reading (Reder et al forthcoming) This result

leads one to question what classroom practices might have contributed to

the increase in scores for each group Qualitative micro-analyses such as this

study are a first step toward understanding the discursive practices of the

mSSR classrooms which led to increases in those standardized tests of literacy

skills Also while we know that first-language education is a factor in

successful second language acquisition (Cole et al 1971) we know little

about how classroom interaction between experienced and inexperienced

learners differs In order to address this question this analysis used existing

social categorizations for participant selection (their degree of previous

education in their first language environment) and focused on two students

who would be categorized differently But the use of these macro-level

categorizations was not intended to reify the association of the characteristics

of each category to individual members Rather they were used to define

places from which to empirically examine the interactional language

behavior of members of each category This examination was done through

micro-analyses of the two studentsrsquo participation in the discursive practices

in mSSR literacy events that help L2 literacy develop The focus on the

day-to-day classroom interactions of the two learners allowed us to see

different paths to L2 literacy for learners who have different educational and

literacy experiences and uncover the complex interaction within a classroom

community of practice which results in the changes reported in traditional

language assessment measures

Final version received November 2005

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank the entire staff at the National Labsite for Adult ESOL at Portland State

University for their involvement in maintaining the Lab School as a place for adults to learn

English and as a state of the art research facility I would also like to thank Kathy Harris Sandra

Banke Reuel Kurzet Steve Reder Dominique Brillanceau and three anonymous readers for

their feedback on various versions of the paper

398 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

APPENDIX A

Some transcript conventions in conversation analysis (adapted from Schegloff

2000)

I Temporal and sequential relationships

[ Overlapping or simultaneous talk

frac14 lsquolatched utterancesrsquo no break or pause between utterances

(05) Numbers in parentheses indicate silence represented in tenths of a second

() A dot in parentheses indicates a lsquomicropausersquo

II Aspects of speech delivery including aspectsof intonation

period indicates a falling intonation contour not necessarily the end ofa sentence

question mark indicates rising intonation

a comma indicates lsquocontinuingrsquo intonation

Colons are used to indicate the prolongation or stretching of the soundjust preceding them The more colons the longer the stretching

- A hyphen after a word or part of a word indicates a cut-off or self-interruption word

Underlining is used to indicate some form of stress or emphasis either byincreased loudness or higher pitch The more underlining the greater theemphasis

The degree sign indicates that the talk following it was markedly quiet orsoft

The up and down arrows mark sharper rises or falls in pitch

45 The combination of lsquomore thanrsquo and lsquoless thanrsquo symbols indicates that thetalk between them is compressed or rushed

54 Used in the reverse order they can indicate that a stretch of talk ismarkedly slowed or drawn out

hhh Outbreath

hh Inbreath

(( )) Descriptions of events ((cough)) ((sniff)) ((telephone rings)) ((foot-steps))

(word) All or part of an utterance in parentheses indicates transcriber uncertainty

Creaky voice

NOTES

1 In order to get around the unwieldy

and theoretically-loaded terminology

for describing the use acquisition

and learning of a language that is

not the home or first language of the

participants of this study I will use

JOHN HELLERMANN 399

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

the abbreviation lsquoL2rsquo throughout the

paper to refer to a language that is

being attained through formal instruc-

tion For the students in this study

lsquoL2rsquo refers to English It may not be

however that English is these

studentsrsquo lsquosecondrsquo language as the

abbreviation implies

2 Students in the current study were in

lsquolevel Arsquo classes at the data collection

site SPL level 0ndash2

3 In Sustained Silent Reading

(McCracken 1971 Pilgreen 2000)

students are given a set time in the

classroom to read silently without

interruption by the teacher or other

students and without evaluation of

what is read and how it is read

The method was altered slightly at

the data collection site to meet the

needs of beginning adult language

learners and included activities

like post-reading re-telling activities

and studentsrsquo use of reading logs

to record their assessments of their

reading

4 The National Labsite for Adult ESOL

at Portland State University is sup-

ported in part by grant R309B6002

from the Institute for Education

Science US Dept of Education to

the National Center for the Study of

Adult Learning and Literacy The

Labsite is a partnership between

Portland State University and Portland

Community College The school

and research facilities are housed at

Portland State while the registration

curriculum and teachers of the

ESL students are from Portland

Community College

5 One reviewer asked about the inabil-

ity to see learnersrsquo eye gaze with

cameras embedded in the ceiling

While this is a problem when

students are sitting directly under

the two mobile cameras which

follow students wearing the wireless

microphones most often students

are sitting in a position where

studentsrsquo faces can be seen quite

directly For details of the data

collection see Reder et al (2003)

6 The Labsite Student Study (LSS)

conducts in-home interviews with a

subset of students in the lab school

(70 per year) in their home lan-

guages over the course of four

years regardless of whether the

student remains in lab school classes

or not The primary purpose of

the LSS study is to understand

language use and literacy develop-

ment outside the classroom context

and factors which influence program

persistence

7 All names used in this study are

pseudonyms

8 The teacher had different types of

books on a cart that she wheeled into

the room every class period She took

books off the cart and spread them

out on desks at the back of the room

9 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoselectsbookclass1]

10 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardohelping]

11 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoshowing]

12 Sarah Ouellette helped with the

Spanish transcription and provided

the translation to English Transcrip-

tion conventions are included in

Appendix A lsquoTrsquo indicates the class-

room teacher in all transcripts

13 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoexplaining]

400 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

14 At the time of this excerpt Eduardo

was a novice in Rederrsquos (1987) third

mode of literacy engagement

technical still struggling with basic

technical issues like decoding English

language lexicon

15 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Abbyreading]

16 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Abbynotetaking]

17 The classroom teachers noted the

frustration of doing mSSR with

students who have very low first

language literacy because of her

inability to help students organize

their reading in instances like note

taking (Banke and Brillanceau 2004)

18 A literacy assessment test (BEST

Literacy) was administered in the

classroom in terms one and two of

the mSSR program While the scores

increased for each learner for

Eduardo the increase is not as great

as Abbyrsquos Eduardorsquos overall literacy

score went from 35 in term one

to 42 in term two which is an

increase of one student performance

level (from 3 to 4) Abbyrsquos scores

increased from 45 in term one to

56 in term two which indicates

a jump from student performance

level 4 to 6 For information

on characteristics of student language

abilities at different student perfor-

mance levels (SPLs) see pp 5ndash6 of

wwwcalorgcaelaesl_resources

Part4-5pdf

19 One of the pedagogical advantages of

doing a dyadic re-telling in a lan-

guage classroom is that even if one

student doesnrsquot understand the

instructions for the task in an activity

like the mSSR the peerrsquos act of

posture shift moving a book into

a common space and looking

toward the partner strongly invite

collaboration in some interaction and

it is collaboration that is perhaps

the most important aspect of the

re-telling activity (Pilgreen 2000)

especially for language learners

20 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoopening1]

21 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoopening2]

22 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoorientsstorytelling]

23 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Abbyopening1]

24 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Abbypretasktalkterm2]

25 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Abbystartingretelling2]

26 While more empirical evidence is

warranted a provisional claim

can be mentioned here that such

re-telling activities and perhaps

in classroom pair activities in

general are organized with a two-

part move like that displayed in

(6) lsquoquery about readinessrsquo and

lsquoturn allocationrsquo before the first task

question

27 Notably absent from Abbyrsquos and

Eduardorsquos peer re-tellings are any

verbal greeting sequences Even

when one of the pair moves across

the room to sit with another student

Abby and Eduardo did not exchange

greetings with their partner for their

JOHN HELLERMANN 401

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

task This is something that other

students did as part of their openings

28 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoasksstudentforhelpfiling]

29 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoasksaboutfiling]

30 The assessment measures were the

BEST Plus and the Peabody Picture

Vocabulary tests

REFERENCES

Atkinson J M and J C Heritage 1984

Structures of Social Action Studies in Conversation

Analysis Cambridge Cambridge University Press

August G 2001 The Road to Second Language

Reading How do we get there Unpublished

PhD Dissertation City University of New York

New York

Banke S and D Brillanceu 2004 lsquoLiving

in Interventionrsquo Unpublished manuscript

Barton D (2001) lsquoDirections for literacy

research Analysing language and social practices

in a textually mediated worldrsquo Language and

Education 152ndash3 92ndash104

Bernhardt E B and M L Kamil 1995 lsquoInter-

preting relationships between L1 and L2 reading

Consolidating the linguistic threshold and the

linguistic interdependence hypothesesrsquo Applied

Linguistics 161 15ndash34

Bourdieu P 1991 Language and Symbolic Power

Cambridge MA Harvard University Press

Brandt D 1990 Literacy as Involvement The Acts

of Writers Readers and Texts Carbondale IL

Southern Illinois University Press

ButtonG andNCasey1984 lsquoGenerating topics

The use of topic initial elicitorsrsquo in J M Atkinson

and J C Heritage (eds) Structures of Social Action

Studies in Conversation Analysis Cambridge

Cambridge University Press

Canale M and M Swain 1980 lsquoTheoretical

bases of communicative approaches to second

language teaching and testingrsquoApplied Linguistics

1 1ndash47

Carrell P L 1991 lsquoSecond language reading

Reading ability or language proficiencyrsquo Applied

Linguistics 122 159ndash79

Chow P and C Chou 2000 Evaluating

Sustained Silent Reading in Reading Classes [Web]

I-TESL-J Available httpitesljorgArticlesChow-

mSSRhtml

Cole M J Gay J A Glick and D W Sharp

1971 The Cultural Context of Learning and Think-

ing An Exploration in Experimental Anthropology

New York Basic Books

Couper-Kuhlen E andMSelting 1996 Prosody

in Conversation Interactional Studies Cambridge

Cambridge University Press

Duff P 2002 lsquoThe discursive co-construction

of knowledge identity and difference An

ethnography of communication in the high

school mainstreamrsquo Applied Linguistics 233

289ndash322

Erickson F and J Schultz 1981 lsquoWhen is

a context Some issues and methods in the

analysis of social competencersquo in J Green and

C Wallat (eds) Ethnography and Language in

Educational Settings Norwood NJ Ablex

Felser C L Roberts T Marinis and R Gross

2003 lsquoThe processing of ambiguous sentences by

first and second language learners of Englishrsquo

Applied Psycholinguistics 243 453ndash89

Garfinkel H 1967 Studies in Ethnomethodology

Englewood Cliffs NJ Prentice Hall

Gee J P 1990 Social Linguistics and Literacies

Ideology in Discourses London Falmer Press

Goffman E 1959 The Presentation of Self

in Everyday Life New York Anchor Books

Doubleday

Goffman E 1961 Encounters Two Studies in

the Sociology of Interaction Indianapolis Bobbs-

Merrill

Goody J1977 TheDomestication of the SavageMind

Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Grabe W and F L Stoller 1997 lsquoReading and

vocabulary development in a second language

A case studyrsquo in J Coady and T Huckin (eds)

Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition A

Rationale for Pedagogy Cambridge Cambridge

University Press

402 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

Gumperz J J 1982 Discourse Strategies

Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Habermas J1976 lsquoSome distinctions in universal

pragmatics A working paperrsquo Theory and Society

32 155ndash67

Hall J K 1993 lsquoThe role of oral practices in

the accomplishment of our everyday lives

The sociocultural dimension of interaction

with implications for the learning of

another languagersquo Applied Linguistics 142

145ndash66

Hall J K 1995 lsquo lsquolsquoAw man where you goinrsquorsquorsquo

Classroom interaction and the development

of L2 interactional competencersquo Issues in Applied

Linguistics 62 37ndash62

Hall JK1997 lsquoA consideration of SLA as a theory

of practice A response to Firth and Wagnerrsquo

Modern Language Journal 813 301ndash306

He A W and R Young 1998 lsquoLanguage

proficiency interviews A discourse approachrsquo in

R Young and A W He (eds) Talking and Testing

Discourse Approaches to the Assessment of Oral

Proficiency Amsterdam John Benjamins

Heath S B 1982 lsquoWhat no bedtime story means

Narrative skills at home and schoolrsquo Language

in Society 11 49ndash76

Heath S B 1983 Ways with Words Language

Life and Work in Communities and Classrooms

Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Hellermann J 2004 lsquoPractices for opening dyadic

interactionrsquo paper presented at the annual

conference of the American Association for

Applied Linguistics Portland OR

Hellermann J forthcoming lsquoThe development of

practices for action in the classroom diadic

interaction focus on task openingsrsquo Modern

Language Journal

Hood S and H Joyce 1995 lsquoReading in the

adult ESL curriculum and classroomrsquo Prospect

102 52ndash64

Hymes D 1974 Foundations in Sociolinguistics

An Ethnographic Approach Philadelphia

University of Pennsylvania Press

Kramsch C 1986 lsquoFrom language proficiency

to interactional competencersquo Modern Language

Journal 70 372ndash66

Kramsch C 2002 lsquoHow can we tell the dancer

from the dancersquo in C Kramsch (ed) Language

Acquisition and Language Socialization An ecological

approach London Continuum

Lave J and E Wenger 1991 Situated Learning

Legitimate Peripheral Participation Cambridge

Cambridge University Press

Lerner G H 1995 lsquoTurn design and the organiza-

tion of participation in instructional activitiesrsquo

Discourse Processes 19 111ndash31

MacBethD2003 lsquoHugh MehanrsquosLearning Lessons

reconsidered On the differences between the

naturalistic and critical analysis of classroom

discoursersquo American Educational Research Journal

401 239ndash80

McCraken R A 1971 lsquoInitiating sustained silent

readingrsquo Journal of Reading 148 521ndash4 582ndash3

McDermott R and D Roth 1978 lsquoThe social

organization of behavior Interactional

approachesrsquo Annual Review of Anthropology 7

321ndash45

Markee N 2000 Conversation Analysis Marwah

NJ Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

Ochs E and B Schieffelin 1979 Developmental

Pragmatics New York Academic Press

Ochs E E A Schegloff and S A Thompson

1996 Interaction and Grammar Cambridge

Cambridge University Press

Ong W J 1982 Orality and Literacy The Technolo-

gizing of the Word London Routledge

Palacios I G 2002 An ESLLiteracy Center

A qualitative study of perspectives and practices

of immigrant adults and literacy facilitators

Unpublished PhD Dissertation Indiana

University Pennsylvania Indiana PA

Pilgreen J L 2000 The SSR Handbook How to

Organize and Manage a Sustained Silent Reading

Program Portsmouth NH BoyntonCook

Pulido D 2003 lsquoModeling the role of second

language proficiency and topic familiarity

in second language incidental vocabulary

acquisition through readingrsquo Language Learning

532 233ndash84

Reder S 1987 lsquoComparative aspects of functional

literacy development Three ethnic American

communitiesrsquo in D Wagner (ed) The Future

of Literacy in a Changing World Oxford Pergamon

Press

Reder S 1994 lsquoPractice engagement theory

A sociocultural approach to literacy across

languages and culturersquo in B M Ferdman

R M Weber and A G Ramırez (eds) Literacy

Across Languages and Cultures Albany NY State

University of New York Press

Reder S and E Davila (2005) lsquoContext

and literacy practicesrsquo Annual Review of Applied

Linguistics 25 170ndash87

Reder S K A Harris and K Setzler 2003

lsquoA multimedia adult learner corpusrsquo TESOL

Quarterly 373 546ndash57

JOHN HELLERMANN 403

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

Reder S K A Harris R Kurzet

D Brillanceau S Banke and JHellermann

forthcoming Using a modified Sustained Silent

Reading for low-level adult ESOL students

Boston National Center for the Study of Adult

Learning and Literacy

Sacks H E A Schegloff and G Jefferson

1974 lsquoA simplest systematics for the organiza-

tion of turn-taking for conversationsrsquo Language

504 696ndash735

Sagarra N 2000 The longitudinal role of working

memory on adult acquisition of L2 grammar

Unpublished PhD Dissertation University of

Illinois Urbana-Champaign

Schegloff E A 1968 lsquoSequencing in conversa-

tional openingsrsquo American Anthropologist 70

1075ndash95

Schegloff E A 1980 lsquoPreliminaries to prelimin-

aries lsquolsquoCan I ask you a questionrsquorsquo rsquo Sociological

Inquiry 50 104ndash52

Schegloff E A 1998 lsquoReflections on studying

prosody in talk-in-interactionrsquo Language and

Speech 413ndash4 235ndash63

Schegloff E A 2000 lsquoOverlapping talk and the

organization of turn-making for conversationrsquo

Language in Society 291 1ndash63

Schegloff E A 2002 lsquoOpening sequencingrsquo

in J E Katz and M Aakhus (eds) Perpetual

Contact Mobile Communication Private Talk Public

Performance Cambridge Cambridge University

Press

Schegloff E A and H Sacks 1973 lsquoOpening up

closingsrsquo Semiotica 8 289ndash327

Schieffelin B B and Ochs E (1986) lsquoLanguage

socializationrsquo Annual Review of Anthropology 15

163ndash91

Scribner S and M Cole 1981 The Psychology of

Literacy Cambridge MA Harvard University

Press

Segalowitz N C Poulsen and M Komoda

1991 lsquoLower level components of reading skill in

higher level bilinguals Implications for reading

instructionrsquo AILA Review 8 15ndash30

Streeck J 1983 Social Order in Child Communica-

tion Amsterdam John Benjamins

Streeck J and S Mihus 2005 lsquoMicroethno-

graphy The study of practicesrsquo In K L Fitch

and R E Sanders (eds) The Handbook of

Language and Social Interaction Marwah NJ

Lawrence Erlbaum

Street B 1998 lsquoNew literacies in theory

and practice What are the implications for

language in educationrsquo Linguistics and Education

10 1ndash24

Street B V 2001 Literacy and Development

Ethnographic perspectives London Routledge

Tang H 1997 lsquoThe relationship between reading

comprehension processes in L1 and L2rsquo Reading

Psychology 183 249ndash301

Treville M C 1996 lsquoLexical learning and reading

in L2 at the beginner level The advantage of

cognatesrsquo The Canadian Modern Language Review

531 173ndash90

Van Lier L 2000 lsquoFrom input to affordance

Social-interactive learning from an ecological

perspectiversquo in J Lantolf (ed) Sociocultural

Theory and Second Language Learning Oxford

Oxford University Press

van Lier L 2002 lsquoAn ecological-semiotic

perspective on language and linguisticsrsquo in

C Kramsch (ed) Language Acquisition and

Language Socialization An ecological approach

London Continuum

Wenger J 1998 Communities of Practice Learning

Meaning and Identity Cambridge Cambridge

University Press

Yang J 2000 lsquoOrthographic effect on word

recognition by learners of Chinese as a Foreign

Languagersquo Journal of the Chinese Language

Teachers Association 352 1ndash18

YoungR1999 lsquoSociolinguistic approaches toSLArsquo

Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 19 105ndash32

Young R 2000 lsquoInteractional competence

Challenges for validityrsquo Paper presented at the

annual conference of the American Association

for Applied Linguistics Vancouver BC

Young R F 2002 lsquoDiscourse approaches to oral

language assessmentrsquo Annual Review of Applied

Linguistics 22 243ndash62

404 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

Page 20: Classroom Interactive Practices for Developing L2 Literacy: A Microethnographic Study of Two Beginning Adult Learners of English

these more expanded assessments both in the second and third terms of the

mSSR classes

An important question for research on language socialization and

interactional competence in a classroom setting is to what degree these

processes result in increased engagement with literacy outside the classroom

A telling insight gained from the learnersrsquo in-home L1 interviews suggests

that for both these learners the socialization into literacy events in the

classroom lead to increased participation in literacy outside the classroom

In the interviews conducted with each learner before the start of the mSSR

treatment when asked what and how much they read in English for

pleasure Abby indicated that she read student picture books for ninety

minutes a week Eduardo reported reading newspapers for thirty minutes

a week In interviews conducted in June of 2004 after the learnersrsquo

completed their participation in the mSSR Abby reported reading

newspapers and books for 7 hours a week and Eduardo newspapers and

magazines for 2 hours a week Along with the development of interactive

practices in classroom literacy events highlighted in this paper these findings

show a remarkable increase in these learnersrsquo engagement with literacy

outside the classroom and evidence of their emerging identities as individuals

literate in English

Figure 3 Part of Abbyrsquos reading log from the third term of the mSSR

396 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

CONCLUSIONS

The findings uncovered in this study show two learnersrsquo development of

interactional competence through their socialization into classroom literacy

events This socialization occurred through the learnersrsquo engagement in

discursive practices in repeated literacy events which were part of a modified

sustained silent reading program The discursive practices for the literacy

events occurred within the context of the entire classroom community of

practice (Wenger 1998) and afforded learners the opportunities to move from

peripheral to more full participation in English literacy This community of

practice included (1) the teachers who provided instructions and support for

the activities through explicit instruction and modeling (2) learner peers

who also modeled appropriate interactive and language behavior and were

the interlocutors with whom some of the literacy practices were negotiated

and (3) the texts themselves which became a mediating object the third

part in a triadic dialogue for literacy (van Lier 2002) comprised of learnerndash

teacherndashtext or learnerndashlearnerndashtext

While neither learner had studied English formally before enrolling in

classes at the Lab School this study shows that Abby the learner with a high

school education from her home country was familiar with some of the

practices for literacy events including alphabetical filing book selection

and book assessment This research also showed that over the course of

three terms doing the mSSR activities Abby developed a wider range of

interactional practices for opening the dyadic interactions involved in the

story re-telling

Eduardo on the other hand began his participation in the mSSR activities

with much less experience with classroom literacy events having had just

two years of education in his home country The literacy events which were

part of the mSSR afforded Eduardo (van Lier 2000) the opportunity to

engage with literacy and by participating at first peripherally Eduardo

quickly understood and participated more fully in the book selection literacy

event Through interaction with his peers and the teacher in term two basic

literacy skills such as alphabetizing and filing his reading log developed

Though his teachersrsquo initial impressions suggested that he got very little

from his participation in the mSSR a review of his reading logs and his

participation in class show that Eduardo acquired knowledge of literacy

through a transformation (Lave and Wenger 1991) of his understanding of

and participation in literacy events

The development of these learnersrsquo interactional competence can be seen

in Eduardorsquos pursuit of understanding the practice of filing his reading log

which he accomplished through interaction with several members of the

classroom community This change in his participation in filing the logs

shows how learning is a situated practice accomplished through repeated

interactions with the entire classroom community In the analysis of the

story re-telling activities both Eduardo and Abby exhibited an increased

JOHN HELLERMANN 397

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

ability to use talk to initiate interaction by negotiating interlocutor

assignment and turn allocation to open their re-tellings Again the repeated

practice of the re-tellings afforded the learners opportunities to negotiate

a particular classroom and social action (opening a face-to-face interaction)

and both learners developed interactional skills that allowed them to

participate in the practice more fully

A quantitative analysis of standardized assessment measures30 for all the

learners at the Lab School shows that students who participated in the mSSR

method improved in their English language literacy skills to the same degree

as students who participated in classes which used a traditional skills-based

method for the teaching of reading (Reder et al forthcoming) This result

leads one to question what classroom practices might have contributed to

the increase in scores for each group Qualitative micro-analyses such as this

study are a first step toward understanding the discursive practices of the

mSSR classrooms which led to increases in those standardized tests of literacy

skills Also while we know that first-language education is a factor in

successful second language acquisition (Cole et al 1971) we know little

about how classroom interaction between experienced and inexperienced

learners differs In order to address this question this analysis used existing

social categorizations for participant selection (their degree of previous

education in their first language environment) and focused on two students

who would be categorized differently But the use of these macro-level

categorizations was not intended to reify the association of the characteristics

of each category to individual members Rather they were used to define

places from which to empirically examine the interactional language

behavior of members of each category This examination was done through

micro-analyses of the two studentsrsquo participation in the discursive practices

in mSSR literacy events that help L2 literacy develop The focus on the

day-to-day classroom interactions of the two learners allowed us to see

different paths to L2 literacy for learners who have different educational and

literacy experiences and uncover the complex interaction within a classroom

community of practice which results in the changes reported in traditional

language assessment measures

Final version received November 2005

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank the entire staff at the National Labsite for Adult ESOL at Portland State

University for their involvement in maintaining the Lab School as a place for adults to learn

English and as a state of the art research facility I would also like to thank Kathy Harris Sandra

Banke Reuel Kurzet Steve Reder Dominique Brillanceau and three anonymous readers for

their feedback on various versions of the paper

398 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

APPENDIX A

Some transcript conventions in conversation analysis (adapted from Schegloff

2000)

I Temporal and sequential relationships

[ Overlapping or simultaneous talk

frac14 lsquolatched utterancesrsquo no break or pause between utterances

(05) Numbers in parentheses indicate silence represented in tenths of a second

() A dot in parentheses indicates a lsquomicropausersquo

II Aspects of speech delivery including aspectsof intonation

period indicates a falling intonation contour not necessarily the end ofa sentence

question mark indicates rising intonation

a comma indicates lsquocontinuingrsquo intonation

Colons are used to indicate the prolongation or stretching of the soundjust preceding them The more colons the longer the stretching

- A hyphen after a word or part of a word indicates a cut-off or self-interruption word

Underlining is used to indicate some form of stress or emphasis either byincreased loudness or higher pitch The more underlining the greater theemphasis

The degree sign indicates that the talk following it was markedly quiet orsoft

The up and down arrows mark sharper rises or falls in pitch

45 The combination of lsquomore thanrsquo and lsquoless thanrsquo symbols indicates that thetalk between them is compressed or rushed

54 Used in the reverse order they can indicate that a stretch of talk ismarkedly slowed or drawn out

hhh Outbreath

hh Inbreath

(( )) Descriptions of events ((cough)) ((sniff)) ((telephone rings)) ((foot-steps))

(word) All or part of an utterance in parentheses indicates transcriber uncertainty

Creaky voice

NOTES

1 In order to get around the unwieldy

and theoretically-loaded terminology

for describing the use acquisition

and learning of a language that is

not the home or first language of the

participants of this study I will use

JOHN HELLERMANN 399

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

the abbreviation lsquoL2rsquo throughout the

paper to refer to a language that is

being attained through formal instruc-

tion For the students in this study

lsquoL2rsquo refers to English It may not be

however that English is these

studentsrsquo lsquosecondrsquo language as the

abbreviation implies

2 Students in the current study were in

lsquolevel Arsquo classes at the data collection

site SPL level 0ndash2

3 In Sustained Silent Reading

(McCracken 1971 Pilgreen 2000)

students are given a set time in the

classroom to read silently without

interruption by the teacher or other

students and without evaluation of

what is read and how it is read

The method was altered slightly at

the data collection site to meet the

needs of beginning adult language

learners and included activities

like post-reading re-telling activities

and studentsrsquo use of reading logs

to record their assessments of their

reading

4 The National Labsite for Adult ESOL

at Portland State University is sup-

ported in part by grant R309B6002

from the Institute for Education

Science US Dept of Education to

the National Center for the Study of

Adult Learning and Literacy The

Labsite is a partnership between

Portland State University and Portland

Community College The school

and research facilities are housed at

Portland State while the registration

curriculum and teachers of the

ESL students are from Portland

Community College

5 One reviewer asked about the inabil-

ity to see learnersrsquo eye gaze with

cameras embedded in the ceiling

While this is a problem when

students are sitting directly under

the two mobile cameras which

follow students wearing the wireless

microphones most often students

are sitting in a position where

studentsrsquo faces can be seen quite

directly For details of the data

collection see Reder et al (2003)

6 The Labsite Student Study (LSS)

conducts in-home interviews with a

subset of students in the lab school

(70 per year) in their home lan-

guages over the course of four

years regardless of whether the

student remains in lab school classes

or not The primary purpose of

the LSS study is to understand

language use and literacy develop-

ment outside the classroom context

and factors which influence program

persistence

7 All names used in this study are

pseudonyms

8 The teacher had different types of

books on a cart that she wheeled into

the room every class period She took

books off the cart and spread them

out on desks at the back of the room

9 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoselectsbookclass1]

10 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardohelping]

11 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoshowing]

12 Sarah Ouellette helped with the

Spanish transcription and provided

the translation to English Transcrip-

tion conventions are included in

Appendix A lsquoTrsquo indicates the class-

room teacher in all transcripts

13 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoexplaining]

400 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

14 At the time of this excerpt Eduardo

was a novice in Rederrsquos (1987) third

mode of literacy engagement

technical still struggling with basic

technical issues like decoding English

language lexicon

15 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Abbyreading]

16 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Abbynotetaking]

17 The classroom teachers noted the

frustration of doing mSSR with

students who have very low first

language literacy because of her

inability to help students organize

their reading in instances like note

taking (Banke and Brillanceau 2004)

18 A literacy assessment test (BEST

Literacy) was administered in the

classroom in terms one and two of

the mSSR program While the scores

increased for each learner for

Eduardo the increase is not as great

as Abbyrsquos Eduardorsquos overall literacy

score went from 35 in term one

to 42 in term two which is an

increase of one student performance

level (from 3 to 4) Abbyrsquos scores

increased from 45 in term one to

56 in term two which indicates

a jump from student performance

level 4 to 6 For information

on characteristics of student language

abilities at different student perfor-

mance levels (SPLs) see pp 5ndash6 of

wwwcalorgcaelaesl_resources

Part4-5pdf

19 One of the pedagogical advantages of

doing a dyadic re-telling in a lan-

guage classroom is that even if one

student doesnrsquot understand the

instructions for the task in an activity

like the mSSR the peerrsquos act of

posture shift moving a book into

a common space and looking

toward the partner strongly invite

collaboration in some interaction and

it is collaboration that is perhaps

the most important aspect of the

re-telling activity (Pilgreen 2000)

especially for language learners

20 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoopening1]

21 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoopening2]

22 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoorientsstorytelling]

23 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Abbyopening1]

24 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Abbypretasktalkterm2]

25 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Abbystartingretelling2]

26 While more empirical evidence is

warranted a provisional claim

can be mentioned here that such

re-telling activities and perhaps

in classroom pair activities in

general are organized with a two-

part move like that displayed in

(6) lsquoquery about readinessrsquo and

lsquoturn allocationrsquo before the first task

question

27 Notably absent from Abbyrsquos and

Eduardorsquos peer re-tellings are any

verbal greeting sequences Even

when one of the pair moves across

the room to sit with another student

Abby and Eduardo did not exchange

greetings with their partner for their

JOHN HELLERMANN 401

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

task This is something that other

students did as part of their openings

28 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoasksstudentforhelpfiling]

29 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoasksaboutfiling]

30 The assessment measures were the

BEST Plus and the Peabody Picture

Vocabulary tests

REFERENCES

Atkinson J M and J C Heritage 1984

Structures of Social Action Studies in Conversation

Analysis Cambridge Cambridge University Press

August G 2001 The Road to Second Language

Reading How do we get there Unpublished

PhD Dissertation City University of New York

New York

Banke S and D Brillanceu 2004 lsquoLiving

in Interventionrsquo Unpublished manuscript

Barton D (2001) lsquoDirections for literacy

research Analysing language and social practices

in a textually mediated worldrsquo Language and

Education 152ndash3 92ndash104

Bernhardt E B and M L Kamil 1995 lsquoInter-

preting relationships between L1 and L2 reading

Consolidating the linguistic threshold and the

linguistic interdependence hypothesesrsquo Applied

Linguistics 161 15ndash34

Bourdieu P 1991 Language and Symbolic Power

Cambridge MA Harvard University Press

Brandt D 1990 Literacy as Involvement The Acts

of Writers Readers and Texts Carbondale IL

Southern Illinois University Press

ButtonG andNCasey1984 lsquoGenerating topics

The use of topic initial elicitorsrsquo in J M Atkinson

and J C Heritage (eds) Structures of Social Action

Studies in Conversation Analysis Cambridge

Cambridge University Press

Canale M and M Swain 1980 lsquoTheoretical

bases of communicative approaches to second

language teaching and testingrsquoApplied Linguistics

1 1ndash47

Carrell P L 1991 lsquoSecond language reading

Reading ability or language proficiencyrsquo Applied

Linguistics 122 159ndash79

Chow P and C Chou 2000 Evaluating

Sustained Silent Reading in Reading Classes [Web]

I-TESL-J Available httpitesljorgArticlesChow-

mSSRhtml

Cole M J Gay J A Glick and D W Sharp

1971 The Cultural Context of Learning and Think-

ing An Exploration in Experimental Anthropology

New York Basic Books

Couper-Kuhlen E andMSelting 1996 Prosody

in Conversation Interactional Studies Cambridge

Cambridge University Press

Duff P 2002 lsquoThe discursive co-construction

of knowledge identity and difference An

ethnography of communication in the high

school mainstreamrsquo Applied Linguistics 233

289ndash322

Erickson F and J Schultz 1981 lsquoWhen is

a context Some issues and methods in the

analysis of social competencersquo in J Green and

C Wallat (eds) Ethnography and Language in

Educational Settings Norwood NJ Ablex

Felser C L Roberts T Marinis and R Gross

2003 lsquoThe processing of ambiguous sentences by

first and second language learners of Englishrsquo

Applied Psycholinguistics 243 453ndash89

Garfinkel H 1967 Studies in Ethnomethodology

Englewood Cliffs NJ Prentice Hall

Gee J P 1990 Social Linguistics and Literacies

Ideology in Discourses London Falmer Press

Goffman E 1959 The Presentation of Self

in Everyday Life New York Anchor Books

Doubleday

Goffman E 1961 Encounters Two Studies in

the Sociology of Interaction Indianapolis Bobbs-

Merrill

Goody J1977 TheDomestication of the SavageMind

Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Grabe W and F L Stoller 1997 lsquoReading and

vocabulary development in a second language

A case studyrsquo in J Coady and T Huckin (eds)

Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition A

Rationale for Pedagogy Cambridge Cambridge

University Press

402 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

Gumperz J J 1982 Discourse Strategies

Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Habermas J1976 lsquoSome distinctions in universal

pragmatics A working paperrsquo Theory and Society

32 155ndash67

Hall J K 1993 lsquoThe role of oral practices in

the accomplishment of our everyday lives

The sociocultural dimension of interaction

with implications for the learning of

another languagersquo Applied Linguistics 142

145ndash66

Hall J K 1995 lsquo lsquolsquoAw man where you goinrsquorsquorsquo

Classroom interaction and the development

of L2 interactional competencersquo Issues in Applied

Linguistics 62 37ndash62

Hall JK1997 lsquoA consideration of SLA as a theory

of practice A response to Firth and Wagnerrsquo

Modern Language Journal 813 301ndash306

He A W and R Young 1998 lsquoLanguage

proficiency interviews A discourse approachrsquo in

R Young and A W He (eds) Talking and Testing

Discourse Approaches to the Assessment of Oral

Proficiency Amsterdam John Benjamins

Heath S B 1982 lsquoWhat no bedtime story means

Narrative skills at home and schoolrsquo Language

in Society 11 49ndash76

Heath S B 1983 Ways with Words Language

Life and Work in Communities and Classrooms

Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Hellermann J 2004 lsquoPractices for opening dyadic

interactionrsquo paper presented at the annual

conference of the American Association for

Applied Linguistics Portland OR

Hellermann J forthcoming lsquoThe development of

practices for action in the classroom diadic

interaction focus on task openingsrsquo Modern

Language Journal

Hood S and H Joyce 1995 lsquoReading in the

adult ESL curriculum and classroomrsquo Prospect

102 52ndash64

Hymes D 1974 Foundations in Sociolinguistics

An Ethnographic Approach Philadelphia

University of Pennsylvania Press

Kramsch C 1986 lsquoFrom language proficiency

to interactional competencersquo Modern Language

Journal 70 372ndash66

Kramsch C 2002 lsquoHow can we tell the dancer

from the dancersquo in C Kramsch (ed) Language

Acquisition and Language Socialization An ecological

approach London Continuum

Lave J and E Wenger 1991 Situated Learning

Legitimate Peripheral Participation Cambridge

Cambridge University Press

Lerner G H 1995 lsquoTurn design and the organiza-

tion of participation in instructional activitiesrsquo

Discourse Processes 19 111ndash31

MacBethD2003 lsquoHugh MehanrsquosLearning Lessons

reconsidered On the differences between the

naturalistic and critical analysis of classroom

discoursersquo American Educational Research Journal

401 239ndash80

McCraken R A 1971 lsquoInitiating sustained silent

readingrsquo Journal of Reading 148 521ndash4 582ndash3

McDermott R and D Roth 1978 lsquoThe social

organization of behavior Interactional

approachesrsquo Annual Review of Anthropology 7

321ndash45

Markee N 2000 Conversation Analysis Marwah

NJ Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

Ochs E and B Schieffelin 1979 Developmental

Pragmatics New York Academic Press

Ochs E E A Schegloff and S A Thompson

1996 Interaction and Grammar Cambridge

Cambridge University Press

Ong W J 1982 Orality and Literacy The Technolo-

gizing of the Word London Routledge

Palacios I G 2002 An ESLLiteracy Center

A qualitative study of perspectives and practices

of immigrant adults and literacy facilitators

Unpublished PhD Dissertation Indiana

University Pennsylvania Indiana PA

Pilgreen J L 2000 The SSR Handbook How to

Organize and Manage a Sustained Silent Reading

Program Portsmouth NH BoyntonCook

Pulido D 2003 lsquoModeling the role of second

language proficiency and topic familiarity

in second language incidental vocabulary

acquisition through readingrsquo Language Learning

532 233ndash84

Reder S 1987 lsquoComparative aspects of functional

literacy development Three ethnic American

communitiesrsquo in D Wagner (ed) The Future

of Literacy in a Changing World Oxford Pergamon

Press

Reder S 1994 lsquoPractice engagement theory

A sociocultural approach to literacy across

languages and culturersquo in B M Ferdman

R M Weber and A G Ramırez (eds) Literacy

Across Languages and Cultures Albany NY State

University of New York Press

Reder S and E Davila (2005) lsquoContext

and literacy practicesrsquo Annual Review of Applied

Linguistics 25 170ndash87

Reder S K A Harris and K Setzler 2003

lsquoA multimedia adult learner corpusrsquo TESOL

Quarterly 373 546ndash57

JOHN HELLERMANN 403

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

Reder S K A Harris R Kurzet

D Brillanceau S Banke and JHellermann

forthcoming Using a modified Sustained Silent

Reading for low-level adult ESOL students

Boston National Center for the Study of Adult

Learning and Literacy

Sacks H E A Schegloff and G Jefferson

1974 lsquoA simplest systematics for the organiza-

tion of turn-taking for conversationsrsquo Language

504 696ndash735

Sagarra N 2000 The longitudinal role of working

memory on adult acquisition of L2 grammar

Unpublished PhD Dissertation University of

Illinois Urbana-Champaign

Schegloff E A 1968 lsquoSequencing in conversa-

tional openingsrsquo American Anthropologist 70

1075ndash95

Schegloff E A 1980 lsquoPreliminaries to prelimin-

aries lsquolsquoCan I ask you a questionrsquorsquo rsquo Sociological

Inquiry 50 104ndash52

Schegloff E A 1998 lsquoReflections on studying

prosody in talk-in-interactionrsquo Language and

Speech 413ndash4 235ndash63

Schegloff E A 2000 lsquoOverlapping talk and the

organization of turn-making for conversationrsquo

Language in Society 291 1ndash63

Schegloff E A 2002 lsquoOpening sequencingrsquo

in J E Katz and M Aakhus (eds) Perpetual

Contact Mobile Communication Private Talk Public

Performance Cambridge Cambridge University

Press

Schegloff E A and H Sacks 1973 lsquoOpening up

closingsrsquo Semiotica 8 289ndash327

Schieffelin B B and Ochs E (1986) lsquoLanguage

socializationrsquo Annual Review of Anthropology 15

163ndash91

Scribner S and M Cole 1981 The Psychology of

Literacy Cambridge MA Harvard University

Press

Segalowitz N C Poulsen and M Komoda

1991 lsquoLower level components of reading skill in

higher level bilinguals Implications for reading

instructionrsquo AILA Review 8 15ndash30

Streeck J 1983 Social Order in Child Communica-

tion Amsterdam John Benjamins

Streeck J and S Mihus 2005 lsquoMicroethno-

graphy The study of practicesrsquo In K L Fitch

and R E Sanders (eds) The Handbook of

Language and Social Interaction Marwah NJ

Lawrence Erlbaum

Street B 1998 lsquoNew literacies in theory

and practice What are the implications for

language in educationrsquo Linguistics and Education

10 1ndash24

Street B V 2001 Literacy and Development

Ethnographic perspectives London Routledge

Tang H 1997 lsquoThe relationship between reading

comprehension processes in L1 and L2rsquo Reading

Psychology 183 249ndash301

Treville M C 1996 lsquoLexical learning and reading

in L2 at the beginner level The advantage of

cognatesrsquo The Canadian Modern Language Review

531 173ndash90

Van Lier L 2000 lsquoFrom input to affordance

Social-interactive learning from an ecological

perspectiversquo in J Lantolf (ed) Sociocultural

Theory and Second Language Learning Oxford

Oxford University Press

van Lier L 2002 lsquoAn ecological-semiotic

perspective on language and linguisticsrsquo in

C Kramsch (ed) Language Acquisition and

Language Socialization An ecological approach

London Continuum

Wenger J 1998 Communities of Practice Learning

Meaning and Identity Cambridge Cambridge

University Press

Yang J 2000 lsquoOrthographic effect on word

recognition by learners of Chinese as a Foreign

Languagersquo Journal of the Chinese Language

Teachers Association 352 1ndash18

YoungR1999 lsquoSociolinguistic approaches toSLArsquo

Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 19 105ndash32

Young R 2000 lsquoInteractional competence

Challenges for validityrsquo Paper presented at the

annual conference of the American Association

for Applied Linguistics Vancouver BC

Young R F 2002 lsquoDiscourse approaches to oral

language assessmentrsquo Annual Review of Applied

Linguistics 22 243ndash62

404 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

Page 21: Classroom Interactive Practices for Developing L2 Literacy: A Microethnographic Study of Two Beginning Adult Learners of English

CONCLUSIONS

The findings uncovered in this study show two learnersrsquo development of

interactional competence through their socialization into classroom literacy

events This socialization occurred through the learnersrsquo engagement in

discursive practices in repeated literacy events which were part of a modified

sustained silent reading program The discursive practices for the literacy

events occurred within the context of the entire classroom community of

practice (Wenger 1998) and afforded learners the opportunities to move from

peripheral to more full participation in English literacy This community of

practice included (1) the teachers who provided instructions and support for

the activities through explicit instruction and modeling (2) learner peers

who also modeled appropriate interactive and language behavior and were

the interlocutors with whom some of the literacy practices were negotiated

and (3) the texts themselves which became a mediating object the third

part in a triadic dialogue for literacy (van Lier 2002) comprised of learnerndash

teacherndashtext or learnerndashlearnerndashtext

While neither learner had studied English formally before enrolling in

classes at the Lab School this study shows that Abby the learner with a high

school education from her home country was familiar with some of the

practices for literacy events including alphabetical filing book selection

and book assessment This research also showed that over the course of

three terms doing the mSSR activities Abby developed a wider range of

interactional practices for opening the dyadic interactions involved in the

story re-telling

Eduardo on the other hand began his participation in the mSSR activities

with much less experience with classroom literacy events having had just

two years of education in his home country The literacy events which were

part of the mSSR afforded Eduardo (van Lier 2000) the opportunity to

engage with literacy and by participating at first peripherally Eduardo

quickly understood and participated more fully in the book selection literacy

event Through interaction with his peers and the teacher in term two basic

literacy skills such as alphabetizing and filing his reading log developed

Though his teachersrsquo initial impressions suggested that he got very little

from his participation in the mSSR a review of his reading logs and his

participation in class show that Eduardo acquired knowledge of literacy

through a transformation (Lave and Wenger 1991) of his understanding of

and participation in literacy events

The development of these learnersrsquo interactional competence can be seen

in Eduardorsquos pursuit of understanding the practice of filing his reading log

which he accomplished through interaction with several members of the

classroom community This change in his participation in filing the logs

shows how learning is a situated practice accomplished through repeated

interactions with the entire classroom community In the analysis of the

story re-telling activities both Eduardo and Abby exhibited an increased

JOHN HELLERMANN 397

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

ability to use talk to initiate interaction by negotiating interlocutor

assignment and turn allocation to open their re-tellings Again the repeated

practice of the re-tellings afforded the learners opportunities to negotiate

a particular classroom and social action (opening a face-to-face interaction)

and both learners developed interactional skills that allowed them to

participate in the practice more fully

A quantitative analysis of standardized assessment measures30 for all the

learners at the Lab School shows that students who participated in the mSSR

method improved in their English language literacy skills to the same degree

as students who participated in classes which used a traditional skills-based

method for the teaching of reading (Reder et al forthcoming) This result

leads one to question what classroom practices might have contributed to

the increase in scores for each group Qualitative micro-analyses such as this

study are a first step toward understanding the discursive practices of the

mSSR classrooms which led to increases in those standardized tests of literacy

skills Also while we know that first-language education is a factor in

successful second language acquisition (Cole et al 1971) we know little

about how classroom interaction between experienced and inexperienced

learners differs In order to address this question this analysis used existing

social categorizations for participant selection (their degree of previous

education in their first language environment) and focused on two students

who would be categorized differently But the use of these macro-level

categorizations was not intended to reify the association of the characteristics

of each category to individual members Rather they were used to define

places from which to empirically examine the interactional language

behavior of members of each category This examination was done through

micro-analyses of the two studentsrsquo participation in the discursive practices

in mSSR literacy events that help L2 literacy develop The focus on the

day-to-day classroom interactions of the two learners allowed us to see

different paths to L2 literacy for learners who have different educational and

literacy experiences and uncover the complex interaction within a classroom

community of practice which results in the changes reported in traditional

language assessment measures

Final version received November 2005

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank the entire staff at the National Labsite for Adult ESOL at Portland State

University for their involvement in maintaining the Lab School as a place for adults to learn

English and as a state of the art research facility I would also like to thank Kathy Harris Sandra

Banke Reuel Kurzet Steve Reder Dominique Brillanceau and three anonymous readers for

their feedback on various versions of the paper

398 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

APPENDIX A

Some transcript conventions in conversation analysis (adapted from Schegloff

2000)

I Temporal and sequential relationships

[ Overlapping or simultaneous talk

frac14 lsquolatched utterancesrsquo no break or pause between utterances

(05) Numbers in parentheses indicate silence represented in tenths of a second

() A dot in parentheses indicates a lsquomicropausersquo

II Aspects of speech delivery including aspectsof intonation

period indicates a falling intonation contour not necessarily the end ofa sentence

question mark indicates rising intonation

a comma indicates lsquocontinuingrsquo intonation

Colons are used to indicate the prolongation or stretching of the soundjust preceding them The more colons the longer the stretching

- A hyphen after a word or part of a word indicates a cut-off or self-interruption word

Underlining is used to indicate some form of stress or emphasis either byincreased loudness or higher pitch The more underlining the greater theemphasis

The degree sign indicates that the talk following it was markedly quiet orsoft

The up and down arrows mark sharper rises or falls in pitch

45 The combination of lsquomore thanrsquo and lsquoless thanrsquo symbols indicates that thetalk between them is compressed or rushed

54 Used in the reverse order they can indicate that a stretch of talk ismarkedly slowed or drawn out

hhh Outbreath

hh Inbreath

(( )) Descriptions of events ((cough)) ((sniff)) ((telephone rings)) ((foot-steps))

(word) All or part of an utterance in parentheses indicates transcriber uncertainty

Creaky voice

NOTES

1 In order to get around the unwieldy

and theoretically-loaded terminology

for describing the use acquisition

and learning of a language that is

not the home or first language of the

participants of this study I will use

JOHN HELLERMANN 399

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

the abbreviation lsquoL2rsquo throughout the

paper to refer to a language that is

being attained through formal instruc-

tion For the students in this study

lsquoL2rsquo refers to English It may not be

however that English is these

studentsrsquo lsquosecondrsquo language as the

abbreviation implies

2 Students in the current study were in

lsquolevel Arsquo classes at the data collection

site SPL level 0ndash2

3 In Sustained Silent Reading

(McCracken 1971 Pilgreen 2000)

students are given a set time in the

classroom to read silently without

interruption by the teacher or other

students and without evaluation of

what is read and how it is read

The method was altered slightly at

the data collection site to meet the

needs of beginning adult language

learners and included activities

like post-reading re-telling activities

and studentsrsquo use of reading logs

to record their assessments of their

reading

4 The National Labsite for Adult ESOL

at Portland State University is sup-

ported in part by grant R309B6002

from the Institute for Education

Science US Dept of Education to

the National Center for the Study of

Adult Learning and Literacy The

Labsite is a partnership between

Portland State University and Portland

Community College The school

and research facilities are housed at

Portland State while the registration

curriculum and teachers of the

ESL students are from Portland

Community College

5 One reviewer asked about the inabil-

ity to see learnersrsquo eye gaze with

cameras embedded in the ceiling

While this is a problem when

students are sitting directly under

the two mobile cameras which

follow students wearing the wireless

microphones most often students

are sitting in a position where

studentsrsquo faces can be seen quite

directly For details of the data

collection see Reder et al (2003)

6 The Labsite Student Study (LSS)

conducts in-home interviews with a

subset of students in the lab school

(70 per year) in their home lan-

guages over the course of four

years regardless of whether the

student remains in lab school classes

or not The primary purpose of

the LSS study is to understand

language use and literacy develop-

ment outside the classroom context

and factors which influence program

persistence

7 All names used in this study are

pseudonyms

8 The teacher had different types of

books on a cart that she wheeled into

the room every class period She took

books off the cart and spread them

out on desks at the back of the room

9 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoselectsbookclass1]

10 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardohelping]

11 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoshowing]

12 Sarah Ouellette helped with the

Spanish transcription and provided

the translation to English Transcrip-

tion conventions are included in

Appendix A lsquoTrsquo indicates the class-

room teacher in all transcripts

13 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoexplaining]

400 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

14 At the time of this excerpt Eduardo

was a novice in Rederrsquos (1987) third

mode of literacy engagement

technical still struggling with basic

technical issues like decoding English

language lexicon

15 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Abbyreading]

16 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Abbynotetaking]

17 The classroom teachers noted the

frustration of doing mSSR with

students who have very low first

language literacy because of her

inability to help students organize

their reading in instances like note

taking (Banke and Brillanceau 2004)

18 A literacy assessment test (BEST

Literacy) was administered in the

classroom in terms one and two of

the mSSR program While the scores

increased for each learner for

Eduardo the increase is not as great

as Abbyrsquos Eduardorsquos overall literacy

score went from 35 in term one

to 42 in term two which is an

increase of one student performance

level (from 3 to 4) Abbyrsquos scores

increased from 45 in term one to

56 in term two which indicates

a jump from student performance

level 4 to 6 For information

on characteristics of student language

abilities at different student perfor-

mance levels (SPLs) see pp 5ndash6 of

wwwcalorgcaelaesl_resources

Part4-5pdf

19 One of the pedagogical advantages of

doing a dyadic re-telling in a lan-

guage classroom is that even if one

student doesnrsquot understand the

instructions for the task in an activity

like the mSSR the peerrsquos act of

posture shift moving a book into

a common space and looking

toward the partner strongly invite

collaboration in some interaction and

it is collaboration that is perhaps

the most important aspect of the

re-telling activity (Pilgreen 2000)

especially for language learners

20 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoopening1]

21 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoopening2]

22 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoorientsstorytelling]

23 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Abbyopening1]

24 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Abbypretasktalkterm2]

25 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Abbystartingretelling2]

26 While more empirical evidence is

warranted a provisional claim

can be mentioned here that such

re-telling activities and perhaps

in classroom pair activities in

general are organized with a two-

part move like that displayed in

(6) lsquoquery about readinessrsquo and

lsquoturn allocationrsquo before the first task

question

27 Notably absent from Abbyrsquos and

Eduardorsquos peer re-tellings are any

verbal greeting sequences Even

when one of the pair moves across

the room to sit with another student

Abby and Eduardo did not exchange

greetings with their partner for their

JOHN HELLERMANN 401

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

task This is something that other

students did as part of their openings

28 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoasksstudentforhelpfiling]

29 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoasksaboutfiling]

30 The assessment measures were the

BEST Plus and the Peabody Picture

Vocabulary tests

REFERENCES

Atkinson J M and J C Heritage 1984

Structures of Social Action Studies in Conversation

Analysis Cambridge Cambridge University Press

August G 2001 The Road to Second Language

Reading How do we get there Unpublished

PhD Dissertation City University of New York

New York

Banke S and D Brillanceu 2004 lsquoLiving

in Interventionrsquo Unpublished manuscript

Barton D (2001) lsquoDirections for literacy

research Analysing language and social practices

in a textually mediated worldrsquo Language and

Education 152ndash3 92ndash104

Bernhardt E B and M L Kamil 1995 lsquoInter-

preting relationships between L1 and L2 reading

Consolidating the linguistic threshold and the

linguistic interdependence hypothesesrsquo Applied

Linguistics 161 15ndash34

Bourdieu P 1991 Language and Symbolic Power

Cambridge MA Harvard University Press

Brandt D 1990 Literacy as Involvement The Acts

of Writers Readers and Texts Carbondale IL

Southern Illinois University Press

ButtonG andNCasey1984 lsquoGenerating topics

The use of topic initial elicitorsrsquo in J M Atkinson

and J C Heritage (eds) Structures of Social Action

Studies in Conversation Analysis Cambridge

Cambridge University Press

Canale M and M Swain 1980 lsquoTheoretical

bases of communicative approaches to second

language teaching and testingrsquoApplied Linguistics

1 1ndash47

Carrell P L 1991 lsquoSecond language reading

Reading ability or language proficiencyrsquo Applied

Linguistics 122 159ndash79

Chow P and C Chou 2000 Evaluating

Sustained Silent Reading in Reading Classes [Web]

I-TESL-J Available httpitesljorgArticlesChow-

mSSRhtml

Cole M J Gay J A Glick and D W Sharp

1971 The Cultural Context of Learning and Think-

ing An Exploration in Experimental Anthropology

New York Basic Books

Couper-Kuhlen E andMSelting 1996 Prosody

in Conversation Interactional Studies Cambridge

Cambridge University Press

Duff P 2002 lsquoThe discursive co-construction

of knowledge identity and difference An

ethnography of communication in the high

school mainstreamrsquo Applied Linguistics 233

289ndash322

Erickson F and J Schultz 1981 lsquoWhen is

a context Some issues and methods in the

analysis of social competencersquo in J Green and

C Wallat (eds) Ethnography and Language in

Educational Settings Norwood NJ Ablex

Felser C L Roberts T Marinis and R Gross

2003 lsquoThe processing of ambiguous sentences by

first and second language learners of Englishrsquo

Applied Psycholinguistics 243 453ndash89

Garfinkel H 1967 Studies in Ethnomethodology

Englewood Cliffs NJ Prentice Hall

Gee J P 1990 Social Linguistics and Literacies

Ideology in Discourses London Falmer Press

Goffman E 1959 The Presentation of Self

in Everyday Life New York Anchor Books

Doubleday

Goffman E 1961 Encounters Two Studies in

the Sociology of Interaction Indianapolis Bobbs-

Merrill

Goody J1977 TheDomestication of the SavageMind

Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Grabe W and F L Stoller 1997 lsquoReading and

vocabulary development in a second language

A case studyrsquo in J Coady and T Huckin (eds)

Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition A

Rationale for Pedagogy Cambridge Cambridge

University Press

402 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

Gumperz J J 1982 Discourse Strategies

Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Habermas J1976 lsquoSome distinctions in universal

pragmatics A working paperrsquo Theory and Society

32 155ndash67

Hall J K 1993 lsquoThe role of oral practices in

the accomplishment of our everyday lives

The sociocultural dimension of interaction

with implications for the learning of

another languagersquo Applied Linguistics 142

145ndash66

Hall J K 1995 lsquo lsquolsquoAw man where you goinrsquorsquorsquo

Classroom interaction and the development

of L2 interactional competencersquo Issues in Applied

Linguistics 62 37ndash62

Hall JK1997 lsquoA consideration of SLA as a theory

of practice A response to Firth and Wagnerrsquo

Modern Language Journal 813 301ndash306

He A W and R Young 1998 lsquoLanguage

proficiency interviews A discourse approachrsquo in

R Young and A W He (eds) Talking and Testing

Discourse Approaches to the Assessment of Oral

Proficiency Amsterdam John Benjamins

Heath S B 1982 lsquoWhat no bedtime story means

Narrative skills at home and schoolrsquo Language

in Society 11 49ndash76

Heath S B 1983 Ways with Words Language

Life and Work in Communities and Classrooms

Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Hellermann J 2004 lsquoPractices for opening dyadic

interactionrsquo paper presented at the annual

conference of the American Association for

Applied Linguistics Portland OR

Hellermann J forthcoming lsquoThe development of

practices for action in the classroom diadic

interaction focus on task openingsrsquo Modern

Language Journal

Hood S and H Joyce 1995 lsquoReading in the

adult ESL curriculum and classroomrsquo Prospect

102 52ndash64

Hymes D 1974 Foundations in Sociolinguistics

An Ethnographic Approach Philadelphia

University of Pennsylvania Press

Kramsch C 1986 lsquoFrom language proficiency

to interactional competencersquo Modern Language

Journal 70 372ndash66

Kramsch C 2002 lsquoHow can we tell the dancer

from the dancersquo in C Kramsch (ed) Language

Acquisition and Language Socialization An ecological

approach London Continuum

Lave J and E Wenger 1991 Situated Learning

Legitimate Peripheral Participation Cambridge

Cambridge University Press

Lerner G H 1995 lsquoTurn design and the organiza-

tion of participation in instructional activitiesrsquo

Discourse Processes 19 111ndash31

MacBethD2003 lsquoHugh MehanrsquosLearning Lessons

reconsidered On the differences between the

naturalistic and critical analysis of classroom

discoursersquo American Educational Research Journal

401 239ndash80

McCraken R A 1971 lsquoInitiating sustained silent

readingrsquo Journal of Reading 148 521ndash4 582ndash3

McDermott R and D Roth 1978 lsquoThe social

organization of behavior Interactional

approachesrsquo Annual Review of Anthropology 7

321ndash45

Markee N 2000 Conversation Analysis Marwah

NJ Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

Ochs E and B Schieffelin 1979 Developmental

Pragmatics New York Academic Press

Ochs E E A Schegloff and S A Thompson

1996 Interaction and Grammar Cambridge

Cambridge University Press

Ong W J 1982 Orality and Literacy The Technolo-

gizing of the Word London Routledge

Palacios I G 2002 An ESLLiteracy Center

A qualitative study of perspectives and practices

of immigrant adults and literacy facilitators

Unpublished PhD Dissertation Indiana

University Pennsylvania Indiana PA

Pilgreen J L 2000 The SSR Handbook How to

Organize and Manage a Sustained Silent Reading

Program Portsmouth NH BoyntonCook

Pulido D 2003 lsquoModeling the role of second

language proficiency and topic familiarity

in second language incidental vocabulary

acquisition through readingrsquo Language Learning

532 233ndash84

Reder S 1987 lsquoComparative aspects of functional

literacy development Three ethnic American

communitiesrsquo in D Wagner (ed) The Future

of Literacy in a Changing World Oxford Pergamon

Press

Reder S 1994 lsquoPractice engagement theory

A sociocultural approach to literacy across

languages and culturersquo in B M Ferdman

R M Weber and A G Ramırez (eds) Literacy

Across Languages and Cultures Albany NY State

University of New York Press

Reder S and E Davila (2005) lsquoContext

and literacy practicesrsquo Annual Review of Applied

Linguistics 25 170ndash87

Reder S K A Harris and K Setzler 2003

lsquoA multimedia adult learner corpusrsquo TESOL

Quarterly 373 546ndash57

JOHN HELLERMANN 403

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

Reder S K A Harris R Kurzet

D Brillanceau S Banke and JHellermann

forthcoming Using a modified Sustained Silent

Reading for low-level adult ESOL students

Boston National Center for the Study of Adult

Learning and Literacy

Sacks H E A Schegloff and G Jefferson

1974 lsquoA simplest systematics for the organiza-

tion of turn-taking for conversationsrsquo Language

504 696ndash735

Sagarra N 2000 The longitudinal role of working

memory on adult acquisition of L2 grammar

Unpublished PhD Dissertation University of

Illinois Urbana-Champaign

Schegloff E A 1968 lsquoSequencing in conversa-

tional openingsrsquo American Anthropologist 70

1075ndash95

Schegloff E A 1980 lsquoPreliminaries to prelimin-

aries lsquolsquoCan I ask you a questionrsquorsquo rsquo Sociological

Inquiry 50 104ndash52

Schegloff E A 1998 lsquoReflections on studying

prosody in talk-in-interactionrsquo Language and

Speech 413ndash4 235ndash63

Schegloff E A 2000 lsquoOverlapping talk and the

organization of turn-making for conversationrsquo

Language in Society 291 1ndash63

Schegloff E A 2002 lsquoOpening sequencingrsquo

in J E Katz and M Aakhus (eds) Perpetual

Contact Mobile Communication Private Talk Public

Performance Cambridge Cambridge University

Press

Schegloff E A and H Sacks 1973 lsquoOpening up

closingsrsquo Semiotica 8 289ndash327

Schieffelin B B and Ochs E (1986) lsquoLanguage

socializationrsquo Annual Review of Anthropology 15

163ndash91

Scribner S and M Cole 1981 The Psychology of

Literacy Cambridge MA Harvard University

Press

Segalowitz N C Poulsen and M Komoda

1991 lsquoLower level components of reading skill in

higher level bilinguals Implications for reading

instructionrsquo AILA Review 8 15ndash30

Streeck J 1983 Social Order in Child Communica-

tion Amsterdam John Benjamins

Streeck J and S Mihus 2005 lsquoMicroethno-

graphy The study of practicesrsquo In K L Fitch

and R E Sanders (eds) The Handbook of

Language and Social Interaction Marwah NJ

Lawrence Erlbaum

Street B 1998 lsquoNew literacies in theory

and practice What are the implications for

language in educationrsquo Linguistics and Education

10 1ndash24

Street B V 2001 Literacy and Development

Ethnographic perspectives London Routledge

Tang H 1997 lsquoThe relationship between reading

comprehension processes in L1 and L2rsquo Reading

Psychology 183 249ndash301

Treville M C 1996 lsquoLexical learning and reading

in L2 at the beginner level The advantage of

cognatesrsquo The Canadian Modern Language Review

531 173ndash90

Van Lier L 2000 lsquoFrom input to affordance

Social-interactive learning from an ecological

perspectiversquo in J Lantolf (ed) Sociocultural

Theory and Second Language Learning Oxford

Oxford University Press

van Lier L 2002 lsquoAn ecological-semiotic

perspective on language and linguisticsrsquo in

C Kramsch (ed) Language Acquisition and

Language Socialization An ecological approach

London Continuum

Wenger J 1998 Communities of Practice Learning

Meaning and Identity Cambridge Cambridge

University Press

Yang J 2000 lsquoOrthographic effect on word

recognition by learners of Chinese as a Foreign

Languagersquo Journal of the Chinese Language

Teachers Association 352 1ndash18

YoungR1999 lsquoSociolinguistic approaches toSLArsquo

Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 19 105ndash32

Young R 2000 lsquoInteractional competence

Challenges for validityrsquo Paper presented at the

annual conference of the American Association

for Applied Linguistics Vancouver BC

Young R F 2002 lsquoDiscourse approaches to oral

language assessmentrsquo Annual Review of Applied

Linguistics 22 243ndash62

404 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

Page 22: Classroom Interactive Practices for Developing L2 Literacy: A Microethnographic Study of Two Beginning Adult Learners of English

ability to use talk to initiate interaction by negotiating interlocutor

assignment and turn allocation to open their re-tellings Again the repeated

practice of the re-tellings afforded the learners opportunities to negotiate

a particular classroom and social action (opening a face-to-face interaction)

and both learners developed interactional skills that allowed them to

participate in the practice more fully

A quantitative analysis of standardized assessment measures30 for all the

learners at the Lab School shows that students who participated in the mSSR

method improved in their English language literacy skills to the same degree

as students who participated in classes which used a traditional skills-based

method for the teaching of reading (Reder et al forthcoming) This result

leads one to question what classroom practices might have contributed to

the increase in scores for each group Qualitative micro-analyses such as this

study are a first step toward understanding the discursive practices of the

mSSR classrooms which led to increases in those standardized tests of literacy

skills Also while we know that first-language education is a factor in

successful second language acquisition (Cole et al 1971) we know little

about how classroom interaction between experienced and inexperienced

learners differs In order to address this question this analysis used existing

social categorizations for participant selection (their degree of previous

education in their first language environment) and focused on two students

who would be categorized differently But the use of these macro-level

categorizations was not intended to reify the association of the characteristics

of each category to individual members Rather they were used to define

places from which to empirically examine the interactional language

behavior of members of each category This examination was done through

micro-analyses of the two studentsrsquo participation in the discursive practices

in mSSR literacy events that help L2 literacy develop The focus on the

day-to-day classroom interactions of the two learners allowed us to see

different paths to L2 literacy for learners who have different educational and

literacy experiences and uncover the complex interaction within a classroom

community of practice which results in the changes reported in traditional

language assessment measures

Final version received November 2005

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank the entire staff at the National Labsite for Adult ESOL at Portland State

University for their involvement in maintaining the Lab School as a place for adults to learn

English and as a state of the art research facility I would also like to thank Kathy Harris Sandra

Banke Reuel Kurzet Steve Reder Dominique Brillanceau and three anonymous readers for

their feedback on various versions of the paper

398 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

APPENDIX A

Some transcript conventions in conversation analysis (adapted from Schegloff

2000)

I Temporal and sequential relationships

[ Overlapping or simultaneous talk

frac14 lsquolatched utterancesrsquo no break or pause between utterances

(05) Numbers in parentheses indicate silence represented in tenths of a second

() A dot in parentheses indicates a lsquomicropausersquo

II Aspects of speech delivery including aspectsof intonation

period indicates a falling intonation contour not necessarily the end ofa sentence

question mark indicates rising intonation

a comma indicates lsquocontinuingrsquo intonation

Colons are used to indicate the prolongation or stretching of the soundjust preceding them The more colons the longer the stretching

- A hyphen after a word or part of a word indicates a cut-off or self-interruption word

Underlining is used to indicate some form of stress or emphasis either byincreased loudness or higher pitch The more underlining the greater theemphasis

The degree sign indicates that the talk following it was markedly quiet orsoft

The up and down arrows mark sharper rises or falls in pitch

45 The combination of lsquomore thanrsquo and lsquoless thanrsquo symbols indicates that thetalk between them is compressed or rushed

54 Used in the reverse order they can indicate that a stretch of talk ismarkedly slowed or drawn out

hhh Outbreath

hh Inbreath

(( )) Descriptions of events ((cough)) ((sniff)) ((telephone rings)) ((foot-steps))

(word) All or part of an utterance in parentheses indicates transcriber uncertainty

Creaky voice

NOTES

1 In order to get around the unwieldy

and theoretically-loaded terminology

for describing the use acquisition

and learning of a language that is

not the home or first language of the

participants of this study I will use

JOHN HELLERMANN 399

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

the abbreviation lsquoL2rsquo throughout the

paper to refer to a language that is

being attained through formal instruc-

tion For the students in this study

lsquoL2rsquo refers to English It may not be

however that English is these

studentsrsquo lsquosecondrsquo language as the

abbreviation implies

2 Students in the current study were in

lsquolevel Arsquo classes at the data collection

site SPL level 0ndash2

3 In Sustained Silent Reading

(McCracken 1971 Pilgreen 2000)

students are given a set time in the

classroom to read silently without

interruption by the teacher or other

students and without evaluation of

what is read and how it is read

The method was altered slightly at

the data collection site to meet the

needs of beginning adult language

learners and included activities

like post-reading re-telling activities

and studentsrsquo use of reading logs

to record their assessments of their

reading

4 The National Labsite for Adult ESOL

at Portland State University is sup-

ported in part by grant R309B6002

from the Institute for Education

Science US Dept of Education to

the National Center for the Study of

Adult Learning and Literacy The

Labsite is a partnership between

Portland State University and Portland

Community College The school

and research facilities are housed at

Portland State while the registration

curriculum and teachers of the

ESL students are from Portland

Community College

5 One reviewer asked about the inabil-

ity to see learnersrsquo eye gaze with

cameras embedded in the ceiling

While this is a problem when

students are sitting directly under

the two mobile cameras which

follow students wearing the wireless

microphones most often students

are sitting in a position where

studentsrsquo faces can be seen quite

directly For details of the data

collection see Reder et al (2003)

6 The Labsite Student Study (LSS)

conducts in-home interviews with a

subset of students in the lab school

(70 per year) in their home lan-

guages over the course of four

years regardless of whether the

student remains in lab school classes

or not The primary purpose of

the LSS study is to understand

language use and literacy develop-

ment outside the classroom context

and factors which influence program

persistence

7 All names used in this study are

pseudonyms

8 The teacher had different types of

books on a cart that she wheeled into

the room every class period She took

books off the cart and spread them

out on desks at the back of the room

9 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoselectsbookclass1]

10 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardohelping]

11 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoshowing]

12 Sarah Ouellette helped with the

Spanish transcription and provided

the translation to English Transcrip-

tion conventions are included in

Appendix A lsquoTrsquo indicates the class-

room teacher in all transcripts

13 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoexplaining]

400 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

14 At the time of this excerpt Eduardo

was a novice in Rederrsquos (1987) third

mode of literacy engagement

technical still struggling with basic

technical issues like decoding English

language lexicon

15 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Abbyreading]

16 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Abbynotetaking]

17 The classroom teachers noted the

frustration of doing mSSR with

students who have very low first

language literacy because of her

inability to help students organize

their reading in instances like note

taking (Banke and Brillanceau 2004)

18 A literacy assessment test (BEST

Literacy) was administered in the

classroom in terms one and two of

the mSSR program While the scores

increased for each learner for

Eduardo the increase is not as great

as Abbyrsquos Eduardorsquos overall literacy

score went from 35 in term one

to 42 in term two which is an

increase of one student performance

level (from 3 to 4) Abbyrsquos scores

increased from 45 in term one to

56 in term two which indicates

a jump from student performance

level 4 to 6 For information

on characteristics of student language

abilities at different student perfor-

mance levels (SPLs) see pp 5ndash6 of

wwwcalorgcaelaesl_resources

Part4-5pdf

19 One of the pedagogical advantages of

doing a dyadic re-telling in a lan-

guage classroom is that even if one

student doesnrsquot understand the

instructions for the task in an activity

like the mSSR the peerrsquos act of

posture shift moving a book into

a common space and looking

toward the partner strongly invite

collaboration in some interaction and

it is collaboration that is perhaps

the most important aspect of the

re-telling activity (Pilgreen 2000)

especially for language learners

20 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoopening1]

21 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoopening2]

22 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoorientsstorytelling]

23 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Abbyopening1]

24 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Abbypretasktalkterm2]

25 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Abbystartingretelling2]

26 While more empirical evidence is

warranted a provisional claim

can be mentioned here that such

re-telling activities and perhaps

in classroom pair activities in

general are organized with a two-

part move like that displayed in

(6) lsquoquery about readinessrsquo and

lsquoturn allocationrsquo before the first task

question

27 Notably absent from Abbyrsquos and

Eduardorsquos peer re-tellings are any

verbal greeting sequences Even

when one of the pair moves across

the room to sit with another student

Abby and Eduardo did not exchange

greetings with their partner for their

JOHN HELLERMANN 401

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

task This is something that other

students did as part of their openings

28 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoasksstudentforhelpfiling]

29 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoasksaboutfiling]

30 The assessment measures were the

BEST Plus and the Peabody Picture

Vocabulary tests

REFERENCES

Atkinson J M and J C Heritage 1984

Structures of Social Action Studies in Conversation

Analysis Cambridge Cambridge University Press

August G 2001 The Road to Second Language

Reading How do we get there Unpublished

PhD Dissertation City University of New York

New York

Banke S and D Brillanceu 2004 lsquoLiving

in Interventionrsquo Unpublished manuscript

Barton D (2001) lsquoDirections for literacy

research Analysing language and social practices

in a textually mediated worldrsquo Language and

Education 152ndash3 92ndash104

Bernhardt E B and M L Kamil 1995 lsquoInter-

preting relationships between L1 and L2 reading

Consolidating the linguistic threshold and the

linguistic interdependence hypothesesrsquo Applied

Linguistics 161 15ndash34

Bourdieu P 1991 Language and Symbolic Power

Cambridge MA Harvard University Press

Brandt D 1990 Literacy as Involvement The Acts

of Writers Readers and Texts Carbondale IL

Southern Illinois University Press

ButtonG andNCasey1984 lsquoGenerating topics

The use of topic initial elicitorsrsquo in J M Atkinson

and J C Heritage (eds) Structures of Social Action

Studies in Conversation Analysis Cambridge

Cambridge University Press

Canale M and M Swain 1980 lsquoTheoretical

bases of communicative approaches to second

language teaching and testingrsquoApplied Linguistics

1 1ndash47

Carrell P L 1991 lsquoSecond language reading

Reading ability or language proficiencyrsquo Applied

Linguistics 122 159ndash79

Chow P and C Chou 2000 Evaluating

Sustained Silent Reading in Reading Classes [Web]

I-TESL-J Available httpitesljorgArticlesChow-

mSSRhtml

Cole M J Gay J A Glick and D W Sharp

1971 The Cultural Context of Learning and Think-

ing An Exploration in Experimental Anthropology

New York Basic Books

Couper-Kuhlen E andMSelting 1996 Prosody

in Conversation Interactional Studies Cambridge

Cambridge University Press

Duff P 2002 lsquoThe discursive co-construction

of knowledge identity and difference An

ethnography of communication in the high

school mainstreamrsquo Applied Linguistics 233

289ndash322

Erickson F and J Schultz 1981 lsquoWhen is

a context Some issues and methods in the

analysis of social competencersquo in J Green and

C Wallat (eds) Ethnography and Language in

Educational Settings Norwood NJ Ablex

Felser C L Roberts T Marinis and R Gross

2003 lsquoThe processing of ambiguous sentences by

first and second language learners of Englishrsquo

Applied Psycholinguistics 243 453ndash89

Garfinkel H 1967 Studies in Ethnomethodology

Englewood Cliffs NJ Prentice Hall

Gee J P 1990 Social Linguistics and Literacies

Ideology in Discourses London Falmer Press

Goffman E 1959 The Presentation of Self

in Everyday Life New York Anchor Books

Doubleday

Goffman E 1961 Encounters Two Studies in

the Sociology of Interaction Indianapolis Bobbs-

Merrill

Goody J1977 TheDomestication of the SavageMind

Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Grabe W and F L Stoller 1997 lsquoReading and

vocabulary development in a second language

A case studyrsquo in J Coady and T Huckin (eds)

Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition A

Rationale for Pedagogy Cambridge Cambridge

University Press

402 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

Gumperz J J 1982 Discourse Strategies

Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Habermas J1976 lsquoSome distinctions in universal

pragmatics A working paperrsquo Theory and Society

32 155ndash67

Hall J K 1993 lsquoThe role of oral practices in

the accomplishment of our everyday lives

The sociocultural dimension of interaction

with implications for the learning of

another languagersquo Applied Linguistics 142

145ndash66

Hall J K 1995 lsquo lsquolsquoAw man where you goinrsquorsquorsquo

Classroom interaction and the development

of L2 interactional competencersquo Issues in Applied

Linguistics 62 37ndash62

Hall JK1997 lsquoA consideration of SLA as a theory

of practice A response to Firth and Wagnerrsquo

Modern Language Journal 813 301ndash306

He A W and R Young 1998 lsquoLanguage

proficiency interviews A discourse approachrsquo in

R Young and A W He (eds) Talking and Testing

Discourse Approaches to the Assessment of Oral

Proficiency Amsterdam John Benjamins

Heath S B 1982 lsquoWhat no bedtime story means

Narrative skills at home and schoolrsquo Language

in Society 11 49ndash76

Heath S B 1983 Ways with Words Language

Life and Work in Communities and Classrooms

Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Hellermann J 2004 lsquoPractices for opening dyadic

interactionrsquo paper presented at the annual

conference of the American Association for

Applied Linguistics Portland OR

Hellermann J forthcoming lsquoThe development of

practices for action in the classroom diadic

interaction focus on task openingsrsquo Modern

Language Journal

Hood S and H Joyce 1995 lsquoReading in the

adult ESL curriculum and classroomrsquo Prospect

102 52ndash64

Hymes D 1974 Foundations in Sociolinguistics

An Ethnographic Approach Philadelphia

University of Pennsylvania Press

Kramsch C 1986 lsquoFrom language proficiency

to interactional competencersquo Modern Language

Journal 70 372ndash66

Kramsch C 2002 lsquoHow can we tell the dancer

from the dancersquo in C Kramsch (ed) Language

Acquisition and Language Socialization An ecological

approach London Continuum

Lave J and E Wenger 1991 Situated Learning

Legitimate Peripheral Participation Cambridge

Cambridge University Press

Lerner G H 1995 lsquoTurn design and the organiza-

tion of participation in instructional activitiesrsquo

Discourse Processes 19 111ndash31

MacBethD2003 lsquoHugh MehanrsquosLearning Lessons

reconsidered On the differences between the

naturalistic and critical analysis of classroom

discoursersquo American Educational Research Journal

401 239ndash80

McCraken R A 1971 lsquoInitiating sustained silent

readingrsquo Journal of Reading 148 521ndash4 582ndash3

McDermott R and D Roth 1978 lsquoThe social

organization of behavior Interactional

approachesrsquo Annual Review of Anthropology 7

321ndash45

Markee N 2000 Conversation Analysis Marwah

NJ Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

Ochs E and B Schieffelin 1979 Developmental

Pragmatics New York Academic Press

Ochs E E A Schegloff and S A Thompson

1996 Interaction and Grammar Cambridge

Cambridge University Press

Ong W J 1982 Orality and Literacy The Technolo-

gizing of the Word London Routledge

Palacios I G 2002 An ESLLiteracy Center

A qualitative study of perspectives and practices

of immigrant adults and literacy facilitators

Unpublished PhD Dissertation Indiana

University Pennsylvania Indiana PA

Pilgreen J L 2000 The SSR Handbook How to

Organize and Manage a Sustained Silent Reading

Program Portsmouth NH BoyntonCook

Pulido D 2003 lsquoModeling the role of second

language proficiency and topic familiarity

in second language incidental vocabulary

acquisition through readingrsquo Language Learning

532 233ndash84

Reder S 1987 lsquoComparative aspects of functional

literacy development Three ethnic American

communitiesrsquo in D Wagner (ed) The Future

of Literacy in a Changing World Oxford Pergamon

Press

Reder S 1994 lsquoPractice engagement theory

A sociocultural approach to literacy across

languages and culturersquo in B M Ferdman

R M Weber and A G Ramırez (eds) Literacy

Across Languages and Cultures Albany NY State

University of New York Press

Reder S and E Davila (2005) lsquoContext

and literacy practicesrsquo Annual Review of Applied

Linguistics 25 170ndash87

Reder S K A Harris and K Setzler 2003

lsquoA multimedia adult learner corpusrsquo TESOL

Quarterly 373 546ndash57

JOHN HELLERMANN 403

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

Reder S K A Harris R Kurzet

D Brillanceau S Banke and JHellermann

forthcoming Using a modified Sustained Silent

Reading for low-level adult ESOL students

Boston National Center for the Study of Adult

Learning and Literacy

Sacks H E A Schegloff and G Jefferson

1974 lsquoA simplest systematics for the organiza-

tion of turn-taking for conversationsrsquo Language

504 696ndash735

Sagarra N 2000 The longitudinal role of working

memory on adult acquisition of L2 grammar

Unpublished PhD Dissertation University of

Illinois Urbana-Champaign

Schegloff E A 1968 lsquoSequencing in conversa-

tional openingsrsquo American Anthropologist 70

1075ndash95

Schegloff E A 1980 lsquoPreliminaries to prelimin-

aries lsquolsquoCan I ask you a questionrsquorsquo rsquo Sociological

Inquiry 50 104ndash52

Schegloff E A 1998 lsquoReflections on studying

prosody in talk-in-interactionrsquo Language and

Speech 413ndash4 235ndash63

Schegloff E A 2000 lsquoOverlapping talk and the

organization of turn-making for conversationrsquo

Language in Society 291 1ndash63

Schegloff E A 2002 lsquoOpening sequencingrsquo

in J E Katz and M Aakhus (eds) Perpetual

Contact Mobile Communication Private Talk Public

Performance Cambridge Cambridge University

Press

Schegloff E A and H Sacks 1973 lsquoOpening up

closingsrsquo Semiotica 8 289ndash327

Schieffelin B B and Ochs E (1986) lsquoLanguage

socializationrsquo Annual Review of Anthropology 15

163ndash91

Scribner S and M Cole 1981 The Psychology of

Literacy Cambridge MA Harvard University

Press

Segalowitz N C Poulsen and M Komoda

1991 lsquoLower level components of reading skill in

higher level bilinguals Implications for reading

instructionrsquo AILA Review 8 15ndash30

Streeck J 1983 Social Order in Child Communica-

tion Amsterdam John Benjamins

Streeck J and S Mihus 2005 lsquoMicroethno-

graphy The study of practicesrsquo In K L Fitch

and R E Sanders (eds) The Handbook of

Language and Social Interaction Marwah NJ

Lawrence Erlbaum

Street B 1998 lsquoNew literacies in theory

and practice What are the implications for

language in educationrsquo Linguistics and Education

10 1ndash24

Street B V 2001 Literacy and Development

Ethnographic perspectives London Routledge

Tang H 1997 lsquoThe relationship between reading

comprehension processes in L1 and L2rsquo Reading

Psychology 183 249ndash301

Treville M C 1996 lsquoLexical learning and reading

in L2 at the beginner level The advantage of

cognatesrsquo The Canadian Modern Language Review

531 173ndash90

Van Lier L 2000 lsquoFrom input to affordance

Social-interactive learning from an ecological

perspectiversquo in J Lantolf (ed) Sociocultural

Theory and Second Language Learning Oxford

Oxford University Press

van Lier L 2002 lsquoAn ecological-semiotic

perspective on language and linguisticsrsquo in

C Kramsch (ed) Language Acquisition and

Language Socialization An ecological approach

London Continuum

Wenger J 1998 Communities of Practice Learning

Meaning and Identity Cambridge Cambridge

University Press

Yang J 2000 lsquoOrthographic effect on word

recognition by learners of Chinese as a Foreign

Languagersquo Journal of the Chinese Language

Teachers Association 352 1ndash18

YoungR1999 lsquoSociolinguistic approaches toSLArsquo

Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 19 105ndash32

Young R 2000 lsquoInteractional competence

Challenges for validityrsquo Paper presented at the

annual conference of the American Association

for Applied Linguistics Vancouver BC

Young R F 2002 lsquoDiscourse approaches to oral

language assessmentrsquo Annual Review of Applied

Linguistics 22 243ndash62

404 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

Page 23: Classroom Interactive Practices for Developing L2 Literacy: A Microethnographic Study of Two Beginning Adult Learners of English

APPENDIX A

Some transcript conventions in conversation analysis (adapted from Schegloff

2000)

I Temporal and sequential relationships

[ Overlapping or simultaneous talk

frac14 lsquolatched utterancesrsquo no break or pause between utterances

(05) Numbers in parentheses indicate silence represented in tenths of a second

() A dot in parentheses indicates a lsquomicropausersquo

II Aspects of speech delivery including aspectsof intonation

period indicates a falling intonation contour not necessarily the end ofa sentence

question mark indicates rising intonation

a comma indicates lsquocontinuingrsquo intonation

Colons are used to indicate the prolongation or stretching of the soundjust preceding them The more colons the longer the stretching

- A hyphen after a word or part of a word indicates a cut-off or self-interruption word

Underlining is used to indicate some form of stress or emphasis either byincreased loudness or higher pitch The more underlining the greater theemphasis

The degree sign indicates that the talk following it was markedly quiet orsoft

The up and down arrows mark sharper rises or falls in pitch

45 The combination of lsquomore thanrsquo and lsquoless thanrsquo symbols indicates that thetalk between them is compressed or rushed

54 Used in the reverse order they can indicate that a stretch of talk ismarkedly slowed or drawn out

hhh Outbreath

hh Inbreath

(( )) Descriptions of events ((cough)) ((sniff)) ((telephone rings)) ((foot-steps))

(word) All or part of an utterance in parentheses indicates transcriber uncertainty

Creaky voice

NOTES

1 In order to get around the unwieldy

and theoretically-loaded terminology

for describing the use acquisition

and learning of a language that is

not the home or first language of the

participants of this study I will use

JOHN HELLERMANN 399

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

the abbreviation lsquoL2rsquo throughout the

paper to refer to a language that is

being attained through formal instruc-

tion For the students in this study

lsquoL2rsquo refers to English It may not be

however that English is these

studentsrsquo lsquosecondrsquo language as the

abbreviation implies

2 Students in the current study were in

lsquolevel Arsquo classes at the data collection

site SPL level 0ndash2

3 In Sustained Silent Reading

(McCracken 1971 Pilgreen 2000)

students are given a set time in the

classroom to read silently without

interruption by the teacher or other

students and without evaluation of

what is read and how it is read

The method was altered slightly at

the data collection site to meet the

needs of beginning adult language

learners and included activities

like post-reading re-telling activities

and studentsrsquo use of reading logs

to record their assessments of their

reading

4 The National Labsite for Adult ESOL

at Portland State University is sup-

ported in part by grant R309B6002

from the Institute for Education

Science US Dept of Education to

the National Center for the Study of

Adult Learning and Literacy The

Labsite is a partnership between

Portland State University and Portland

Community College The school

and research facilities are housed at

Portland State while the registration

curriculum and teachers of the

ESL students are from Portland

Community College

5 One reviewer asked about the inabil-

ity to see learnersrsquo eye gaze with

cameras embedded in the ceiling

While this is a problem when

students are sitting directly under

the two mobile cameras which

follow students wearing the wireless

microphones most often students

are sitting in a position where

studentsrsquo faces can be seen quite

directly For details of the data

collection see Reder et al (2003)

6 The Labsite Student Study (LSS)

conducts in-home interviews with a

subset of students in the lab school

(70 per year) in their home lan-

guages over the course of four

years regardless of whether the

student remains in lab school classes

or not The primary purpose of

the LSS study is to understand

language use and literacy develop-

ment outside the classroom context

and factors which influence program

persistence

7 All names used in this study are

pseudonyms

8 The teacher had different types of

books on a cart that she wheeled into

the room every class period She took

books off the cart and spread them

out on desks at the back of the room

9 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoselectsbookclass1]

10 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardohelping]

11 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoshowing]

12 Sarah Ouellette helped with the

Spanish transcription and provided

the translation to English Transcrip-

tion conventions are included in

Appendix A lsquoTrsquo indicates the class-

room teacher in all transcripts

13 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoexplaining]

400 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

14 At the time of this excerpt Eduardo

was a novice in Rederrsquos (1987) third

mode of literacy engagement

technical still struggling with basic

technical issues like decoding English

language lexicon

15 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Abbyreading]

16 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Abbynotetaking]

17 The classroom teachers noted the

frustration of doing mSSR with

students who have very low first

language literacy because of her

inability to help students organize

their reading in instances like note

taking (Banke and Brillanceau 2004)

18 A literacy assessment test (BEST

Literacy) was administered in the

classroom in terms one and two of

the mSSR program While the scores

increased for each learner for

Eduardo the increase is not as great

as Abbyrsquos Eduardorsquos overall literacy

score went from 35 in term one

to 42 in term two which is an

increase of one student performance

level (from 3 to 4) Abbyrsquos scores

increased from 45 in term one to

56 in term two which indicates

a jump from student performance

level 4 to 6 For information

on characteristics of student language

abilities at different student perfor-

mance levels (SPLs) see pp 5ndash6 of

wwwcalorgcaelaesl_resources

Part4-5pdf

19 One of the pedagogical advantages of

doing a dyadic re-telling in a lan-

guage classroom is that even if one

student doesnrsquot understand the

instructions for the task in an activity

like the mSSR the peerrsquos act of

posture shift moving a book into

a common space and looking

toward the partner strongly invite

collaboration in some interaction and

it is collaboration that is perhaps

the most important aspect of the

re-telling activity (Pilgreen 2000)

especially for language learners

20 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoopening1]

21 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoopening2]

22 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoorientsstorytelling]

23 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Abbyopening1]

24 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Abbypretasktalkterm2]

25 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Abbystartingretelling2]

26 While more empirical evidence is

warranted a provisional claim

can be mentioned here that such

re-telling activities and perhaps

in classroom pair activities in

general are organized with a two-

part move like that displayed in

(6) lsquoquery about readinessrsquo and

lsquoturn allocationrsquo before the first task

question

27 Notably absent from Abbyrsquos and

Eduardorsquos peer re-tellings are any

verbal greeting sequences Even

when one of the pair moves across

the room to sit with another student

Abby and Eduardo did not exchange

greetings with their partner for their

JOHN HELLERMANN 401

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

task This is something that other

students did as part of their openings

28 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoasksstudentforhelpfiling]

29 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoasksaboutfiling]

30 The assessment measures were the

BEST Plus and the Peabody Picture

Vocabulary tests

REFERENCES

Atkinson J M and J C Heritage 1984

Structures of Social Action Studies in Conversation

Analysis Cambridge Cambridge University Press

August G 2001 The Road to Second Language

Reading How do we get there Unpublished

PhD Dissertation City University of New York

New York

Banke S and D Brillanceu 2004 lsquoLiving

in Interventionrsquo Unpublished manuscript

Barton D (2001) lsquoDirections for literacy

research Analysing language and social practices

in a textually mediated worldrsquo Language and

Education 152ndash3 92ndash104

Bernhardt E B and M L Kamil 1995 lsquoInter-

preting relationships between L1 and L2 reading

Consolidating the linguistic threshold and the

linguistic interdependence hypothesesrsquo Applied

Linguistics 161 15ndash34

Bourdieu P 1991 Language and Symbolic Power

Cambridge MA Harvard University Press

Brandt D 1990 Literacy as Involvement The Acts

of Writers Readers and Texts Carbondale IL

Southern Illinois University Press

ButtonG andNCasey1984 lsquoGenerating topics

The use of topic initial elicitorsrsquo in J M Atkinson

and J C Heritage (eds) Structures of Social Action

Studies in Conversation Analysis Cambridge

Cambridge University Press

Canale M and M Swain 1980 lsquoTheoretical

bases of communicative approaches to second

language teaching and testingrsquoApplied Linguistics

1 1ndash47

Carrell P L 1991 lsquoSecond language reading

Reading ability or language proficiencyrsquo Applied

Linguistics 122 159ndash79

Chow P and C Chou 2000 Evaluating

Sustained Silent Reading in Reading Classes [Web]

I-TESL-J Available httpitesljorgArticlesChow-

mSSRhtml

Cole M J Gay J A Glick and D W Sharp

1971 The Cultural Context of Learning and Think-

ing An Exploration in Experimental Anthropology

New York Basic Books

Couper-Kuhlen E andMSelting 1996 Prosody

in Conversation Interactional Studies Cambridge

Cambridge University Press

Duff P 2002 lsquoThe discursive co-construction

of knowledge identity and difference An

ethnography of communication in the high

school mainstreamrsquo Applied Linguistics 233

289ndash322

Erickson F and J Schultz 1981 lsquoWhen is

a context Some issues and methods in the

analysis of social competencersquo in J Green and

C Wallat (eds) Ethnography and Language in

Educational Settings Norwood NJ Ablex

Felser C L Roberts T Marinis and R Gross

2003 lsquoThe processing of ambiguous sentences by

first and second language learners of Englishrsquo

Applied Psycholinguistics 243 453ndash89

Garfinkel H 1967 Studies in Ethnomethodology

Englewood Cliffs NJ Prentice Hall

Gee J P 1990 Social Linguistics and Literacies

Ideology in Discourses London Falmer Press

Goffman E 1959 The Presentation of Self

in Everyday Life New York Anchor Books

Doubleday

Goffman E 1961 Encounters Two Studies in

the Sociology of Interaction Indianapolis Bobbs-

Merrill

Goody J1977 TheDomestication of the SavageMind

Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Grabe W and F L Stoller 1997 lsquoReading and

vocabulary development in a second language

A case studyrsquo in J Coady and T Huckin (eds)

Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition A

Rationale for Pedagogy Cambridge Cambridge

University Press

402 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

Gumperz J J 1982 Discourse Strategies

Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Habermas J1976 lsquoSome distinctions in universal

pragmatics A working paperrsquo Theory and Society

32 155ndash67

Hall J K 1993 lsquoThe role of oral practices in

the accomplishment of our everyday lives

The sociocultural dimension of interaction

with implications for the learning of

another languagersquo Applied Linguistics 142

145ndash66

Hall J K 1995 lsquo lsquolsquoAw man where you goinrsquorsquorsquo

Classroom interaction and the development

of L2 interactional competencersquo Issues in Applied

Linguistics 62 37ndash62

Hall JK1997 lsquoA consideration of SLA as a theory

of practice A response to Firth and Wagnerrsquo

Modern Language Journal 813 301ndash306

He A W and R Young 1998 lsquoLanguage

proficiency interviews A discourse approachrsquo in

R Young and A W He (eds) Talking and Testing

Discourse Approaches to the Assessment of Oral

Proficiency Amsterdam John Benjamins

Heath S B 1982 lsquoWhat no bedtime story means

Narrative skills at home and schoolrsquo Language

in Society 11 49ndash76

Heath S B 1983 Ways with Words Language

Life and Work in Communities and Classrooms

Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Hellermann J 2004 lsquoPractices for opening dyadic

interactionrsquo paper presented at the annual

conference of the American Association for

Applied Linguistics Portland OR

Hellermann J forthcoming lsquoThe development of

practices for action in the classroom diadic

interaction focus on task openingsrsquo Modern

Language Journal

Hood S and H Joyce 1995 lsquoReading in the

adult ESL curriculum and classroomrsquo Prospect

102 52ndash64

Hymes D 1974 Foundations in Sociolinguistics

An Ethnographic Approach Philadelphia

University of Pennsylvania Press

Kramsch C 1986 lsquoFrom language proficiency

to interactional competencersquo Modern Language

Journal 70 372ndash66

Kramsch C 2002 lsquoHow can we tell the dancer

from the dancersquo in C Kramsch (ed) Language

Acquisition and Language Socialization An ecological

approach London Continuum

Lave J and E Wenger 1991 Situated Learning

Legitimate Peripheral Participation Cambridge

Cambridge University Press

Lerner G H 1995 lsquoTurn design and the organiza-

tion of participation in instructional activitiesrsquo

Discourse Processes 19 111ndash31

MacBethD2003 lsquoHugh MehanrsquosLearning Lessons

reconsidered On the differences between the

naturalistic and critical analysis of classroom

discoursersquo American Educational Research Journal

401 239ndash80

McCraken R A 1971 lsquoInitiating sustained silent

readingrsquo Journal of Reading 148 521ndash4 582ndash3

McDermott R and D Roth 1978 lsquoThe social

organization of behavior Interactional

approachesrsquo Annual Review of Anthropology 7

321ndash45

Markee N 2000 Conversation Analysis Marwah

NJ Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

Ochs E and B Schieffelin 1979 Developmental

Pragmatics New York Academic Press

Ochs E E A Schegloff and S A Thompson

1996 Interaction and Grammar Cambridge

Cambridge University Press

Ong W J 1982 Orality and Literacy The Technolo-

gizing of the Word London Routledge

Palacios I G 2002 An ESLLiteracy Center

A qualitative study of perspectives and practices

of immigrant adults and literacy facilitators

Unpublished PhD Dissertation Indiana

University Pennsylvania Indiana PA

Pilgreen J L 2000 The SSR Handbook How to

Organize and Manage a Sustained Silent Reading

Program Portsmouth NH BoyntonCook

Pulido D 2003 lsquoModeling the role of second

language proficiency and topic familiarity

in second language incidental vocabulary

acquisition through readingrsquo Language Learning

532 233ndash84

Reder S 1987 lsquoComparative aspects of functional

literacy development Three ethnic American

communitiesrsquo in D Wagner (ed) The Future

of Literacy in a Changing World Oxford Pergamon

Press

Reder S 1994 lsquoPractice engagement theory

A sociocultural approach to literacy across

languages and culturersquo in B M Ferdman

R M Weber and A G Ramırez (eds) Literacy

Across Languages and Cultures Albany NY State

University of New York Press

Reder S and E Davila (2005) lsquoContext

and literacy practicesrsquo Annual Review of Applied

Linguistics 25 170ndash87

Reder S K A Harris and K Setzler 2003

lsquoA multimedia adult learner corpusrsquo TESOL

Quarterly 373 546ndash57

JOHN HELLERMANN 403

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

Reder S K A Harris R Kurzet

D Brillanceau S Banke and JHellermann

forthcoming Using a modified Sustained Silent

Reading for low-level adult ESOL students

Boston National Center for the Study of Adult

Learning and Literacy

Sacks H E A Schegloff and G Jefferson

1974 lsquoA simplest systematics for the organiza-

tion of turn-taking for conversationsrsquo Language

504 696ndash735

Sagarra N 2000 The longitudinal role of working

memory on adult acquisition of L2 grammar

Unpublished PhD Dissertation University of

Illinois Urbana-Champaign

Schegloff E A 1968 lsquoSequencing in conversa-

tional openingsrsquo American Anthropologist 70

1075ndash95

Schegloff E A 1980 lsquoPreliminaries to prelimin-

aries lsquolsquoCan I ask you a questionrsquorsquo rsquo Sociological

Inquiry 50 104ndash52

Schegloff E A 1998 lsquoReflections on studying

prosody in talk-in-interactionrsquo Language and

Speech 413ndash4 235ndash63

Schegloff E A 2000 lsquoOverlapping talk and the

organization of turn-making for conversationrsquo

Language in Society 291 1ndash63

Schegloff E A 2002 lsquoOpening sequencingrsquo

in J E Katz and M Aakhus (eds) Perpetual

Contact Mobile Communication Private Talk Public

Performance Cambridge Cambridge University

Press

Schegloff E A and H Sacks 1973 lsquoOpening up

closingsrsquo Semiotica 8 289ndash327

Schieffelin B B and Ochs E (1986) lsquoLanguage

socializationrsquo Annual Review of Anthropology 15

163ndash91

Scribner S and M Cole 1981 The Psychology of

Literacy Cambridge MA Harvard University

Press

Segalowitz N C Poulsen and M Komoda

1991 lsquoLower level components of reading skill in

higher level bilinguals Implications for reading

instructionrsquo AILA Review 8 15ndash30

Streeck J 1983 Social Order in Child Communica-

tion Amsterdam John Benjamins

Streeck J and S Mihus 2005 lsquoMicroethno-

graphy The study of practicesrsquo In K L Fitch

and R E Sanders (eds) The Handbook of

Language and Social Interaction Marwah NJ

Lawrence Erlbaum

Street B 1998 lsquoNew literacies in theory

and practice What are the implications for

language in educationrsquo Linguistics and Education

10 1ndash24

Street B V 2001 Literacy and Development

Ethnographic perspectives London Routledge

Tang H 1997 lsquoThe relationship between reading

comprehension processes in L1 and L2rsquo Reading

Psychology 183 249ndash301

Treville M C 1996 lsquoLexical learning and reading

in L2 at the beginner level The advantage of

cognatesrsquo The Canadian Modern Language Review

531 173ndash90

Van Lier L 2000 lsquoFrom input to affordance

Social-interactive learning from an ecological

perspectiversquo in J Lantolf (ed) Sociocultural

Theory and Second Language Learning Oxford

Oxford University Press

van Lier L 2002 lsquoAn ecological-semiotic

perspective on language and linguisticsrsquo in

C Kramsch (ed) Language Acquisition and

Language Socialization An ecological approach

London Continuum

Wenger J 1998 Communities of Practice Learning

Meaning and Identity Cambridge Cambridge

University Press

Yang J 2000 lsquoOrthographic effect on word

recognition by learners of Chinese as a Foreign

Languagersquo Journal of the Chinese Language

Teachers Association 352 1ndash18

YoungR1999 lsquoSociolinguistic approaches toSLArsquo

Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 19 105ndash32

Young R 2000 lsquoInteractional competence

Challenges for validityrsquo Paper presented at the

annual conference of the American Association

for Applied Linguistics Vancouver BC

Young R F 2002 lsquoDiscourse approaches to oral

language assessmentrsquo Annual Review of Applied

Linguistics 22 243ndash62

404 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

Page 24: Classroom Interactive Practices for Developing L2 Literacy: A Microethnographic Study of Two Beginning Adult Learners of English

the abbreviation lsquoL2rsquo throughout the

paper to refer to a language that is

being attained through formal instruc-

tion For the students in this study

lsquoL2rsquo refers to English It may not be

however that English is these

studentsrsquo lsquosecondrsquo language as the

abbreviation implies

2 Students in the current study were in

lsquolevel Arsquo classes at the data collection

site SPL level 0ndash2

3 In Sustained Silent Reading

(McCracken 1971 Pilgreen 2000)

students are given a set time in the

classroom to read silently without

interruption by the teacher or other

students and without evaluation of

what is read and how it is read

The method was altered slightly at

the data collection site to meet the

needs of beginning adult language

learners and included activities

like post-reading re-telling activities

and studentsrsquo use of reading logs

to record their assessments of their

reading

4 The National Labsite for Adult ESOL

at Portland State University is sup-

ported in part by grant R309B6002

from the Institute for Education

Science US Dept of Education to

the National Center for the Study of

Adult Learning and Literacy The

Labsite is a partnership between

Portland State University and Portland

Community College The school

and research facilities are housed at

Portland State while the registration

curriculum and teachers of the

ESL students are from Portland

Community College

5 One reviewer asked about the inabil-

ity to see learnersrsquo eye gaze with

cameras embedded in the ceiling

While this is a problem when

students are sitting directly under

the two mobile cameras which

follow students wearing the wireless

microphones most often students

are sitting in a position where

studentsrsquo faces can be seen quite

directly For details of the data

collection see Reder et al (2003)

6 The Labsite Student Study (LSS)

conducts in-home interviews with a

subset of students in the lab school

(70 per year) in their home lan-

guages over the course of four

years regardless of whether the

student remains in lab school classes

or not The primary purpose of

the LSS study is to understand

language use and literacy develop-

ment outside the classroom context

and factors which influence program

persistence

7 All names used in this study are

pseudonyms

8 The teacher had different types of

books on a cart that she wheeled into

the room every class period She took

books off the cart and spread them

out on desks at the back of the room

9 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoselectsbookclass1]

10 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardohelping]

11 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoshowing]

12 Sarah Ouellette helped with the

Spanish transcription and provided

the translation to English Transcrip-

tion conventions are included in

Appendix A lsquoTrsquo indicates the class-

room teacher in all transcripts

13 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoexplaining]

400 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

14 At the time of this excerpt Eduardo

was a novice in Rederrsquos (1987) third

mode of literacy engagement

technical still struggling with basic

technical issues like decoding English

language lexicon

15 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Abbyreading]

16 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Abbynotetaking]

17 The classroom teachers noted the

frustration of doing mSSR with

students who have very low first

language literacy because of her

inability to help students organize

their reading in instances like note

taking (Banke and Brillanceau 2004)

18 A literacy assessment test (BEST

Literacy) was administered in the

classroom in terms one and two of

the mSSR program While the scores

increased for each learner for

Eduardo the increase is not as great

as Abbyrsquos Eduardorsquos overall literacy

score went from 35 in term one

to 42 in term two which is an

increase of one student performance

level (from 3 to 4) Abbyrsquos scores

increased from 45 in term one to

56 in term two which indicates

a jump from student performance

level 4 to 6 For information

on characteristics of student language

abilities at different student perfor-

mance levels (SPLs) see pp 5ndash6 of

wwwcalorgcaelaesl_resources

Part4-5pdf

19 One of the pedagogical advantages of

doing a dyadic re-telling in a lan-

guage classroom is that even if one

student doesnrsquot understand the

instructions for the task in an activity

like the mSSR the peerrsquos act of

posture shift moving a book into

a common space and looking

toward the partner strongly invite

collaboration in some interaction and

it is collaboration that is perhaps

the most important aspect of the

re-telling activity (Pilgreen 2000)

especially for language learners

20 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoopening1]

21 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoopening2]

22 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoorientsstorytelling]

23 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Abbyopening1]

24 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Abbypretasktalkterm2]

25 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Abbystartingretelling2]

26 While more empirical evidence is

warranted a provisional claim

can be mentioned here that such

re-telling activities and perhaps

in classroom pair activities in

general are organized with a two-

part move like that displayed in

(6) lsquoquery about readinessrsquo and

lsquoturn allocationrsquo before the first task

question

27 Notably absent from Abbyrsquos and

Eduardorsquos peer re-tellings are any

verbal greeting sequences Even

when one of the pair moves across

the room to sit with another student

Abby and Eduardo did not exchange

greetings with their partner for their

JOHN HELLERMANN 401

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

task This is something that other

students did as part of their openings

28 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoasksstudentforhelpfiling]

29 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoasksaboutfiling]

30 The assessment measures were the

BEST Plus and the Peabody Picture

Vocabulary tests

REFERENCES

Atkinson J M and J C Heritage 1984

Structures of Social Action Studies in Conversation

Analysis Cambridge Cambridge University Press

August G 2001 The Road to Second Language

Reading How do we get there Unpublished

PhD Dissertation City University of New York

New York

Banke S and D Brillanceu 2004 lsquoLiving

in Interventionrsquo Unpublished manuscript

Barton D (2001) lsquoDirections for literacy

research Analysing language and social practices

in a textually mediated worldrsquo Language and

Education 152ndash3 92ndash104

Bernhardt E B and M L Kamil 1995 lsquoInter-

preting relationships between L1 and L2 reading

Consolidating the linguistic threshold and the

linguistic interdependence hypothesesrsquo Applied

Linguistics 161 15ndash34

Bourdieu P 1991 Language and Symbolic Power

Cambridge MA Harvard University Press

Brandt D 1990 Literacy as Involvement The Acts

of Writers Readers and Texts Carbondale IL

Southern Illinois University Press

ButtonG andNCasey1984 lsquoGenerating topics

The use of topic initial elicitorsrsquo in J M Atkinson

and J C Heritage (eds) Structures of Social Action

Studies in Conversation Analysis Cambridge

Cambridge University Press

Canale M and M Swain 1980 lsquoTheoretical

bases of communicative approaches to second

language teaching and testingrsquoApplied Linguistics

1 1ndash47

Carrell P L 1991 lsquoSecond language reading

Reading ability or language proficiencyrsquo Applied

Linguistics 122 159ndash79

Chow P and C Chou 2000 Evaluating

Sustained Silent Reading in Reading Classes [Web]

I-TESL-J Available httpitesljorgArticlesChow-

mSSRhtml

Cole M J Gay J A Glick and D W Sharp

1971 The Cultural Context of Learning and Think-

ing An Exploration in Experimental Anthropology

New York Basic Books

Couper-Kuhlen E andMSelting 1996 Prosody

in Conversation Interactional Studies Cambridge

Cambridge University Press

Duff P 2002 lsquoThe discursive co-construction

of knowledge identity and difference An

ethnography of communication in the high

school mainstreamrsquo Applied Linguistics 233

289ndash322

Erickson F and J Schultz 1981 lsquoWhen is

a context Some issues and methods in the

analysis of social competencersquo in J Green and

C Wallat (eds) Ethnography and Language in

Educational Settings Norwood NJ Ablex

Felser C L Roberts T Marinis and R Gross

2003 lsquoThe processing of ambiguous sentences by

first and second language learners of Englishrsquo

Applied Psycholinguistics 243 453ndash89

Garfinkel H 1967 Studies in Ethnomethodology

Englewood Cliffs NJ Prentice Hall

Gee J P 1990 Social Linguistics and Literacies

Ideology in Discourses London Falmer Press

Goffman E 1959 The Presentation of Self

in Everyday Life New York Anchor Books

Doubleday

Goffman E 1961 Encounters Two Studies in

the Sociology of Interaction Indianapolis Bobbs-

Merrill

Goody J1977 TheDomestication of the SavageMind

Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Grabe W and F L Stoller 1997 lsquoReading and

vocabulary development in a second language

A case studyrsquo in J Coady and T Huckin (eds)

Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition A

Rationale for Pedagogy Cambridge Cambridge

University Press

402 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

Gumperz J J 1982 Discourse Strategies

Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Habermas J1976 lsquoSome distinctions in universal

pragmatics A working paperrsquo Theory and Society

32 155ndash67

Hall J K 1993 lsquoThe role of oral practices in

the accomplishment of our everyday lives

The sociocultural dimension of interaction

with implications for the learning of

another languagersquo Applied Linguistics 142

145ndash66

Hall J K 1995 lsquo lsquolsquoAw man where you goinrsquorsquorsquo

Classroom interaction and the development

of L2 interactional competencersquo Issues in Applied

Linguistics 62 37ndash62

Hall JK1997 lsquoA consideration of SLA as a theory

of practice A response to Firth and Wagnerrsquo

Modern Language Journal 813 301ndash306

He A W and R Young 1998 lsquoLanguage

proficiency interviews A discourse approachrsquo in

R Young and A W He (eds) Talking and Testing

Discourse Approaches to the Assessment of Oral

Proficiency Amsterdam John Benjamins

Heath S B 1982 lsquoWhat no bedtime story means

Narrative skills at home and schoolrsquo Language

in Society 11 49ndash76

Heath S B 1983 Ways with Words Language

Life and Work in Communities and Classrooms

Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Hellermann J 2004 lsquoPractices for opening dyadic

interactionrsquo paper presented at the annual

conference of the American Association for

Applied Linguistics Portland OR

Hellermann J forthcoming lsquoThe development of

practices for action in the classroom diadic

interaction focus on task openingsrsquo Modern

Language Journal

Hood S and H Joyce 1995 lsquoReading in the

adult ESL curriculum and classroomrsquo Prospect

102 52ndash64

Hymes D 1974 Foundations in Sociolinguistics

An Ethnographic Approach Philadelphia

University of Pennsylvania Press

Kramsch C 1986 lsquoFrom language proficiency

to interactional competencersquo Modern Language

Journal 70 372ndash66

Kramsch C 2002 lsquoHow can we tell the dancer

from the dancersquo in C Kramsch (ed) Language

Acquisition and Language Socialization An ecological

approach London Continuum

Lave J and E Wenger 1991 Situated Learning

Legitimate Peripheral Participation Cambridge

Cambridge University Press

Lerner G H 1995 lsquoTurn design and the organiza-

tion of participation in instructional activitiesrsquo

Discourse Processes 19 111ndash31

MacBethD2003 lsquoHugh MehanrsquosLearning Lessons

reconsidered On the differences between the

naturalistic and critical analysis of classroom

discoursersquo American Educational Research Journal

401 239ndash80

McCraken R A 1971 lsquoInitiating sustained silent

readingrsquo Journal of Reading 148 521ndash4 582ndash3

McDermott R and D Roth 1978 lsquoThe social

organization of behavior Interactional

approachesrsquo Annual Review of Anthropology 7

321ndash45

Markee N 2000 Conversation Analysis Marwah

NJ Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

Ochs E and B Schieffelin 1979 Developmental

Pragmatics New York Academic Press

Ochs E E A Schegloff and S A Thompson

1996 Interaction and Grammar Cambridge

Cambridge University Press

Ong W J 1982 Orality and Literacy The Technolo-

gizing of the Word London Routledge

Palacios I G 2002 An ESLLiteracy Center

A qualitative study of perspectives and practices

of immigrant adults and literacy facilitators

Unpublished PhD Dissertation Indiana

University Pennsylvania Indiana PA

Pilgreen J L 2000 The SSR Handbook How to

Organize and Manage a Sustained Silent Reading

Program Portsmouth NH BoyntonCook

Pulido D 2003 lsquoModeling the role of second

language proficiency and topic familiarity

in second language incidental vocabulary

acquisition through readingrsquo Language Learning

532 233ndash84

Reder S 1987 lsquoComparative aspects of functional

literacy development Three ethnic American

communitiesrsquo in D Wagner (ed) The Future

of Literacy in a Changing World Oxford Pergamon

Press

Reder S 1994 lsquoPractice engagement theory

A sociocultural approach to literacy across

languages and culturersquo in B M Ferdman

R M Weber and A G Ramırez (eds) Literacy

Across Languages and Cultures Albany NY State

University of New York Press

Reder S and E Davila (2005) lsquoContext

and literacy practicesrsquo Annual Review of Applied

Linguistics 25 170ndash87

Reder S K A Harris and K Setzler 2003

lsquoA multimedia adult learner corpusrsquo TESOL

Quarterly 373 546ndash57

JOHN HELLERMANN 403

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

Reder S K A Harris R Kurzet

D Brillanceau S Banke and JHellermann

forthcoming Using a modified Sustained Silent

Reading for low-level adult ESOL students

Boston National Center for the Study of Adult

Learning and Literacy

Sacks H E A Schegloff and G Jefferson

1974 lsquoA simplest systematics for the organiza-

tion of turn-taking for conversationsrsquo Language

504 696ndash735

Sagarra N 2000 The longitudinal role of working

memory on adult acquisition of L2 grammar

Unpublished PhD Dissertation University of

Illinois Urbana-Champaign

Schegloff E A 1968 lsquoSequencing in conversa-

tional openingsrsquo American Anthropologist 70

1075ndash95

Schegloff E A 1980 lsquoPreliminaries to prelimin-

aries lsquolsquoCan I ask you a questionrsquorsquo rsquo Sociological

Inquiry 50 104ndash52

Schegloff E A 1998 lsquoReflections on studying

prosody in talk-in-interactionrsquo Language and

Speech 413ndash4 235ndash63

Schegloff E A 2000 lsquoOverlapping talk and the

organization of turn-making for conversationrsquo

Language in Society 291 1ndash63

Schegloff E A 2002 lsquoOpening sequencingrsquo

in J E Katz and M Aakhus (eds) Perpetual

Contact Mobile Communication Private Talk Public

Performance Cambridge Cambridge University

Press

Schegloff E A and H Sacks 1973 lsquoOpening up

closingsrsquo Semiotica 8 289ndash327

Schieffelin B B and Ochs E (1986) lsquoLanguage

socializationrsquo Annual Review of Anthropology 15

163ndash91

Scribner S and M Cole 1981 The Psychology of

Literacy Cambridge MA Harvard University

Press

Segalowitz N C Poulsen and M Komoda

1991 lsquoLower level components of reading skill in

higher level bilinguals Implications for reading

instructionrsquo AILA Review 8 15ndash30

Streeck J 1983 Social Order in Child Communica-

tion Amsterdam John Benjamins

Streeck J and S Mihus 2005 lsquoMicroethno-

graphy The study of practicesrsquo In K L Fitch

and R E Sanders (eds) The Handbook of

Language and Social Interaction Marwah NJ

Lawrence Erlbaum

Street B 1998 lsquoNew literacies in theory

and practice What are the implications for

language in educationrsquo Linguistics and Education

10 1ndash24

Street B V 2001 Literacy and Development

Ethnographic perspectives London Routledge

Tang H 1997 lsquoThe relationship between reading

comprehension processes in L1 and L2rsquo Reading

Psychology 183 249ndash301

Treville M C 1996 lsquoLexical learning and reading

in L2 at the beginner level The advantage of

cognatesrsquo The Canadian Modern Language Review

531 173ndash90

Van Lier L 2000 lsquoFrom input to affordance

Social-interactive learning from an ecological

perspectiversquo in J Lantolf (ed) Sociocultural

Theory and Second Language Learning Oxford

Oxford University Press

van Lier L 2002 lsquoAn ecological-semiotic

perspective on language and linguisticsrsquo in

C Kramsch (ed) Language Acquisition and

Language Socialization An ecological approach

London Continuum

Wenger J 1998 Communities of Practice Learning

Meaning and Identity Cambridge Cambridge

University Press

Yang J 2000 lsquoOrthographic effect on word

recognition by learners of Chinese as a Foreign

Languagersquo Journal of the Chinese Language

Teachers Association 352 1ndash18

YoungR1999 lsquoSociolinguistic approaches toSLArsquo

Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 19 105ndash32

Young R 2000 lsquoInteractional competence

Challenges for validityrsquo Paper presented at the

annual conference of the American Association

for Applied Linguistics Vancouver BC

Young R F 2002 lsquoDiscourse approaches to oral

language assessmentrsquo Annual Review of Applied

Linguistics 22 243ndash62

404 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

Page 25: Classroom Interactive Practices for Developing L2 Literacy: A Microethnographic Study of Two Beginning Adult Learners of English

14 At the time of this excerpt Eduardo

was a novice in Rederrsquos (1987) third

mode of literacy engagement

technical still struggling with basic

technical issues like decoding English

language lexicon

15 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Abbyreading]

16 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Abbynotetaking]

17 The classroom teachers noted the

frustration of doing mSSR with

students who have very low first

language literacy because of her

inability to help students organize

their reading in instances like note

taking (Banke and Brillanceau 2004)

18 A literacy assessment test (BEST

Literacy) was administered in the

classroom in terms one and two of

the mSSR program While the scores

increased for each learner for

Eduardo the increase is not as great

as Abbyrsquos Eduardorsquos overall literacy

score went from 35 in term one

to 42 in term two which is an

increase of one student performance

level (from 3 to 4) Abbyrsquos scores

increased from 45 in term one to

56 in term two which indicates

a jump from student performance

level 4 to 6 For information

on characteristics of student language

abilities at different student perfor-

mance levels (SPLs) see pp 5ndash6 of

wwwcalorgcaelaesl_resources

Part4-5pdf

19 One of the pedagogical advantages of

doing a dyadic re-telling in a lan-

guage classroom is that even if one

student doesnrsquot understand the

instructions for the task in an activity

like the mSSR the peerrsquos act of

posture shift moving a book into

a common space and looking

toward the partner strongly invite

collaboration in some interaction and

it is collaboration that is perhaps

the most important aspect of the

re-telling activity (Pilgreen 2000)

especially for language learners

20 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoopening1]

21 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoopening2]

22 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoorientsstorytelling]

23 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Abbyopening1]

24 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Abbypretasktalkterm2]

25 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Abbystartingretelling2]

26 While more empirical evidence is

warranted a provisional claim

can be mentioned here that such

re-telling activities and perhaps

in classroom pair activities in

general are organized with a two-

part move like that displayed in

(6) lsquoquery about readinessrsquo and

lsquoturn allocationrsquo before the first task

question

27 Notably absent from Abbyrsquos and

Eduardorsquos peer re-tellings are any

verbal greeting sequences Even

when one of the pair moves across

the room to sit with another student

Abby and Eduardo did not exchange

greetings with their partner for their

JOHN HELLERMANN 401

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

task This is something that other

students did as part of their openings

28 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoasksstudentforhelpfiling]

29 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoasksaboutfiling]

30 The assessment measures were the

BEST Plus and the Peabody Picture

Vocabulary tests

REFERENCES

Atkinson J M and J C Heritage 1984

Structures of Social Action Studies in Conversation

Analysis Cambridge Cambridge University Press

August G 2001 The Road to Second Language

Reading How do we get there Unpublished

PhD Dissertation City University of New York

New York

Banke S and D Brillanceu 2004 lsquoLiving

in Interventionrsquo Unpublished manuscript

Barton D (2001) lsquoDirections for literacy

research Analysing language and social practices

in a textually mediated worldrsquo Language and

Education 152ndash3 92ndash104

Bernhardt E B and M L Kamil 1995 lsquoInter-

preting relationships between L1 and L2 reading

Consolidating the linguistic threshold and the

linguistic interdependence hypothesesrsquo Applied

Linguistics 161 15ndash34

Bourdieu P 1991 Language and Symbolic Power

Cambridge MA Harvard University Press

Brandt D 1990 Literacy as Involvement The Acts

of Writers Readers and Texts Carbondale IL

Southern Illinois University Press

ButtonG andNCasey1984 lsquoGenerating topics

The use of topic initial elicitorsrsquo in J M Atkinson

and J C Heritage (eds) Structures of Social Action

Studies in Conversation Analysis Cambridge

Cambridge University Press

Canale M and M Swain 1980 lsquoTheoretical

bases of communicative approaches to second

language teaching and testingrsquoApplied Linguistics

1 1ndash47

Carrell P L 1991 lsquoSecond language reading

Reading ability or language proficiencyrsquo Applied

Linguistics 122 159ndash79

Chow P and C Chou 2000 Evaluating

Sustained Silent Reading in Reading Classes [Web]

I-TESL-J Available httpitesljorgArticlesChow-

mSSRhtml

Cole M J Gay J A Glick and D W Sharp

1971 The Cultural Context of Learning and Think-

ing An Exploration in Experimental Anthropology

New York Basic Books

Couper-Kuhlen E andMSelting 1996 Prosody

in Conversation Interactional Studies Cambridge

Cambridge University Press

Duff P 2002 lsquoThe discursive co-construction

of knowledge identity and difference An

ethnography of communication in the high

school mainstreamrsquo Applied Linguistics 233

289ndash322

Erickson F and J Schultz 1981 lsquoWhen is

a context Some issues and methods in the

analysis of social competencersquo in J Green and

C Wallat (eds) Ethnography and Language in

Educational Settings Norwood NJ Ablex

Felser C L Roberts T Marinis and R Gross

2003 lsquoThe processing of ambiguous sentences by

first and second language learners of Englishrsquo

Applied Psycholinguistics 243 453ndash89

Garfinkel H 1967 Studies in Ethnomethodology

Englewood Cliffs NJ Prentice Hall

Gee J P 1990 Social Linguistics and Literacies

Ideology in Discourses London Falmer Press

Goffman E 1959 The Presentation of Self

in Everyday Life New York Anchor Books

Doubleday

Goffman E 1961 Encounters Two Studies in

the Sociology of Interaction Indianapolis Bobbs-

Merrill

Goody J1977 TheDomestication of the SavageMind

Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Grabe W and F L Stoller 1997 lsquoReading and

vocabulary development in a second language

A case studyrsquo in J Coady and T Huckin (eds)

Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition A

Rationale for Pedagogy Cambridge Cambridge

University Press

402 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

Gumperz J J 1982 Discourse Strategies

Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Habermas J1976 lsquoSome distinctions in universal

pragmatics A working paperrsquo Theory and Society

32 155ndash67

Hall J K 1993 lsquoThe role of oral practices in

the accomplishment of our everyday lives

The sociocultural dimension of interaction

with implications for the learning of

another languagersquo Applied Linguistics 142

145ndash66

Hall J K 1995 lsquo lsquolsquoAw man where you goinrsquorsquorsquo

Classroom interaction and the development

of L2 interactional competencersquo Issues in Applied

Linguistics 62 37ndash62

Hall JK1997 lsquoA consideration of SLA as a theory

of practice A response to Firth and Wagnerrsquo

Modern Language Journal 813 301ndash306

He A W and R Young 1998 lsquoLanguage

proficiency interviews A discourse approachrsquo in

R Young and A W He (eds) Talking and Testing

Discourse Approaches to the Assessment of Oral

Proficiency Amsterdam John Benjamins

Heath S B 1982 lsquoWhat no bedtime story means

Narrative skills at home and schoolrsquo Language

in Society 11 49ndash76

Heath S B 1983 Ways with Words Language

Life and Work in Communities and Classrooms

Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Hellermann J 2004 lsquoPractices for opening dyadic

interactionrsquo paper presented at the annual

conference of the American Association for

Applied Linguistics Portland OR

Hellermann J forthcoming lsquoThe development of

practices for action in the classroom diadic

interaction focus on task openingsrsquo Modern

Language Journal

Hood S and H Joyce 1995 lsquoReading in the

adult ESL curriculum and classroomrsquo Prospect

102 52ndash64

Hymes D 1974 Foundations in Sociolinguistics

An Ethnographic Approach Philadelphia

University of Pennsylvania Press

Kramsch C 1986 lsquoFrom language proficiency

to interactional competencersquo Modern Language

Journal 70 372ndash66

Kramsch C 2002 lsquoHow can we tell the dancer

from the dancersquo in C Kramsch (ed) Language

Acquisition and Language Socialization An ecological

approach London Continuum

Lave J and E Wenger 1991 Situated Learning

Legitimate Peripheral Participation Cambridge

Cambridge University Press

Lerner G H 1995 lsquoTurn design and the organiza-

tion of participation in instructional activitiesrsquo

Discourse Processes 19 111ndash31

MacBethD2003 lsquoHugh MehanrsquosLearning Lessons

reconsidered On the differences between the

naturalistic and critical analysis of classroom

discoursersquo American Educational Research Journal

401 239ndash80

McCraken R A 1971 lsquoInitiating sustained silent

readingrsquo Journal of Reading 148 521ndash4 582ndash3

McDermott R and D Roth 1978 lsquoThe social

organization of behavior Interactional

approachesrsquo Annual Review of Anthropology 7

321ndash45

Markee N 2000 Conversation Analysis Marwah

NJ Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

Ochs E and B Schieffelin 1979 Developmental

Pragmatics New York Academic Press

Ochs E E A Schegloff and S A Thompson

1996 Interaction and Grammar Cambridge

Cambridge University Press

Ong W J 1982 Orality and Literacy The Technolo-

gizing of the Word London Routledge

Palacios I G 2002 An ESLLiteracy Center

A qualitative study of perspectives and practices

of immigrant adults and literacy facilitators

Unpublished PhD Dissertation Indiana

University Pennsylvania Indiana PA

Pilgreen J L 2000 The SSR Handbook How to

Organize and Manage a Sustained Silent Reading

Program Portsmouth NH BoyntonCook

Pulido D 2003 lsquoModeling the role of second

language proficiency and topic familiarity

in second language incidental vocabulary

acquisition through readingrsquo Language Learning

532 233ndash84

Reder S 1987 lsquoComparative aspects of functional

literacy development Three ethnic American

communitiesrsquo in D Wagner (ed) The Future

of Literacy in a Changing World Oxford Pergamon

Press

Reder S 1994 lsquoPractice engagement theory

A sociocultural approach to literacy across

languages and culturersquo in B M Ferdman

R M Weber and A G Ramırez (eds) Literacy

Across Languages and Cultures Albany NY State

University of New York Press

Reder S and E Davila (2005) lsquoContext

and literacy practicesrsquo Annual Review of Applied

Linguistics 25 170ndash87

Reder S K A Harris and K Setzler 2003

lsquoA multimedia adult learner corpusrsquo TESOL

Quarterly 373 546ndash57

JOHN HELLERMANN 403

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

Reder S K A Harris R Kurzet

D Brillanceau S Banke and JHellermann

forthcoming Using a modified Sustained Silent

Reading for low-level adult ESOL students

Boston National Center for the Study of Adult

Learning and Literacy

Sacks H E A Schegloff and G Jefferson

1974 lsquoA simplest systematics for the organiza-

tion of turn-taking for conversationsrsquo Language

504 696ndash735

Sagarra N 2000 The longitudinal role of working

memory on adult acquisition of L2 grammar

Unpublished PhD Dissertation University of

Illinois Urbana-Champaign

Schegloff E A 1968 lsquoSequencing in conversa-

tional openingsrsquo American Anthropologist 70

1075ndash95

Schegloff E A 1980 lsquoPreliminaries to prelimin-

aries lsquolsquoCan I ask you a questionrsquorsquo rsquo Sociological

Inquiry 50 104ndash52

Schegloff E A 1998 lsquoReflections on studying

prosody in talk-in-interactionrsquo Language and

Speech 413ndash4 235ndash63

Schegloff E A 2000 lsquoOverlapping talk and the

organization of turn-making for conversationrsquo

Language in Society 291 1ndash63

Schegloff E A 2002 lsquoOpening sequencingrsquo

in J E Katz and M Aakhus (eds) Perpetual

Contact Mobile Communication Private Talk Public

Performance Cambridge Cambridge University

Press

Schegloff E A and H Sacks 1973 lsquoOpening up

closingsrsquo Semiotica 8 289ndash327

Schieffelin B B and Ochs E (1986) lsquoLanguage

socializationrsquo Annual Review of Anthropology 15

163ndash91

Scribner S and M Cole 1981 The Psychology of

Literacy Cambridge MA Harvard University

Press

Segalowitz N C Poulsen and M Komoda

1991 lsquoLower level components of reading skill in

higher level bilinguals Implications for reading

instructionrsquo AILA Review 8 15ndash30

Streeck J 1983 Social Order in Child Communica-

tion Amsterdam John Benjamins

Streeck J and S Mihus 2005 lsquoMicroethno-

graphy The study of practicesrsquo In K L Fitch

and R E Sanders (eds) The Handbook of

Language and Social Interaction Marwah NJ

Lawrence Erlbaum

Street B 1998 lsquoNew literacies in theory

and practice What are the implications for

language in educationrsquo Linguistics and Education

10 1ndash24

Street B V 2001 Literacy and Development

Ethnographic perspectives London Routledge

Tang H 1997 lsquoThe relationship between reading

comprehension processes in L1 and L2rsquo Reading

Psychology 183 249ndash301

Treville M C 1996 lsquoLexical learning and reading

in L2 at the beginner level The advantage of

cognatesrsquo The Canadian Modern Language Review

531 173ndash90

Van Lier L 2000 lsquoFrom input to affordance

Social-interactive learning from an ecological

perspectiversquo in J Lantolf (ed) Sociocultural

Theory and Second Language Learning Oxford

Oxford University Press

van Lier L 2002 lsquoAn ecological-semiotic

perspective on language and linguisticsrsquo in

C Kramsch (ed) Language Acquisition and

Language Socialization An ecological approach

London Continuum

Wenger J 1998 Communities of Practice Learning

Meaning and Identity Cambridge Cambridge

University Press

Yang J 2000 lsquoOrthographic effect on word

recognition by learners of Chinese as a Foreign

Languagersquo Journal of the Chinese Language

Teachers Association 352 1ndash18

YoungR1999 lsquoSociolinguistic approaches toSLArsquo

Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 19 105ndash32

Young R 2000 lsquoInteractional competence

Challenges for validityrsquo Paper presented at the

annual conference of the American Association

for Applied Linguistics Vancouver BC

Young R F 2002 lsquoDiscourse approaches to oral

language assessmentrsquo Annual Review of Applied

Linguistics 22 243ndash62

404 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

Page 26: Classroom Interactive Practices for Developing L2 Literacy: A Microethnographic Study of Two Beginning Adult Learners of English

task This is something that other

students did as part of their openings

28 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoasksstudentforhelpfiling]

29 Video clip available at [http

wwwlabschoolpdxeduViewer

viewerphpfrac14HellermannAppLingamp

clfrac14Eduardoasksaboutfiling]

30 The assessment measures were the

BEST Plus and the Peabody Picture

Vocabulary tests

REFERENCES

Atkinson J M and J C Heritage 1984

Structures of Social Action Studies in Conversation

Analysis Cambridge Cambridge University Press

August G 2001 The Road to Second Language

Reading How do we get there Unpublished

PhD Dissertation City University of New York

New York

Banke S and D Brillanceu 2004 lsquoLiving

in Interventionrsquo Unpublished manuscript

Barton D (2001) lsquoDirections for literacy

research Analysing language and social practices

in a textually mediated worldrsquo Language and

Education 152ndash3 92ndash104

Bernhardt E B and M L Kamil 1995 lsquoInter-

preting relationships between L1 and L2 reading

Consolidating the linguistic threshold and the

linguistic interdependence hypothesesrsquo Applied

Linguistics 161 15ndash34

Bourdieu P 1991 Language and Symbolic Power

Cambridge MA Harvard University Press

Brandt D 1990 Literacy as Involvement The Acts

of Writers Readers and Texts Carbondale IL

Southern Illinois University Press

ButtonG andNCasey1984 lsquoGenerating topics

The use of topic initial elicitorsrsquo in J M Atkinson

and J C Heritage (eds) Structures of Social Action

Studies in Conversation Analysis Cambridge

Cambridge University Press

Canale M and M Swain 1980 lsquoTheoretical

bases of communicative approaches to second

language teaching and testingrsquoApplied Linguistics

1 1ndash47

Carrell P L 1991 lsquoSecond language reading

Reading ability or language proficiencyrsquo Applied

Linguistics 122 159ndash79

Chow P and C Chou 2000 Evaluating

Sustained Silent Reading in Reading Classes [Web]

I-TESL-J Available httpitesljorgArticlesChow-

mSSRhtml

Cole M J Gay J A Glick and D W Sharp

1971 The Cultural Context of Learning and Think-

ing An Exploration in Experimental Anthropology

New York Basic Books

Couper-Kuhlen E andMSelting 1996 Prosody

in Conversation Interactional Studies Cambridge

Cambridge University Press

Duff P 2002 lsquoThe discursive co-construction

of knowledge identity and difference An

ethnography of communication in the high

school mainstreamrsquo Applied Linguistics 233

289ndash322

Erickson F and J Schultz 1981 lsquoWhen is

a context Some issues and methods in the

analysis of social competencersquo in J Green and

C Wallat (eds) Ethnography and Language in

Educational Settings Norwood NJ Ablex

Felser C L Roberts T Marinis and R Gross

2003 lsquoThe processing of ambiguous sentences by

first and second language learners of Englishrsquo

Applied Psycholinguistics 243 453ndash89

Garfinkel H 1967 Studies in Ethnomethodology

Englewood Cliffs NJ Prentice Hall

Gee J P 1990 Social Linguistics and Literacies

Ideology in Discourses London Falmer Press

Goffman E 1959 The Presentation of Self

in Everyday Life New York Anchor Books

Doubleday

Goffman E 1961 Encounters Two Studies in

the Sociology of Interaction Indianapolis Bobbs-

Merrill

Goody J1977 TheDomestication of the SavageMind

Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Grabe W and F L Stoller 1997 lsquoReading and

vocabulary development in a second language

A case studyrsquo in J Coady and T Huckin (eds)

Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition A

Rationale for Pedagogy Cambridge Cambridge

University Press

402 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

Gumperz J J 1982 Discourse Strategies

Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Habermas J1976 lsquoSome distinctions in universal

pragmatics A working paperrsquo Theory and Society

32 155ndash67

Hall J K 1993 lsquoThe role of oral practices in

the accomplishment of our everyday lives

The sociocultural dimension of interaction

with implications for the learning of

another languagersquo Applied Linguistics 142

145ndash66

Hall J K 1995 lsquo lsquolsquoAw man where you goinrsquorsquorsquo

Classroom interaction and the development

of L2 interactional competencersquo Issues in Applied

Linguistics 62 37ndash62

Hall JK1997 lsquoA consideration of SLA as a theory

of practice A response to Firth and Wagnerrsquo

Modern Language Journal 813 301ndash306

He A W and R Young 1998 lsquoLanguage

proficiency interviews A discourse approachrsquo in

R Young and A W He (eds) Talking and Testing

Discourse Approaches to the Assessment of Oral

Proficiency Amsterdam John Benjamins

Heath S B 1982 lsquoWhat no bedtime story means

Narrative skills at home and schoolrsquo Language

in Society 11 49ndash76

Heath S B 1983 Ways with Words Language

Life and Work in Communities and Classrooms

Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Hellermann J 2004 lsquoPractices for opening dyadic

interactionrsquo paper presented at the annual

conference of the American Association for

Applied Linguistics Portland OR

Hellermann J forthcoming lsquoThe development of

practices for action in the classroom diadic

interaction focus on task openingsrsquo Modern

Language Journal

Hood S and H Joyce 1995 lsquoReading in the

adult ESL curriculum and classroomrsquo Prospect

102 52ndash64

Hymes D 1974 Foundations in Sociolinguistics

An Ethnographic Approach Philadelphia

University of Pennsylvania Press

Kramsch C 1986 lsquoFrom language proficiency

to interactional competencersquo Modern Language

Journal 70 372ndash66

Kramsch C 2002 lsquoHow can we tell the dancer

from the dancersquo in C Kramsch (ed) Language

Acquisition and Language Socialization An ecological

approach London Continuum

Lave J and E Wenger 1991 Situated Learning

Legitimate Peripheral Participation Cambridge

Cambridge University Press

Lerner G H 1995 lsquoTurn design and the organiza-

tion of participation in instructional activitiesrsquo

Discourse Processes 19 111ndash31

MacBethD2003 lsquoHugh MehanrsquosLearning Lessons

reconsidered On the differences between the

naturalistic and critical analysis of classroom

discoursersquo American Educational Research Journal

401 239ndash80

McCraken R A 1971 lsquoInitiating sustained silent

readingrsquo Journal of Reading 148 521ndash4 582ndash3

McDermott R and D Roth 1978 lsquoThe social

organization of behavior Interactional

approachesrsquo Annual Review of Anthropology 7

321ndash45

Markee N 2000 Conversation Analysis Marwah

NJ Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

Ochs E and B Schieffelin 1979 Developmental

Pragmatics New York Academic Press

Ochs E E A Schegloff and S A Thompson

1996 Interaction and Grammar Cambridge

Cambridge University Press

Ong W J 1982 Orality and Literacy The Technolo-

gizing of the Word London Routledge

Palacios I G 2002 An ESLLiteracy Center

A qualitative study of perspectives and practices

of immigrant adults and literacy facilitators

Unpublished PhD Dissertation Indiana

University Pennsylvania Indiana PA

Pilgreen J L 2000 The SSR Handbook How to

Organize and Manage a Sustained Silent Reading

Program Portsmouth NH BoyntonCook

Pulido D 2003 lsquoModeling the role of second

language proficiency and topic familiarity

in second language incidental vocabulary

acquisition through readingrsquo Language Learning

532 233ndash84

Reder S 1987 lsquoComparative aspects of functional

literacy development Three ethnic American

communitiesrsquo in D Wagner (ed) The Future

of Literacy in a Changing World Oxford Pergamon

Press

Reder S 1994 lsquoPractice engagement theory

A sociocultural approach to literacy across

languages and culturersquo in B M Ferdman

R M Weber and A G Ramırez (eds) Literacy

Across Languages and Cultures Albany NY State

University of New York Press

Reder S and E Davila (2005) lsquoContext

and literacy practicesrsquo Annual Review of Applied

Linguistics 25 170ndash87

Reder S K A Harris and K Setzler 2003

lsquoA multimedia adult learner corpusrsquo TESOL

Quarterly 373 546ndash57

JOHN HELLERMANN 403

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

Reder S K A Harris R Kurzet

D Brillanceau S Banke and JHellermann

forthcoming Using a modified Sustained Silent

Reading for low-level adult ESOL students

Boston National Center for the Study of Adult

Learning and Literacy

Sacks H E A Schegloff and G Jefferson

1974 lsquoA simplest systematics for the organiza-

tion of turn-taking for conversationsrsquo Language

504 696ndash735

Sagarra N 2000 The longitudinal role of working

memory on adult acquisition of L2 grammar

Unpublished PhD Dissertation University of

Illinois Urbana-Champaign

Schegloff E A 1968 lsquoSequencing in conversa-

tional openingsrsquo American Anthropologist 70

1075ndash95

Schegloff E A 1980 lsquoPreliminaries to prelimin-

aries lsquolsquoCan I ask you a questionrsquorsquo rsquo Sociological

Inquiry 50 104ndash52

Schegloff E A 1998 lsquoReflections on studying

prosody in talk-in-interactionrsquo Language and

Speech 413ndash4 235ndash63

Schegloff E A 2000 lsquoOverlapping talk and the

organization of turn-making for conversationrsquo

Language in Society 291 1ndash63

Schegloff E A 2002 lsquoOpening sequencingrsquo

in J E Katz and M Aakhus (eds) Perpetual

Contact Mobile Communication Private Talk Public

Performance Cambridge Cambridge University

Press

Schegloff E A and H Sacks 1973 lsquoOpening up

closingsrsquo Semiotica 8 289ndash327

Schieffelin B B and Ochs E (1986) lsquoLanguage

socializationrsquo Annual Review of Anthropology 15

163ndash91

Scribner S and M Cole 1981 The Psychology of

Literacy Cambridge MA Harvard University

Press

Segalowitz N C Poulsen and M Komoda

1991 lsquoLower level components of reading skill in

higher level bilinguals Implications for reading

instructionrsquo AILA Review 8 15ndash30

Streeck J 1983 Social Order in Child Communica-

tion Amsterdam John Benjamins

Streeck J and S Mihus 2005 lsquoMicroethno-

graphy The study of practicesrsquo In K L Fitch

and R E Sanders (eds) The Handbook of

Language and Social Interaction Marwah NJ

Lawrence Erlbaum

Street B 1998 lsquoNew literacies in theory

and practice What are the implications for

language in educationrsquo Linguistics and Education

10 1ndash24

Street B V 2001 Literacy and Development

Ethnographic perspectives London Routledge

Tang H 1997 lsquoThe relationship between reading

comprehension processes in L1 and L2rsquo Reading

Psychology 183 249ndash301

Treville M C 1996 lsquoLexical learning and reading

in L2 at the beginner level The advantage of

cognatesrsquo The Canadian Modern Language Review

531 173ndash90

Van Lier L 2000 lsquoFrom input to affordance

Social-interactive learning from an ecological

perspectiversquo in J Lantolf (ed) Sociocultural

Theory and Second Language Learning Oxford

Oxford University Press

van Lier L 2002 lsquoAn ecological-semiotic

perspective on language and linguisticsrsquo in

C Kramsch (ed) Language Acquisition and

Language Socialization An ecological approach

London Continuum

Wenger J 1998 Communities of Practice Learning

Meaning and Identity Cambridge Cambridge

University Press

Yang J 2000 lsquoOrthographic effect on word

recognition by learners of Chinese as a Foreign

Languagersquo Journal of the Chinese Language

Teachers Association 352 1ndash18

YoungR1999 lsquoSociolinguistic approaches toSLArsquo

Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 19 105ndash32

Young R 2000 lsquoInteractional competence

Challenges for validityrsquo Paper presented at the

annual conference of the American Association

for Applied Linguistics Vancouver BC

Young R F 2002 lsquoDiscourse approaches to oral

language assessmentrsquo Annual Review of Applied

Linguistics 22 243ndash62

404 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

Page 27: Classroom Interactive Practices for Developing L2 Literacy: A Microethnographic Study of Two Beginning Adult Learners of English

Gumperz J J 1982 Discourse Strategies

Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Habermas J1976 lsquoSome distinctions in universal

pragmatics A working paperrsquo Theory and Society

32 155ndash67

Hall J K 1993 lsquoThe role of oral practices in

the accomplishment of our everyday lives

The sociocultural dimension of interaction

with implications for the learning of

another languagersquo Applied Linguistics 142

145ndash66

Hall J K 1995 lsquo lsquolsquoAw man where you goinrsquorsquorsquo

Classroom interaction and the development

of L2 interactional competencersquo Issues in Applied

Linguistics 62 37ndash62

Hall JK1997 lsquoA consideration of SLA as a theory

of practice A response to Firth and Wagnerrsquo

Modern Language Journal 813 301ndash306

He A W and R Young 1998 lsquoLanguage

proficiency interviews A discourse approachrsquo in

R Young and A W He (eds) Talking and Testing

Discourse Approaches to the Assessment of Oral

Proficiency Amsterdam John Benjamins

Heath S B 1982 lsquoWhat no bedtime story means

Narrative skills at home and schoolrsquo Language

in Society 11 49ndash76

Heath S B 1983 Ways with Words Language

Life and Work in Communities and Classrooms

Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Hellermann J 2004 lsquoPractices for opening dyadic

interactionrsquo paper presented at the annual

conference of the American Association for

Applied Linguistics Portland OR

Hellermann J forthcoming lsquoThe development of

practices for action in the classroom diadic

interaction focus on task openingsrsquo Modern

Language Journal

Hood S and H Joyce 1995 lsquoReading in the

adult ESL curriculum and classroomrsquo Prospect

102 52ndash64

Hymes D 1974 Foundations in Sociolinguistics

An Ethnographic Approach Philadelphia

University of Pennsylvania Press

Kramsch C 1986 lsquoFrom language proficiency

to interactional competencersquo Modern Language

Journal 70 372ndash66

Kramsch C 2002 lsquoHow can we tell the dancer

from the dancersquo in C Kramsch (ed) Language

Acquisition and Language Socialization An ecological

approach London Continuum

Lave J and E Wenger 1991 Situated Learning

Legitimate Peripheral Participation Cambridge

Cambridge University Press

Lerner G H 1995 lsquoTurn design and the organiza-

tion of participation in instructional activitiesrsquo

Discourse Processes 19 111ndash31

MacBethD2003 lsquoHugh MehanrsquosLearning Lessons

reconsidered On the differences between the

naturalistic and critical analysis of classroom

discoursersquo American Educational Research Journal

401 239ndash80

McCraken R A 1971 lsquoInitiating sustained silent

readingrsquo Journal of Reading 148 521ndash4 582ndash3

McDermott R and D Roth 1978 lsquoThe social

organization of behavior Interactional

approachesrsquo Annual Review of Anthropology 7

321ndash45

Markee N 2000 Conversation Analysis Marwah

NJ Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

Ochs E and B Schieffelin 1979 Developmental

Pragmatics New York Academic Press

Ochs E E A Schegloff and S A Thompson

1996 Interaction and Grammar Cambridge

Cambridge University Press

Ong W J 1982 Orality and Literacy The Technolo-

gizing of the Word London Routledge

Palacios I G 2002 An ESLLiteracy Center

A qualitative study of perspectives and practices

of immigrant adults and literacy facilitators

Unpublished PhD Dissertation Indiana

University Pennsylvania Indiana PA

Pilgreen J L 2000 The SSR Handbook How to

Organize and Manage a Sustained Silent Reading

Program Portsmouth NH BoyntonCook

Pulido D 2003 lsquoModeling the role of second

language proficiency and topic familiarity

in second language incidental vocabulary

acquisition through readingrsquo Language Learning

532 233ndash84

Reder S 1987 lsquoComparative aspects of functional

literacy development Three ethnic American

communitiesrsquo in D Wagner (ed) The Future

of Literacy in a Changing World Oxford Pergamon

Press

Reder S 1994 lsquoPractice engagement theory

A sociocultural approach to literacy across

languages and culturersquo in B M Ferdman

R M Weber and A G Ramırez (eds) Literacy

Across Languages and Cultures Albany NY State

University of New York Press

Reder S and E Davila (2005) lsquoContext

and literacy practicesrsquo Annual Review of Applied

Linguistics 25 170ndash87

Reder S K A Harris and K Setzler 2003

lsquoA multimedia adult learner corpusrsquo TESOL

Quarterly 373 546ndash57

JOHN HELLERMANN 403

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

Reder S K A Harris R Kurzet

D Brillanceau S Banke and JHellermann

forthcoming Using a modified Sustained Silent

Reading for low-level adult ESOL students

Boston National Center for the Study of Adult

Learning and Literacy

Sacks H E A Schegloff and G Jefferson

1974 lsquoA simplest systematics for the organiza-

tion of turn-taking for conversationsrsquo Language

504 696ndash735

Sagarra N 2000 The longitudinal role of working

memory on adult acquisition of L2 grammar

Unpublished PhD Dissertation University of

Illinois Urbana-Champaign

Schegloff E A 1968 lsquoSequencing in conversa-

tional openingsrsquo American Anthropologist 70

1075ndash95

Schegloff E A 1980 lsquoPreliminaries to prelimin-

aries lsquolsquoCan I ask you a questionrsquorsquo rsquo Sociological

Inquiry 50 104ndash52

Schegloff E A 1998 lsquoReflections on studying

prosody in talk-in-interactionrsquo Language and

Speech 413ndash4 235ndash63

Schegloff E A 2000 lsquoOverlapping talk and the

organization of turn-making for conversationrsquo

Language in Society 291 1ndash63

Schegloff E A 2002 lsquoOpening sequencingrsquo

in J E Katz and M Aakhus (eds) Perpetual

Contact Mobile Communication Private Talk Public

Performance Cambridge Cambridge University

Press

Schegloff E A and H Sacks 1973 lsquoOpening up

closingsrsquo Semiotica 8 289ndash327

Schieffelin B B and Ochs E (1986) lsquoLanguage

socializationrsquo Annual Review of Anthropology 15

163ndash91

Scribner S and M Cole 1981 The Psychology of

Literacy Cambridge MA Harvard University

Press

Segalowitz N C Poulsen and M Komoda

1991 lsquoLower level components of reading skill in

higher level bilinguals Implications for reading

instructionrsquo AILA Review 8 15ndash30

Streeck J 1983 Social Order in Child Communica-

tion Amsterdam John Benjamins

Streeck J and S Mihus 2005 lsquoMicroethno-

graphy The study of practicesrsquo In K L Fitch

and R E Sanders (eds) The Handbook of

Language and Social Interaction Marwah NJ

Lawrence Erlbaum

Street B 1998 lsquoNew literacies in theory

and practice What are the implications for

language in educationrsquo Linguistics and Education

10 1ndash24

Street B V 2001 Literacy and Development

Ethnographic perspectives London Routledge

Tang H 1997 lsquoThe relationship between reading

comprehension processes in L1 and L2rsquo Reading

Psychology 183 249ndash301

Treville M C 1996 lsquoLexical learning and reading

in L2 at the beginner level The advantage of

cognatesrsquo The Canadian Modern Language Review

531 173ndash90

Van Lier L 2000 lsquoFrom input to affordance

Social-interactive learning from an ecological

perspectiversquo in J Lantolf (ed) Sociocultural

Theory and Second Language Learning Oxford

Oxford University Press

van Lier L 2002 lsquoAn ecological-semiotic

perspective on language and linguisticsrsquo in

C Kramsch (ed) Language Acquisition and

Language Socialization An ecological approach

London Continuum

Wenger J 1998 Communities of Practice Learning

Meaning and Identity Cambridge Cambridge

University Press

Yang J 2000 lsquoOrthographic effect on word

recognition by learners of Chinese as a Foreign

Languagersquo Journal of the Chinese Language

Teachers Association 352 1ndash18

YoungR1999 lsquoSociolinguistic approaches toSLArsquo

Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 19 105ndash32

Young R 2000 lsquoInteractional competence

Challenges for validityrsquo Paper presented at the

annual conference of the American Association

for Applied Linguistics Vancouver BC

Young R F 2002 lsquoDiscourse approaches to oral

language assessmentrsquo Annual Review of Applied

Linguistics 22 243ndash62

404 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

Page 28: Classroom Interactive Practices for Developing L2 Literacy: A Microethnographic Study of Two Beginning Adult Learners of English

Reder S K A Harris R Kurzet

D Brillanceau S Banke and JHellermann

forthcoming Using a modified Sustained Silent

Reading for low-level adult ESOL students

Boston National Center for the Study of Adult

Learning and Literacy

Sacks H E A Schegloff and G Jefferson

1974 lsquoA simplest systematics for the organiza-

tion of turn-taking for conversationsrsquo Language

504 696ndash735

Sagarra N 2000 The longitudinal role of working

memory on adult acquisition of L2 grammar

Unpublished PhD Dissertation University of

Illinois Urbana-Champaign

Schegloff E A 1968 lsquoSequencing in conversa-

tional openingsrsquo American Anthropologist 70

1075ndash95

Schegloff E A 1980 lsquoPreliminaries to prelimin-

aries lsquolsquoCan I ask you a questionrsquorsquo rsquo Sociological

Inquiry 50 104ndash52

Schegloff E A 1998 lsquoReflections on studying

prosody in talk-in-interactionrsquo Language and

Speech 413ndash4 235ndash63

Schegloff E A 2000 lsquoOverlapping talk and the

organization of turn-making for conversationrsquo

Language in Society 291 1ndash63

Schegloff E A 2002 lsquoOpening sequencingrsquo

in J E Katz and M Aakhus (eds) Perpetual

Contact Mobile Communication Private Talk Public

Performance Cambridge Cambridge University

Press

Schegloff E A and H Sacks 1973 lsquoOpening up

closingsrsquo Semiotica 8 289ndash327

Schieffelin B B and Ochs E (1986) lsquoLanguage

socializationrsquo Annual Review of Anthropology 15

163ndash91

Scribner S and M Cole 1981 The Psychology of

Literacy Cambridge MA Harvard University

Press

Segalowitz N C Poulsen and M Komoda

1991 lsquoLower level components of reading skill in

higher level bilinguals Implications for reading

instructionrsquo AILA Review 8 15ndash30

Streeck J 1983 Social Order in Child Communica-

tion Amsterdam John Benjamins

Streeck J and S Mihus 2005 lsquoMicroethno-

graphy The study of practicesrsquo In K L Fitch

and R E Sanders (eds) The Handbook of

Language and Social Interaction Marwah NJ

Lawrence Erlbaum

Street B 1998 lsquoNew literacies in theory

and practice What are the implications for

language in educationrsquo Linguistics and Education

10 1ndash24

Street B V 2001 Literacy and Development

Ethnographic perspectives London Routledge

Tang H 1997 lsquoThe relationship between reading

comprehension processes in L1 and L2rsquo Reading

Psychology 183 249ndash301

Treville M C 1996 lsquoLexical learning and reading

in L2 at the beginner level The advantage of

cognatesrsquo The Canadian Modern Language Review

531 173ndash90

Van Lier L 2000 lsquoFrom input to affordance

Social-interactive learning from an ecological

perspectiversquo in J Lantolf (ed) Sociocultural

Theory and Second Language Learning Oxford

Oxford University Press

van Lier L 2002 lsquoAn ecological-semiotic

perspective on language and linguisticsrsquo in

C Kramsch (ed) Language Acquisition and

Language Socialization An ecological approach

London Continuum

Wenger J 1998 Communities of Practice Learning

Meaning and Identity Cambridge Cambridge

University Press

Yang J 2000 lsquoOrthographic effect on word

recognition by learners of Chinese as a Foreign

Languagersquo Journal of the Chinese Language

Teachers Association 352 1ndash18

YoungR1999 lsquoSociolinguistic approaches toSLArsquo

Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 19 105ndash32

Young R 2000 lsquoInteractional competence

Challenges for validityrsquo Paper presented at the

annual conference of the American Association

for Applied Linguistics Vancouver BC

Young R F 2002 lsquoDiscourse approaches to oral

language assessmentrsquo Annual Review of Applied

Linguistics 22 243ndash62

404 INTERACTIVE PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING L2 LITERACY

at Monash U

niversity on October 7 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from