prospective teachers' discourse around latino literature for

In the Figured Worlds of Culture and Religion:

Prospective Teachers’ Discourse Around Latino Literature for Children

DISSERTATION

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University

By

Denise Lynne Davila

Graduate Program in Education

The Ohio State University

2012

Dissertation Committee:

Barbara Kiefer, Adviser

Barbara Lehman

Patricia Enciso

Caroline Clark

Copyrighted by Denise L. Davila

2012

ii

Abstract

This dissertation examines what happens when prospective teachers (PTs) engage

with works of Latino children’s literature that contain visual religious content. Exposing

PTs to accurate and affirming works of Latino children’s literature could foster their

cultural awareness (Medina & Enciso, 2001) and support their future work in diverse

school communities. Conversely, teachers’ avoidance of multicultural texts is well

documented (Nieto, 2002; Taxel, 1994). Gándara (2008) argues that unprepared teachers

are one of the primary reasons that there is a crisis in the education of Latino students.

This dissertation focuses on an analysis of the social Discourses and figured

worlds (Gee, 2011) that PTs construe in response to acclaimed Latino picturebooks such

as In My Family (Garza, 1996), Friends from the Other Side (Anzaldúa, 1993), and

Abuelito Eats with His Fingers (Levy, 1999), each of which is a work of critical fiction

(Mariani, 1991).

The teacher-researcher collected data from 83 predominantly white, young,

female prospective teachers enrolled in a major Midwest university’s introductory survey

course of children’s literature that is a prerequisite to the university’s post-baccalaureate

licensure program. Data sources included participants’ written responses to the literature

and related pedagogy, fieldnotes, and audio recordings of small group and whole class

discussions. Using Gee’s (2011) concept of figured worlds as a tool of inquiry for content

analysis, this study revealed that some of these PTs impose strict cultural boundaries

iii

around “American” identity. These boundaries exclude and displace children of Mexican

heritage. The data set points to deficiencies in multicultural education as experienced by

some PTs in the last decade. It shows contradictions between many PTs’ desires to foster

cultural awareness and their ideologies and political outlooks related to myths about

Latinos, immigration, and religion in public education.

iv

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank my dissertation committee members Barbara Kiefer, Barbara

Lehman, Patricia Enciso, and Caroline Clark for their tremendous guidance and support

during my studies at the Ohio State University. I am honored that you are my mentors

and eternally grateful for you kind and thoughtful responses to my work.

v

Vita

1991 ...............................................................B.A. Liberal Studies: Early Childhood

Option, California State University East Bay

1991 to 1994 ..................................................Classroom Teacher, Saint Elizabeth

Elementary School, Oakland CA

1993 ...............................................................Multiple Subject Teaching Credential, Holy

Names University

1994 ...............................................................Cross-cultural Language and Academic

Development (CLAD) Certification,

Alameda County Office of Education, CA

1994 to 1995 ..................................................Classroom Teacher, International School of

Trieste, Italy

1995 to 1998 ..................................................Math & Science Instructor/Curriculum

Developer, Lawrence Hall of Science at the

University of California, Berkeley

2001 ...............................................................M.S. Education, Curriculum and Instruction:

Children’s Literature, California State

University East Bay

vi

2001 to 2009 ..................................................Lecturer, Teacher Education Department,

California State University East Bay

2003 ...............................................................M.F.A. Creative Writing for Children, The

Union Institute & University at Vermont

College

2004 to 2008 ..................................................University Field Supervisor, Teacher

Education Department, California State

University East Bay

2007 to 2008 ..................................................Admissions Adviser and Field Placement

Coordinator, Teacher Education

Department, California State University East

Bay

2008 to 2010 ..................................................University Field Supervisor, School of

Teaching and Learning, The Ohio State

University

2009 to present ..............................................Graduate Teaching Associate, School of

Teaching and Learning, The Ohio State

University, Columbus and Mansfield

2010 to 2011 .................................................Editorial Assistant, Language Arts Journal,

The Ohio State University

vii

2012 ..............................................................Ph.D. Education: Literature for Children and

Young Adults School of Teaching and

Learning, The Ohio State University

Publications

Books

Kopp, J, & Davila, D. (2000). Math on the Menu. Berkeley, CA: UC Berkeley Press

Peer Reviewed Publications

Davila, D. (2012). In search of the ideal reader for children’s non-fiction books about el

Día de Los Muertos. Journal of Children’s Literature, 38(1), 16-26.

Davila, D. (2011). White people don’t work at McDonald’s and other shadow stories

from the field: Analyzing preservice teachers’ use of Obama’s race speech to teach

for social justice. English Education, 44(1), 13 – 50.

Davila, D. (2010). Not so innocent: Book trailers as anticipatory stories. The ALAN

Review. Fall, 32 – 42.

Editor Reviewed Publications

Davila, D., Anggraini, T., Barger, B. P., Bowcutt, A., Brewster, H., Vocal, P. (2011).

Tales of achievement. Language Arts, 88(5), 391-395.

Davila, D. (2010). Profile: Cornelia Funke. In B. Lehman, E. Freeman, & P. Scharer

(Eds.), Reading globally, K-8: Connecting students to the world through literature.

Thousand Oaks, California, USA: Corwin Press.

Davila, D. & Patrick, L. (2010). Asking the experts: What children have to say about

their reading preferences. Language Arts, 87(2), 199 – 210.

viii

Patrick, L. & Davila, D. (2010). What did you think of the book?: Kids speak up.

Language Arts, 87(2), 225 - 231.

Fields of Study

Major Field: Education

ix

Table of Contents

Abstract............................................................................................................................... ii

Acknowledgments ............................................................................................................. iv

Vita ......................................................................................................................................v

List of Tables ................................................................................................................... xvi

List of Figures....................................................................................................................xx

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION..................................................................................1

Framing the Situation.......................................................................................................3

Problem Statement ...........................................................................................................7

Purpose of Study ..............................................................................................................9

Research Questions ........................................................................................................11

Significance of Study .....................................................................................................13

Definition of Terms........................................................................................................15

x

Definition....................................................................................................................16

Categories and Types of Multicultural Children’s Literature ....................................17

Chapter Overviews.........................................................................................................19

CHAPTER TWO: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS ...................................................21

Conflicting Discourses...................................................................................................21

Discourse with a Capital “D” .....................................................................................21

Underpinnings of the Discourse of La Virgen de Guadalupe ....................................23

Devotions to La Virgen de Guadalupe .......................................................................24

Connection to Dominant Discourse: Latino Threat Narrative ..................................28

Conversations and Historical Development of Discourse: Who is “American?” .....29

Connection to Figured Worlds: Outsiders..................................................................32

Theoretical Framework: Discourse and Teacher Beliefs ...............................................34

Conceptual Framework ..............................................................................................34

Factors that Shape Teachers’ Beliefs and Knowledge ...............................................37

Summary ....................................................................................................................41

Censorship and Subject Positioning...............................................................................42

Teacher Identity and Censorship................................................................................43

Teacher Stance and Subject Positioning ....................................................................45

Teacher Stances that Function as Censorship ............................................................49

xi

Summary ....................................................................................................................67

Critical Literacy and Teachers .......................................................................................69

Rationale for Critical Literacy....................................................................................69


Methodology ..............................................................................................................73

Discussion A: Cultivating Critical Readers who are Teachers ..................................75

Discussion B: Nurturing Culturally Responsive Teachers.........................................86

Conclusion..................................................................................................................92

Religion, Multiculturalism, and Children’s ...................................................................93

Literature in the Public School.......................................................................................93

The Diversity and Religion Awareness Conversations..............................................94


Methodology ..............................................................................................................98

Discussion A: Benefits and Obstacles to Fostering Religious Literacy.....................99

Discussion B: Religion in the Research on Multicultural Children’s Literature .....106

Discussion C: Emerging Themes from the Literature..............................................111

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY........................................................................118

Data Collection ............................................................................................................119

Limitations ...................................................................................................................120

xii

Pilot Survey..................................................................................................................124

Main Study...................................................................................................................127

Research Pedagogy...................................................................................................130

Main Study Procedures ............................................................................................133

Selection of Latino Children’s Literature ....................................................................136

Data Analysis ...............................................................................................................140

Figured worlds, Discourses, and Conversations ......................................................140

Quantitative Content Analysis..................................................................................141

Thematic Network Analysis.....................................................................................142

Code Validity ...........................................................................................................143

Common Codes for Separate Analyses ....................................................................144

CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION ....................................................146

Research Question One................................................................................................147

Prospective Teachers’ Background Knowledge.......................................................147

Research Question Two ...............................................................................................150

In My Family............................................................................................................150

Friends from the Other Side .....................................................................................152

Abuelito Eats with His Fingers ................................................................................156

Comparison Across Books .......................................................................................160

xiii

Research Question Three .............................................................................................162

In My Family............................................................................................................164



Cross Analysis..........................................................................................................183

Research Question Four ...............................................................................................187

Alternative Worldviews/Spiritual Ideas ...................................................................188

In My Family............................................................................................................189



Cross Analysis..........................................................................................................200

Research Question Five ...............................................................................................216

Choice of Books .......................................................................................................216

Reflection on Critical Reading .................................................................................217

Connections to Stories..............................................................................................220

Research Question Six .................................................................................................222

Family Composition .................................................................................................224

Ordinariness..............................................................................................................225

Cultural Profile .........................................................................................................228

xiv

Milieu .......................................................................................................................232

Summary ..................................................................................................................235

CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS ........................................237

Recapitulation of the Research.................................................................................237

Conclusions ..............................................................................................................241

Implications and Future Research ............................................................................248

Future Research........................................................................................................252

References........................................................................................................................254

Appendix A: “The Miracle” ...........................................................................................283

Appendix B: Herb Woman’s Bedroom ..........................................................................285

Appendix C: Abuelito’s Statues and Candles..................................................................287

Appendix D: Literature Response Questions ..................................................................289

Appendix E: Week 8 Discussion Prompts......................................................................290

Appendix F: Week 8 Critical Reading Instructional Framework...................................291

Appendix G: Week 8 Background Information..............................................................292

Appendix H: Pilot Survey................................................................................................296

Appendix I: Week 1 Survey (Main Study) ......................................................................305

Appendix J: Week 8 Survey (Main Study)......................................................................308

Appendix K: Post-Reading Survey..................................................................................313

xv

Appendix L: Meta-Knowledge and Content Knowledge Figure.....................................314

Appendix M: Grade Level Analysis for Research Question Three................................315

Appendix N: Code List ....................................................................................................320

xvi

List of Tables

Table 1. Text Set of Latino Children’s Literature. ............................................................10

Table 2: Literature Review Studies. ..................................................................................50

Table 3. Sources for Literature Review.............................................................................75

Table 4. Definitions of Ideal Reader, Peritexts, and Implied Author. ...............................80

Table 5. Sources for Literature Review.............................................................................99

Table 6. Guidelines for Teaching About Religion...........................................................104

Table 7. General Questions for Critical Reading.............................................................115

Table 8. Critique Questions for Religious Themes. ........................................................115

Table 9. Respondents’Race and Gender. .........................................................................128

Table 10. Participants’ Preferred Career Objectives. ......................................................129

Table 11. Rationale for Selecting Data Sources. .............................................................135

Table 12. Respondents’ General Response to the Book In My Family. ..........................152

Table 13. Respondents’ General Response to the Book Friends from the Other Side....154

Table 14. Respondents’ General Response to the Book Abuelito Eats With His Fingers.

.........................................................................................................................................157

Table 15. Most Popular Themes. .....................................................................................161

Table 16. Respondents Arguments for Using the Book In My Family in Their Future

Classroom. .......................................................................................................................166

xvii

Table 17. Respondents Arguments against Using the Book In My Family in Their Future

Classroom. .......................................................................................................................166

Table 18. Respondents’ Conditions for Using In My Family in Their Future Classroom.

.........................................................................................................................................169

Table 19. Arguments for Using the Book Friends from the Other Side in the Future

Classroom. .......................................................................................................................172

Table 20. Arguments against Using Friends From the Other Side in the Future

Classroom. .......................................................................................................................173

Table 21. Rationale of Undecided Respondents..............................................................175

Table 22. Respondents’ Conditions for Discussing Friends from the Other Side in Their

Future Classroom.............................................................................................................177

Table 23. Respondents’ Arguments for Using Abuelito Eats with His Fingers in Their


Table 24. Respondents’ Arguments against Using Abuelito Eats with His Fingers in Their


Table 25. Respondents’ Conditions for Using Abuelito Eats with His Fingers in Their


Table 26. Most Popular Arguments for Using the Books in Respondents’ Future

Classroom. .......................................................................................................................184

Table 27. Most Popular Arguments against Using the Books in the Future Classroom. 185

Table 28. Most Popular Conditions for Using the Books in the Future Classroom. .......186

xviii

Table 29. Arguments for Discussing Religious Significance of “The Miracle” from In My

Family. .............................................................................................................................190

Table 30. Arguments against Discussing Religious Significance of “The Miracle” from In

My Family. .......................................................................................................................191

Table 31. Conditions for Discussing Religious Significance of “The Miracle” from In My

Family. .............................................................................................................................192

Table 32. Arguments for Discussing Religious Significance of Paintings/Artifacts in the

Herb Woman’s Bedroom from Friends from the Other Side. .........................................194

Table 33. Arguments against Discussing Religious Significance of Paintings/Artifacts in

the Herb Woman’s Bedroom from Friends from the Other Side. ...................................195

Table 34. Conditions for Discussing Religious Significance of Paintings/Artifacts in the

Herb Woman’s Bedroom from Friends from the Other Side. .........................................196

Table 35: Arguments for Discussing Religious Significance of Candles and Statues in

Abuelito’s House. ............................................................................................................198

Table 36. Arguments against Discussing Religious Significance of Candles and Statues in

Abuelito’s House. ............................................................................................................199

Table 37. Conditions for Discussing Religious Significance of Candles and Statues in

Abuelito’s House. ............................................................................................................200

Table 38: Most Popular Arguments for Discussing Religious Significance. ..................205

Table 39. Most Popular Arguments Against Discussing Religious Significance. ..........207

Table 40. Most Popular Conditions for Discussing Religious Significance. ..................214

Table 41. Respondents Reflection after Critical Reading of Books. ...............................218

xix

TABLE 42: Most popular arguments for using the books in the future classroom (by

respondents’ preferred teaching grade level)...................................................................318

xx

List of Figures

Figure 1. Pilot Study Respondents’ Race and Gender. Numbers Indicate How Many

Respondents (out of 141) Belong to Each Category. ......................................................125

Figure 2. Pilot Survey Respondents’ Age........................................................................125

Figure 3. Participants’ Age. .............................................................................................128

Figure 4. Respondents’ Preferred Career Grade Level....................................................129

Figure 5. Respondents’ Background Knowledge of Mexican and Mexican American

Cultures. Numbers Indicate How Many of the 68 Respondents Selected Each Answer.148

Figure 6. Pilot Survey Respondents’ Recognition of Guadalupe. ...................................149

Figure 7. Respondents’ Personal Connection to Books...................................................161

Figure 8. Respondents’ Willingness to Use Book In My Family in Their Future

Classroom. .......................................................................................................................164

Figure 9. Respondents’ Willingness to Use Friends from the Other Side in Their Future

Classroom. .......................................................................................................................171

Figure 10. Respondents’ Willingness to Use Abuelito Eats with His Fingers in Their


Figure 11. Likelihood of Selecting a Book Featuring Worldviews and Spiritual Ideas

Different from the Mainstream American. ......................................................................188

xxi

Figure 12. Likelihood of Discussing Religious Significance of the Water Tank Painting

“The Miracle” from In My Family...................................................................................189

Figure 13. Respondents’ Comfort Level of Discussing Paintings and Artifacts in the Herb

Woman’s Bedroom from Friends from the Other Side. ..................................................193

Figure 14. Likelihood of Discussing Religious Significance of Candles and Statues from

Abuelito Eats with His Fingers........................................................................................197

Figure 15: Likelihood of Discussing Alternative Worldviews/Spiritual Ideas in

Comaprison with Religious Significance of the Books. ..................................................201

Figure 16. Respondents’ Choice of Books for Post-Reading Analysis. ..........................217

Figure 17. Respondents’ Connections to Stories. ............................................................221

Figure 18. Prospective Teachers’ Figured World: “Typical” Persons of Mexican Heritage.

.........................................................................................................................................223

FIGURE 19: Respondents’ willingness to use “In My Family” in their future classroom

(per preferred teaching grade level).................................................................................316

FIGURE 20: Respondents’ willingness to use “Friends from the Other Side” in their

future classroom (per preferred teaching grade level). ....................................................316

FIGURE 21: Respondents’ willingness to use “Abuelito Eats with His Fingers” in their

future classroom (per preferred teaching grade level) .....................................................317

1

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

Childhood experiences and memories can have a profound influence on one’s

sense of identity and agency. While my childhood memories include birthday parties and

bike rides, I had a decidedly unique set of cultural experiences that have shaped my life.

It is from this place that I am pursuing my intellectual curiosity. My research agenda

stems from my experience growing up with repertoires of cultural, economic and

linguistic practices (Gutiérrez & Rogoff, 2003) that were not understood or visible in

representations of mainstream American families. Born to a working-class Salvadoran

father and European mother, I am first in my family to attend college. Although my

grandparents publically identified as Catholic, my grandmother’s position as a doña in

the Santería religion and my family’s practice of Latin American espiritismo influenced

my worldview as a young person. Discussions of my family’s religious identity, however,

had no place in polite conversation outside of our home, especially at school. I felt

isolated not knowing whether other children felt the conflict between their families’

cultural belief systems and dominant religious ideologies. I did not see families like mine

in any school curriculum, let alone children’s literature. I never met a teacher who

would understand my experience.

When I became a primary grade teacher at a Catholic school in a predominantly

Latino community of California, I appreciated the opportunity to recognize cultural and

2

religious worldviews with my students. This experience reinforced for me the

importance of being a religiously aware teacher who enacts culturally relevant pedagogy

(Ladson-Billings, 1995). As a result, I am particularly interested in the choices teachers

make in selecting and/or censoring Latino children’s literature for the classroom. In a

multicultural children’s literature course that I instructed for public school teachers, I met

practicing English teachers who argued that they would never use the award-winning

children’s novel Esperanza Rising (Munoz-Ryan, 2002) because the young immigrant-

protagonist Esperanza prays to the Virgin of Guadalupe, the patroness of Esperanza’s

Mexican homeland. My experience was supported in the research of Escamilla and

Nathenson-Meja (2003), who found that some of the preservice teachers enrolled in their

children’s literature courses also rejected children’s multicultural, Latino books on

religious grounds. These preservice teachers felt that picturebooks like Pancho’s Piñata

(Czernecki & Rhodes, 1992) and Maria Molina and the Day of the Dead (Krull, 1994)

had religious overtones and contended that such content does not have any place in public

education.

Consequently, this dissertation research on prospective teachers’ social discourse

around Latino children’s literature that includes religious content is both poignant and

urgent for me as I undertake a career that includes children literature and teacher

education. This study examines what happens when prospective teachers, many of whom

will become licensed practicing teachers within 12 – 24 months, engage with Latino and

multicultural children’s literature that includes religious content.

3

Framing the Situation

Just as I never saw myself reflected in the children’s literature and classroom

materials of my K -12 learning experience, neither do many children of Latino heritage or

of religious traditions that are outside of the dominant culture. Nord (2010) a scholar who

examines the intersection of religion, multiculturalism, and public education argues that

the nonappearance of people of a certain race, ethnicity, religious tradition, or gender in

the school materials leads to a sense of disenfranchisement of these people. Such

disenfranchisement of people’s literary legacy and lives is most evident today in the

elimination of Latinos from the curriculum, which received national attention in 2011 and

2012 as the Tucson Unified School District in Arizona terminated its K – 12 Mexican

American studies program and literally removed from classrooms books that address the

perspectives of Latinos and other subordinate groups in society and culture.

The exclusion of materials that explore topics such as Latino cultures, religious

beliefs, social practices, history, and art essentially erases Latinos from school culture.

Alma Flor Ada (2003) observes that Latino children “have suffered a great deal from the

ways in which their culture… has been rendered invisible… within the school

curriculum. …[They] seldom have an opportunity to see… representations of their

culture” (p. xiv). Ada argues that such censorship fosters low self-esteem among Latino

children. Being rendered invisible in school also supports the “widespread disaffection

with schooling” experienced by many Latino youth (Ream & Vazquez, 2010, p. 4). This

disaffection with schooling combined with the cultural and cognitive dissonance that

4

some Latino children face is associated with the fact that many Latino children do not

finish high school (Batalova & Fix, 2011).

Not only is the exclusion or nonappearance of Latinos and religious minorities in

the curriculum harmful to the members of these groups, it is also harmful to American

society. After all, citizenship in a diverse society “means living with our deepest

differences and committing ourselves to… the best interest of all individuals, families,

communities and our nation. The framers of our Constitution referred to this concept of

moral responsibility as civic virtue” (Hayne and Thomas, 2007, p. 11). In order to foster

civic virtue, it is critical that students are exposed to curriculum materials and children’s

literature that, using Rudine Sims Bishop’s (1994) metaphor, not only serve “as a mirror

reflecting themselves and their cultural values, attitudes and behaviors,” but also serve

“as a window onto lives and experiences different from their own” (p. xiv). Otherwise, if

children are exposed only to reflections of themselves, “they will grow up with an

exaggerated view of their importance and value in the world – a dangerous

ethnocentrism” (Bishop, 1990b, p. x). They might also presume that books are primarily

written for them and no others.

Sadly, the ethnocentrism that has resulted from excluding Latinos from the

curriculum may be reflected in the ways some teachers regard Latino cultures and some

non-Latino children interact with Latino children (Eggers-Piérola, 2005). Studies also

show a correlation between the way some members of society regard Latinos as having

low social capital and the way Latino children think about themselves, their heritage, and

5

ethnic identity (Naidoo, 2010). At the same time, Patricia Gándara (2008) of the Civil

Rights Project at UCLA argues that there is a crisis in the education of Latino students:

[The] low educational attainment of Latino students is … clearly the result of a

complex web of social, economic, and educational conditions—inadequate social

services, families with exceptionally low human and social capital, a polarizing

economy … and schools that lack the resources to meet many students' most basic

educational needs… While language is an issue for some Latino students, it's not

the critical issue… Chief among the educational inequities suffered are teachers

unprepared to address their [Latino students’] needs. (p.1)

Gándara’s accounting of the low human and social capital and the complex web

of factors that attribute to the low educational attainment of Latino students could be

symptomatic of the ways in which U.S.-born and immigrants of Latino heritage are

positioned in the dominant Discourse (Gee, 2008) as “them,” “foreigners,” “non-

Americans,” and “invaders” (Chavez, 2008; Chomsky, 2007; Santa Ana, 2002). These

and more dehumanizing labels that denote low human and social capital have been

employed by elected officials as much as they have been spewed across public radio

airways (National Hispanic Media Coalition, 2012).

Gándara’s assessment that Latino children’s educations and well-being suffer

when teachers are underprepared is consistent with the results of the Pew Hispanic

Center/Kaiser Family Foundation National Education Survey of Latinos (2004). Many

Latinos who participated in the study are concerned that teachers are not equipped to

address the cultural differences in their classroom and, thereby, diminish the progress of

6

Latino children. For example, 51% believe that schools are apt to label Latino children

as having learning or behavioral problems; 47% suggest that white teachers are neither

culturally competent nor responsive to Latino students; and 43% argue that racial

stereotypes cause teachers and administrators to have lower expectations for Latino

students (Pew, 2004, p. 8). Regionally, the crisis is the same. Case studies of southern

schools (Arkansas, North Carolina, & Georgia) described in a Tomás Rivera Policy

Institute report (Wainer, 2004) show that limited cultural awareness of educators and

school community members is linked to discrimination toward Latino children.

The limited cultural awareness of some educators is also likely to be indicative of

limited religious awareness. This is especially the case for many cultural practices

among people of Mexican and Latin American heritage. Religion and identity and

political power have long been interlinked in the histories of Mexico and Latin America.

For example, historically religious indoctrination served as a powerful colonizing tool

following the Spanish conquest of the New World. In the words of Susan Rinderle

(2005):

As a result of invasion and colonization, not only are Mexicans and Mexican

Americans racial and ethnic hybrids, so is their culture. One need only look to

Mexican religious syncretism for examples. One of the most powerful symbols for

the Mexican diaspora today is La Virgen de Guadalupe… The discourse of the

indigenous Virgen as the “Mother of the Americas” and “Patron Saint of Mexico”

…today continues to combine and reinforce ideologies of the Spanish Catholic

colonizer and the indigenous Náhuatl-speaking colonized. (p. 297)

7

As Rinderle (2005) implies, for many people of Mexican and Mexican American

heritage the discourse of culture and identity is inseparable from the discourse of

religious colonization, hybridism, and La Virgen de Guadalupe. I argue that in order for

teachers to cultivate a moral responsibility toward civic virtue as intended by the U.S.

Constitution, they need the kind of cultural and religious awareness that supports the

inclusion of Latinos and members of other minority groups in the curriculum.

Problem Statement

Teacher censorship of Latino and other genres of multicultural children’s

literature, as described earlier, is a common occurrence. Sonia Nieto, renowned advocate

of multicultural education and multicultural children’s literature, as cited in an interview

with Aaronsohn (2000), observes that censorship of texts occurs every single day in

schools. “We call it ‘selections,’ we call it ‘choice,’” Nieto says. “Teachers make up

their minds… about what to use with students based on their own thinking, based on their

political ideology, on their orientation to what education is all about” (p. 3). Similarly,

Luke and Freebody (1997) argue that teachers privilege, delete, abbreviate, and/or modify

text for their lessons, as well as for students’ silent reading, individual projects, and other

literacy activities as a means of fostering certain social practices and cultural models or

figured worlds (Gee, 1996/2011). As a result, teachers ultimately authorize specific types

of reading and response as being “appropriate” and thereby conforming to dominant

ideological discourses (Apol, 1998; Freebody, Luke, & Gilbert, 1991; Hoffman, 1996).

Such reading and response could be complicit with the privileging of mainstream culture

and the oppression of minority cultural, social, and economic groups (Gee, 2008).

8

Hence, some teachers’ rejection of certain Latino children’s literature is

problematic for four major reasons. First, religious spirituality is inexorably entwined

with the histories of conflict and domination that depended on religious colonization of

Mexico and Latin America. Any examination of Latin American culture and history is

incomplete without a discussion of religious influence (Badillo, 2006; Poole, 1997).

Second, the multicultural education agenda in the United States calls on educators

to affirm “the pluralism (ethnic, racial, linguistic, religious, economic, and gender, among

others) that students, their communities, and teachers reflect” (Nieto & Bode, 2008, p.

44). At a time when Latinos represent the largest minority population (US Census

Bureau, 2010), teachers’ ban on certain Latino children’s literatures undermines the

objectives of affirming a pluralistic society.

Third, given that the majority of teachers are white females (US Department of

Education, 2008) from rural or suburban middle class backgrounds (Zeichner et al.,

1998), some teachers’ rejection of Latino children’s literature suggests that these teachers

might not possess the necessary background knowledge to appreciate or understand the

differences between mainstream American culture and dominant Latino and/or Mexican

American culture.

Finally, the way some teachers base their rejection of certain Latino children’s

literature on the presence of religious content (Escamilla and Nathenson-Meja, 2003)

implies that these teachers might not understand that it is both lawful and important to

discuss religious worldviews in public schools. Alternately, their school communities

might not recognize that religious awareness supports students in becoming global

9

citizens who embrace a democratic culture of toleration, respect, and understanding of

diversity in our nation and world (Fraser, 1999; Green & Oldendorf, 2005; Hayne, 1992;

Moore, 2007; Rosenblith & Baily, 2007).

In short, teachers’ avoidance of Latino children’s literature could reinforce Latino

literature as being “other.” It could also be complicit with maintaining the status quo and

subsequently the inequities suffered by Latino students due to lack of teacher awareness

and preparedness. In the absence of critical consciousness, such complacency in

education inhibits meaningful social action for change (Friere, 1970; Giroux, 1987).

Purpose of Study

One suggestion for addressing the aforementioned Latino educational crisis

comes from former National Education Association (NEA) President Reg Weaver, who

argues that, “Exposing Latino children to books that reflect their culture as well as their

language is one of the most effective ways of motivating them to stay in school” (NEA,

2002, para. 2). Including in the curriculum accurate and affirmative works of Latino

children’s literature by culturally knowledgeable, sensitive, and responsible authors could

help foster positive self-image among Latino children as well as shift the perspective of

non-Latino educators and students (Ada, 2002, 2003; Barrera, Liguori, & Salas, 1992;

Medina & Enciso, 2002; Naidoo, 2010; Nieto, 1993). Specifically, exposure to Latino

children’s books has the potential for building students’ and teachers’ cultural awareness

of the pluralistic world in which their school communities reside (Furumoto, 2008;

Medina & Enciso 2002; Nathenson-Mejía & Escamilla, 2003; Smolen & Ortiz-Castro

2000). Engaging in praxis (Friere, 1970) and preparing future teachers to be culturally

10

competent/responsive educators within their communities of students (Ladson-Billings,

1995; Villegas & Lucas, 2002; Wainer, 2004) could also address this education crisis.

Thus, the purpose of this study is to:

a) expose prospective teachers enrolled in an introductory children’s literature

course (study participants) to a thematic unit or text set (Cai, 2002) of Latino

children’s literature that includes religious content and that reflects the Mexican

and Mexican American discourse of La Virgen de Guadalupe;

b) guide research participants through a critical literacy pedagogy (McLaughlin and

DeVoogd, 2004) that supports their development of cultural and religious

awareness;

c) engage participants in reflecting on their biases, knowledge, and critical reading

experience; and to

d) describe and critically analyze the discourses that the prospective teachers enact

in response to the cultural/religious content of the texts.

See Table 1, below for a list of books used in this study.

Table 1. Text Set of Latino Children’s Literature.

Children’s Literature

Anzaldua, G. (1993). Friends from the other side. San Francisco: Children’s Book Press

Córdova, A. (2011). Talking Eagle and the Lady of Roses. Great Barington, MA: Steiner

de Paola, T. (1980). The Lady of Guadalupe. New York: Holiday House

Garza, C.L. (1996). In my family. San Francisco: Children’s Book Press

Levy, J. (1999). Abuelito eats with his fingers. Austin: Eakin Press

Adult Literature

Castillo, A. (1996). Goddess of the Americas. New York: Riverhead Books

Poole, S. (1995). Our Lady of Guadalupe. Tucson: University of Arizona Press

11

Research Questions

The questions for this teacher-research study were addressed in the context of

three sections of an upper division undergraduate university course, Introduction to

Children’s Literature, for which I was the instructor. The 80+ juniors and seniors in this

course were prospective elementary and middle school teachers. Most were white

women in their early 20s.

Two research questions establish a baseline of information about the prospective

teachers’ background and general responses to the works of children’s literature in this

study: a) How do prospective teachers describe their knowledge of and relationships to

the cultures depicted in select works of Latino children’s literature that includes religious

content (In My Family; Friends from the Other Side; Abuelito Eats with His Fingers)?

and b) What are prospective teachers’ general responses to works of Latino children’s

literature that include religious content?

The guiding question for this study is: What kinds of Discourses and figured

worlds (Gee, 2011) do prospective teachers construe about Latinos around works of

Latino children’s literature that includes visual religious content?

This guiding question addresses the following conceptual issues:

Previous research has shown that teachers, like students, assume certain subject

positions toward texts (Beach, 1993, 1997) and sometimes reject the text based on their

personal orientation (Escamilla & Nathenson-Meja, 2003; Schmidt, Armstrong, &

Everett, 2007; Wollman-Bollina, 1998). Consequently, the first sub-question of this

12

study is: What kinds of stances/subject-positions (Beach, 1997) do prospective teachers

adopt in considering the use of each book in their future classrooms?

Research shows that the use of scholarly texts about critical literacy have

supported prospective and preservice teachers in their thoughtful consideration of

multicultural children’s literature (Graff, 2010; Mathis, 2001). The use of texts that

provide historical and cultural background information about the multicultural children’s

literature has also supported teachers’ critical reading process (Apol, Sakuma, Reyonlds,

& Rop, 2003). The second sub-question is: How does applying a critical lens to a re-

reading of a book of one’s choice (In My Family; Friends from the Other Side; or

Abuelito Eats with His Fingers) influence the prospective teachers’ interpretations of that

book?

Finally, while scholars advocate for fostering religious awareness among students

(Fraser, 1999; Moore, 2007; Noddings, 1993), there is little or no data on prospective

teachers’ notions of this process. Therefore, the last sub-question is: What is the

likelihood that prospective teachers would discuss with their future students the religious

content of the books in this study?

As an outcome of this study, I hope to support prospective teachers in considering

how religious literacy can help students become global citizens who embrace a

democratic culture of toleration, respect, and appreciation of diversity in our nation and

world (Fraser, 1999; Green & Oldendorf, 2005; Haynes, 1992; Moore, 2007; Rosenblith

& Baily, 2007).

13

Significance of Study

This study is significant because to date, there has been little research on

prospective, preservice, and/or practicing teachers’ engagement with multicultural

children’s literature that includes religion as a cultural phenomenon. The small body of

existing educational research has been primarily grounded in textual analysis of religious

representations in specific children’s fiction and nonfiction books (Lehman, 2005;

Sanders, Foyil, & Graff, 2010; and Trousdale, 2005). One report discusses the way a

Texas school district incorporated “teaching about religion” into the multicultural

curriculum (Ayers & Reid, 2005). “Teaching about religion” is a term coined by the First

Amendment Center to explicitly reinforce that such practice is lawful and is not a form of

proselytizing (Hayne & Thomas, 2007). The Texas school district report, however, does

not attend to the teachers’ or students’ engagement with select children’s books as part of

the approach.

As evidenced by the limited number of articles and materials listed in the EBSCO

database, teaching-about-religion in the public school is somewhat absent from the

multicultural education research agenda. Bishop and Nash (2007) argue that although

multicultural education advocates that schools respect individual differences and honor

the unique qualities of different cultures, consideration of religious difference “remains

largely unexamined in the ongoing work toward equity, perhaps because of a general

reluctance to address religious issues in a public school setting” (p. 21). Fraser (1999)

adds, “If religion can be added to the multicultural agenda, then there is hope of

14

transcending some of the nation’s longest-running and most bitter school wars” (p. 5).

Thus, raising awareness through educational research could provide a starting point.

Although several education scholars write about the inclusion of children’s

literature in a teaching-about-religion curriculum (Ayers & Reid, 2005; Bishop & Nash,

2007; Green & Oldendorf, 2005; Peyton & Jalongo, 2008; Rosenblith & Bailey, 2007;

Whitaker, Salend, & Elhoweris, 2009), the current scholarship is generally reflective of

theoretical ideas rather than actual classroom observations of either teachers or students.

Even while states like California have responded to the call for fostering religious

literacy as part of the multicultural agenda via the study of world religions in middle

school social studies curriculum (Neusner, 2009), little has been reported on teachers’

engagement with materials like children’s literature to specifically foster religious

literacy. In contrast, scholars collectively suggest that teachers resist discussions about

religion in public schools because teachers believe religion is a taboo topic. (Bloom,

2007; Fraser, 1999; Green and Oldendorf, 2005; Hayne & Thomas, 2007; Moore, 2007;

Noddings, 1993; Nord & Haynes, 1998; Peyton & Renck, 2008; Rosenblith & Baily,

2007; Sanders, Foyil, & Graff, 2010; Whitaker, Salend, & Elhowers, 2009).

Consequently, this study could be one of the first of its kind to critically examine

the stances that a large pool of prospective public school teachers occupy in response to

works of Latino children’s literature that are not entirely consistent with hegemonic

cultural ideologies about religion and that could necessitate mediation. It will contribute

to empirical data on which to consider future teachers’ orientations toward teaching-

15

about-religion as part of a multicultural agenda that is responsive to diverse groups of

students.

In summary, this study will address multiple interrelated concerns in

contemporary multicultural children’s literature and teacher education:

a) It describes the cultural/religious awareness of prospective teacher who are

primarily in their early 20s and are products of the K-12 and post-secondary

multicultural education movement of the last decade;

b) It reveals the kinds of discourses that prospective teachers apply to Latinos as a

minority group;

c) It exposes future teachers to accurate, affirmative works of Latino children’s

literature, as well as to historical, cultural, and religious content about Mexico and

the Mexican Diaspora. Study participants’ increased subject matter knowledge

and heightened cultural awareness could help them to be more responsive

teachers to Latino children; and

d) It raises questions about the ways teacher education programs will not only

disrupt negative narratives about Latinos and other minority groups, but also

foster religious awareness as part of the multicultural education agenda.

Definition of Terms

Multicultural literature embodies a dream of equity for the oppressed groups.

- Mingshui Cai, 2003, p. 16.

What follows is a brief definition of multicultural children’s literature of which

Latino children’s literature is a genre.

16

Definition

Under the umbrella of children’s literature, there is a subset of text, which has

been labeled “multicultural children’s literature” (Sims-Bishop, 1997). Multicultural

children’s literature, like multicultural education, responds to the political call for

inclusion and curriculum improvement by and for groups of people that have been

disenfranchised by mainstream culture (Taxel, 1992; Willis & Harris, 1997). In short,

multicultural children’s literature portrays the experiences of people who are not middle-

class, white European Americans, and includes texts, which reflect the ethnic, cultural,

and social diversity that is represented in our local, national, and global pluralistic

society. Some scholars suggest that multicultural literature could also includes texts that

explore gender identity and sexual orientation as well as the experiences of people who

have physical and/or cognitive challenges or other special needs (Harris, 1994; Smith,

1993). Smith (1993) argues that although the scope of the discussion on multicultural

children’s literature generally focuses on people of color, the concept of multiculturalism

can be interpreted more broadly, to be inclusive of “any persons whose lifestyle,

enforced or otherwise, distinguishes them as identifiable members of a group other than

the mainstream” (p. 341). Harris (1994) specifies that multicultural children’s literature

includes not only books about people of color, but also books about “the elderly, gays

and lesbians, religious minorities, language minorities, people with disabilities, gender

issues, and concerns about class” (p. 117). Finally, Kiefer (2010) suggests that in lieu of

the term multicultural literature, a more broad and inclusive term might be “literature of

diversity” (p. 85). For the purposes of this discussion, multicultural children’s literature is

17

defined as children’s literature by, for, and/or about members of groups that have been

historically marginalized by the dominant cultural group.

Mirrors and windows. Multicultural children’s literature provides mirrors, which

reflect the images of students from a diverse range of ethnic, cultural, and social

backgrounds and provides windows, through which readers could view and ideally come

to appreciate the lived experiences of people who are different from them (Botelho &

Rudman, 2009; Sims-Bishop, 1994, 1997). From a literary perspective, the label

‘multicultural children’s literature’ is assigned to text that are either overtly about persons

or groups who are not reflected in mainstream society or to texts that engage readers, who

may or may not be familiar with the culture in which story is set, in a cultured reading

experience (Cai, 2003). From a pedagogical perspective, multicultural children’s

literature advances the objectives for multicultural education in the classroom by

supplying multicultural curriculum (Cai, 2003) and facilitating the cultural mediation of

students’ interpretations (Enciso, 1997; Medina 2006).

Categories and Types of Multicultural Children’s Literature

While many non-fiction and fiction books provide outstanding material to support

multicultural education objectives, it is important to consider the different categories and

qualities of the books that are available (Barrera & Garza de Cortes, 1997; Gilton, 2007;

Hade, 1997; Taxel, 1992). Cai and Sims-Bishop (1994) outline three general categories

of texts under the umbrella of multicultural children’s literature: world literature, cross-

cultural literature, and literature from parallel cultures. Kiefer (2010) adds one more

category to the list, intersecting cultures.

18

Global literature. World or global literature is “either set outside the United

States or written by persons other than Americans with settings that are undefined…

[B]ooks by Americans with clearly identified settings outside of the United States [are

also categorized] as global literature” (Lehman, Freeman, & Scharer, 2010. p. 16).

Fiction, folktales, adaptations, and similar texts are part of the world/global literature

category.

Cross-cultural. Cross-cultural literature reflects the cultural gaps in our global

society that need to be bridged. This category includes texts, which demonstrate that

there could be gaps between the writer’s cultural lens and the cultural perspective of the

people featured in the text. Cross-cultural texts usually fall into one of two

subcategories: intercultural/interracial text or parallel culture texts by outsider authors.

Intercultural/interracial. This subcategory includes books that demonstrate

positive intercultural and/or interracial relationships. These books describe culture-

crossing experiences such as being an immigrant or ethnic minority who must adjust to a

new cultural environment. They also include textually and/or visually characters from

different ethnic or cultural backgrounds. Alternately, they develop stories about these

characters about topics that are not related to prejudice or conflict.

Parallel culture by outsider authors. This second subcategory of cross-cultural

texts includes books by white/outsider authors about the experiences of people from

parallel cultures. (Parallel cultures is a term coined by author Virginia Hamilton

(1988/2010) to demonstrate the equal status of people who are members of ethnic or

cultural groups that have been historically marginalized by the mainstream culture.) The

19

authors of these texts try to assume an insider perspective in writing about the lived

experience of a member of a parallel culture of which they do not belong.

Parallel culture by inside authors. Under the multicultural children’s literature

umbrella, this category represents parallel culture literature, “the literature of a cultural

group” (Cai & Sims Bishop, 1997, p. 66). No matter how credible the work, a text by an

outsider author is not eligible for inclusion in the category of parallel culture literature

because a cultural group’s perspective can only be acquired via experience. This

category is specifically reserved for insider writers, who best represent the collective

consciousness, lived experiences, and self-image of their cultural groups. Cai and Sims

Bishop (1997) recommend that teachers select multicultural books primarily from the

category of parallel culture literature.

Intersecting cultures. This category, “represents mixed-race or biracial

individuals who desire to be identified by their own unique cultural and racial heritage

rather than by a label that implies only one race or ethnicity" (Kiefer, 2010, p. 85).

Chapter Overviews

In alignment with the research questions, the literature review sections included in

Chapter Two establish theoretical and pedagogical frameworks for this study. This

chapter is divided into five sections: (a) Background; (b) Theoretical Framework; (c)

Censorship and Subject Positioning; (d) Religion and Multiculturalism; (e) Critical

Literacy and Multicultural Children’s Literature.

The background section establishes a context for discussing the way Latinos are

regarded in American dominant Discourse (Gee, 2011). The theoretical framework

20

section begins with an overview of sociocultural theory and New Literacy Studies and

then examines James Gee’s (2011) concepts of “Discourses” (with a capital “D”) and

“figured worlds.” The section on censorship and subject positioning reviews the literature

on the intersection between teachers’ acceptance and rejection of certain works of

multicultural children’s literature and the their ideological orientations toward the text. In

this section, Richard Beach’s (1997) reader response theory of subject positioning is used

to synthesize the types of stances prospective, preservice, and practicing teachers assume

in their reading. The next section examines the constructs of critical literacy and

establishes the pedagogical framework for the sequence of this study. Finally, the last

section provides overview of the debates and issues associated with religion in public

education. The latter part of this section reviews the academic literature on using

multicultural children’s literature to teach about religious-cultural perspectives.

Chapter Three provides a detailed description of the design and methodology for

the data collection and analysis employ for each research question. Chapter Four

provides the results of the data collection and analysis and engages in a discussion about

the results. Chapter Five reports on the conclusions and implications of the study.

21

CHAPTER TWO: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS

Conflicting Discourses

This first section of Chapter Two begins with an introduction of James Gee’s

(1989) concept of Discourse (with a capital “D”). Next, Gee’s concept of Discourse is

applied to an encounter between Secretary of State Hilary Clinton and the iconic image of

La Virgen de Guadalupe (Guadalupe), the patroness of Mexico and the Mexican

Diaspora. This discussion leads to the subsequent introductions of the Latino Threat

Narrative (LTN) (Chavez, 2008), the Anglo-American Narrative (AAN) (Santa Ana,

2002), and Gee’s (2011) concept of figured worlds, which concludes the section.

Discourse with a Capital “D”

Renown literacy scholar and social linguist James Paul Gee (2008) proposes that

Discourses with a capital “D” are unconscious and uncritical socially accepted ways of

speaking/listening and writing/reading that are “coupled with distinctive ways of acting,

interacting, valuing, feeling, dressing, thinking, believing, with other people and with

various objects, tools, and technologies, so as to enact specific socially recognizable

identities engaged in specific socially recognizable activities…” (p. 155, emphasis in

original). Discourses are ideological in nature and advance the values and viewpoints of

the social group they represent. They define who is an insider and who is an outsider to

the social groups and oftentimes who or what is “normal” and who or what isn’t.

22

Moreover, Gee (2008) explains that Discourses regard the distribution and acquisition of

social goods in a society such as money, power, and status. “Discourses that lead to

social goods in a society are dominant Discourses… [and] those groups that have the

fewest conflicts when using them are dominant groups” (Gee, 2008, p. 161).

Participation in a Discourse requires the ability to partake in “a particular sort of

‘dance’ with words, deeds, values, feelings, other people, objects, tools, technologies,

places, and times” (Gee, 2008, p. 155) in order to be perceived as being conversant in the

Discourse. To understand a Discourse, one must be able to distinguish the metaphorical

dances.

To follow Gee’s dance metaphor, lack of understanding can be like trying to

dance a tango with two left feet or without knowing the steps. Neither foot is practiced in

going in a direction that favors a different Discourse. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary

Clinton provided an example of this phenomenon during her diplomatic bridge-building

visit to Mexico City on March 29, 2009. Andrew Malcom (2009) of the Los Angeles

Times reports on the visit:

[T]he Methodist [Hillary Clinton] took time out in Mexico City to visit the

Basilica of Our Lady of Guadalupe to deliver a bouquet of white flowers on

behalf of the American people. Catholics believe that almost 500 years ago the

image of Our Lady of Guadalupe was miraculously imprinted on the cloak of St.

Juan Diego, who became the Catholic church’s first saint indigenous to the

Americas in 2002. According to news agency reports [Catholic News Agency],

23

the basilica’s rector, Msgr. Diego Monroy, had had the image lowered from its

altar for a closer look by the visiting dignitary.

“Who painted it?” Clinton asked.

“God,” the rector replied.

Clinton also lighted a candle during her 30-minute visit and, on her way out, told

a crowd of Mexicans, “You have a marvelous virgin.” (para. 1)

Clinton is knowledgeable and well-traveled ambassador. Her well-intentioned

public gesture at the basilica, however, revealed the way both of her feet appeared to

favor dominant American Discourse. Clinton’s faux pas in asking who painted the

Virgin’s image suggests that she was not aware of the historical and cultural

underpinnings of a dominant Discourse among Mexicans and among U.S.-born

Americans and immigrants of Mexican heritage. In this Discourse, the image of the

Virgin of Guadalupe is not only the miraculous product of a divine religious apparition,

but also the icon of Mexican independence and identity.

Underpinnings of the Discourse of La Virgen de Guadalupe

This next section considers the basic history and culture that inform a dominant

Discourse of many Mexicans and Mexican Americans, of which familiarity might have

benefitted Clinton during her visit to the basilica. This background information is

relevant to understanding the inclusion of La Virgen de Guadalupe’s (Guadalupe’s)

image in the picturebooks for this study.

In fifteenth-century Spain, Castilian Catholicism was a regional (folk)

interpretation of Roman Catholicism. This folk practice of Catholicism, which included

24

the veneration of local saints, was imported from Spain to Mexico and to other areas of

Latin America with Hernan Cortez, the conquistadors, missionaries, and Spanish settlers.

Due to isolation, the missionaries and settlers of New Spain continued, largely unaffected

by Church reforms, to practice this medieval form of Catholicism. They used elements of

this folk tradition in attempting to abolish local religion and to indoctrinate native peoples

of Mexico into Castilian Catholicism so they would be easier to govern. These

conversion and indoctrination attempts significantly altered native religion, but did not

completely abolish it. What resulted was a hybridization of beliefs and practices that

were local to Mexico, such as the veneration of Guadalupe. (Badillo, 2006; Poole, 1997).

Devotions to La Virgen de Guadalupe

More than Catholic doctrine, Castilians were generally concerned with devotions to

the Virgin Mary and local patron saints, as evidenced by many local cults (Poole, 1997).

Stories of apparitions of the Virgin Mary and local saints were part of the devotion

tradition and led to the construction of local shrines or chapels in sixteenth-century Spain.

As Poole (1997) describes, the apparition stories usually followed a formula wherein a

poor, marginalized person in society is rejected and then vindicated, thus inverting the

dominant power structures. A typical example would be one in which the Virgin or saint

appears to a humble man and commands that he build a sanctuary at the site of the

apparition. Skeptics, who usually include civil authorities, question the vision. Then, the

Virgin or saint identifies her/himself to the viewer and offers reassurance. He usually

offers some sign or performs a miracle that converts the skeptics, and the marginalized

person prevails over the rich and powerful persons.

25

Two such Castilian stories influence the renowned apparition story of Our Lady of

Guadalupe of Mexico (Poole, 1997). The popular story of Our Lady of Guadalupe of

Extremenadura, local to the same area of Spain as Cortez, the conquistadors, and early

settlers of New Spain (Mexico), is one contributor. The second is the story of the Virgin

of Los Remedios. This story originates with a conquistador who carried a statue of the

Virgin with him from Spain to Mexico. The story is set on the peninsula of Mexico and

regards the disappearance and reappearance of the statue (Poole, 1997).

Perhaps the most powerful influence of the Castilian Catholic Church on the

peoples of Mexico was the introduction of and devotion to La Virgen de Guadalupe. In

this apparition story, the location of the Virgin’s appearance on the hillside at Tepeyac is

highly significant. According to some historians, Tepeyac was the location of a pre-

Hispanic shrine dedicated to the Goddess Tonantzin, whom the indigenous people knew

as the Mother of the Gods (Poole, 1997). After Cortez’s conquest of Mexico, the Church

placed statues and images of the Spanish Virgin Mary at indigenous mystic and sacred

places (Poole, 1997).

Combined with Catholic indoctrination by church missionaries, the Spanish

government expected that the people of Mexico would transfer their worship of

indigenous gods to Catholic saints and become easier to control via religion (Badillo,

2006; Poole, 1997). Instead, a conflation of indigenous belief with Spanish Catholic

religious structure resulted (Badillo, 2006). The Virgin of Guadalupe was ultimately

selected the patron saint of all Spanish dominions in 1757 (Poole, 1997). Devotion to the

Virgin is imbued in popular culture across Latin America and in Latino communities in

26

the United States. Today, millions of people celebrate the Feast of the Virgin of

Guadalupe, a national holiday in Mexico, on December 12. Festivities include

processions, dances, music, prayers, and fireworks.

The Virgin of Guadalupe, however, is much more than a religious figure. She is a

historical, political, sociocultural, and feminine icon whose image has repeatedly adorned

revolutionary banners, from Miguel Hidalgo’s bid for Mexican Independence in 1810 to

Emiliano Zapata’s call for Revolution in 1910 to Cesar Chavez’s work for fair wages and

labor practices for farm workers in the 1960s and 1970s. She is, in the words of Gloria

Anzaldúa (1996),

a synthesis of the old world and the new, of the religion and culture of the

two races in our psyche, the conquerors and the conquered. She is the symbol of

the mestizo true to his or her Indian values. La cultura chicana identifies with the

mother (Indian) rather than with the father (Spanish) . . . . Guadalupe unites

people of different races, religions, languages: Chicano protestants, American

Indians and whites. . . . She mediates between the Spanish and the Indian cultures

(or three cultures as in the case of mexicanos of African or other ancestry) and

between humans and the divine, between this reality and the reality of spirit

entities. La Virgen de Guadalupe is the symbol of ethnic identity and of the

tolerance for ambiguity that Chicanos/mexicanos, people of mixed race, people

who have Indian blood, people who cross cultures, by necessity possess. (pp. 53–

54)

27

As a mediator of race, religion, and culture, La Virgen de Guadalupe is a symbol

of humanity and unity that is unrestricted by borders. She is the icon of a “spiritual

transfusion across the U.S.-Mexico frontier” (Martinez, 1996, p. 98), by which her image

is ubiquitous in both the homeland and the diaspora.

La Virgen de Guadalupe, who is locally significant and encompasses multiple

identities, is a central figure not just to Mexicans but also to Mexican Americans,

Clinton’s countrymen and women. The lack of cultural and religious awareness typified

by Clinton’s misstep could be viewed as indicative of one’s membership in a dominant

social/cultural group. Gee (2008) identifies dominant groups as the groups in society that

have the fewest inconsistencies or conflicts in participating in dominant Discourses.

Generally speaking, Discourses are not simply ideological as they regard a range of

perspectives and values about the distribution of social goods. Discourses influence the

rules for determining who is and is not an insider and as who is or is not “normal” in

addition to serving other functions (Gee, 2008). Consequently, members of a dominant

group have limited need to enact critical literacy practices and to learn other metaphorical

dances because their expertise in the dominant Discourse successfully facilitates their

acquisition of social goods such as status and power in society.

As a representative of the American populous, however, Clinton’s lack of

awareness could be illustrative of the pervasiveness of two historical narratives. The first

narrative is that the United States is a white, Protestant-Christian nation (Noddings,

1993). The second is that regardless of U.S. citizenship, persons of Mexican heritage are

not Americans (Chavez, 2008; Chomsky, 2007; Santa Ana, 2002). Though it may have

28

been intended as a way of acknowledging Mexican culture and religious beliefs, the

Secretary of State’s gesture at the basilica was perhaps a truer representation of the

collective consciousness of many Americans in the dominant group.

Connection to Dominant Discourse: Latino Threat Narrative

Identifying Latinos as non-American outsiders in the Dominant discourse is one

function of the Latino Threat Narrative (LTN) (Chavez, 2008). Chavez (2008) proposes

that the objective of the Latino Threat Narrative (LTN) is to cast Latinos as “others” who

are threatening and dangerous to the American populous. Language binaries such as

“citizen/foreigner, real Americans/Mexicans or real Americans/ Hispanics,

natives/enemies, us/them, and legitimate/illegal” (p. 41) position as invaders Mexican

and Latin American immigrants and U.S.-born Americans of Latin American descent.

Chavez (2008) explains that, in the LTN:

Latinos are not like previous immigrant groups, who ultimately became part of

the nation. According to the assumptions and taken-for-granted “truths” inherent

in this narrative, Latinos are unwilling or incapable of integrating, of becoming

part of the national community. Rather, they are part of an invading force from

south of the border that is bent on reconquering [sic] land that was formerly theirs

(the U.S. Southwest) and destroying the American way of life. Although

Mexicans are often the focus of the Latino Threat Narrative, public discourse . . .

often includes immigration from Latin America in general, as well as U.S.-born

Americans of Latin American descent.” (p. 3)

29

Taking this threat so seriously, in January 2012 Tucson Unified School District

banned its K-12 Mexican American studies program and eliminated texts that could

potentially rally U.S.-born Americans and immigrants of Latin American heritage in

rising up against white Americans. This was the sentiment expressed by TUSD school

board member Michael Hicks in an April 3, 2012 interview on The Daily Show a

nationally televised program.

Conversations and Historical Development of Discourse: Who is “American?”

The Tucson School District’s banning of Mexican American studies, a

contentious public issue, is an example of what Gee calls Conversations with a capital

“C.” Conversations are public debates and themes in society by which most people have

a sense of who the stakeholders are and what side of the issue they support (Gee, 2011).

Conversations reflect the kinds of things that are regarded as being sayable, and/or

appropriate in regard to a specific topic or theme (Gee, 1999). While people often

recognize the values of the Conversations in a contemporary context, most are unaware

of the historical events or circumstances that cultivated the themes and values that

continue to thrive today (Gee, 1999). The values that foster Conversations are imbued in

both past and current texts and media and are steeped in historical meanings that shape

the Discourses (Gee, 1999).

One might also need to keep in mind that current Discourses have developed over

the course of history. Gee (2008) proposes that “it is not individuals who speak and act,

but rather the historically and socially defined Discourses speak to each other through

individuals” (p. 162). He sees that individuals exemplify Discourses though their action

30

and language and contribute to the evolution of the Discourse over time, even though

they might not recognize their role in the process.

To illustrate this concept that Discourses are the products of historical evolution,

consider the “melting pot myth” by which many histories of the United States portray

national identity as a melting pot of ethnically and racially diverse immigrants. Aviva

Chomsky (2007) argues that counter to this myth, the longstanding assumption in history

is that white Europeans are the true American citizens. She proposes, “everything from

the Constitution to immigration and naturalization law, to the political, social, and

economic factors . . . have been founded on and perpetuated by the notion that the United

States is, and should be, a white country” (p. 90). Thus, it is for these reasons that many

immigrants who are not Europeans “have not assimilated in the same way that Europeans

have” (Chomsky, 2007, p. 90).

Similarly, Santa Ana (2002), who is know for his work in examining the

historical, political, and institutional roots of anti-Latino discourse, argues that as long as

the historical norm maintains whites as true Americans, “Latinos will not be seen as full

citizens inasmuch as the metaphors of public discourse constitute the national stage.

[Rather,] Latinos will be seen as foreigners in their native land” (p. 291). Akin to

Chavez’s LTN, Santa Ana argues that an Anglo-American narrative (AAN) is prevalent

in dominant Discourse. It defines U.S.-born Americans and immigrants of Latino

heritage as non-English speaking foreigners. Santa Ana (2002) argues that in order for

persons of Latino heritage to “prove their loyalty to the hegemony of Anglo-American

culture” (p. 289), they must embrace the AAN in three ways. They must: (a) present

31

themselves as monolingual English speakers; (b) present themselves as white-identified

by rejecting all “foreign” qualities associated with being from Latin America; and (c) try

to become white is as many ways as possible, which includes accepting that racial

hierarchy that ranks white Americans superior to Americans of darker skin tone (Santa

Ana, 2002).

Chavez’s, Chomsky’s and Santa Anna’s research speaks to the ways in which the

underpinnings of anti-Latino sentiment in the dominant Discourse is not only historically

informed, but also so pervasive that it is accepted among many members of the dominant

group. To provide a recent example, local and national news outlets reported on a March

7, 2012, high school basketball game in San Antonio, Texas. NBC Sports described the

game:

Alamo Heights High School, which is made up mostly of Caucasian students, beat

Edison High, which is predominantly Hispanic, in the Region IV-4A

championship. . . . As Alamo players celebrated the win on the court, a large

group of students began cheering “USA! USA!” until the Alamo coach made

them stop. Deeming the cheer a racist slur on the Edison players, the San Antonio

Independent School District, which represents Edison, filed a complaint with the

University Interscholastic League, the governing body of high school sports in the

area. (Chandler, 2012)

At this game, some of the predominantly white Alamo High students gave voice

to the dominant Discourse that excludes Latinos from American nationality. Here, the

USA cheer, commonly associated with international sports competitions between

32

different countries, was applied to a local competition between two teams in the same

community. The only difference was the athletes’ heritage.

Connection to Figured Worlds: Outsiders

The anti-Latino sentiment on the Alamo basketball court can also be understood

to stem from the students’ figured worlds. Much like the taken-for-granted “truths” to

which Chavez references in the LTN and Santa Ana references in the AAN, Gee’s (2011)

concept of figured worlds can be understood as our “first thoughts or taken-for-granted

assumptions about what is typical or normal” (1999, p. 59). They represent a set of

socially and culturally constructed theories, models, narratives, and images from which

we construe our ideas of what is typical or normal of things, people, activities, and/or

interactions. In other words, figured worlds reflect our simplified versions of reality that

sometimes overlook real-world complexities.

Specifically, the Latino Threat Narrative (LTN) includes many taken for granted

assumptions that constitute a figured world. One of these assumptions is that no matter

whether U.S.-born or immigrant, Latinos represent homogeneous groups whose status in

society has not evolved over time. Chavez (2008) suggests further that in the dominant

Discourse, Latinos are assumed to be monolingual Spanish speakers who “are impervious

to the influences of the larger society, …[are] segregated into ethnic enclaves, …marry

only their own kind, …[demonstrate] unwillingness to integrate, …[reside] outside the

practices of citizenship/subject-making and [are] incapable of feelings of belonging” (pp.

41-42). He sees that the LTN establishes a distinct binary between citizens and non-

citizens that significantly privileges some members of society over others.

33

Ultimately, the LTN “casts Latinos, whites, and everyone else into immutable

categories of race, ethnicity, and culture …and creates divisiveness [that] …undermines

the integration of Latinos into society” (p. 184). In doing so, this narrative illustrates

Gee’s (2011) point that our simplified notions of “normal” on which our figured worlds

are based “can do harm by implanting in thought and action unfair, dismissive or

derogatory assumptions about other people” (p. 77).

Based on our notions of “normal” it is common to judge people, situations, or

events as being different (atypical) and thereby deviant. Gee (2011) warns of the danger

in interpreting “atypical” or “different” in terms of being “abnormal,” “unacceptable,” or

simply “not right.” This is hazardous as figured worlds could be used to judge things

such as: “‘appropriate’ attitudes, viewpoints, beliefs, and values; ‘appropriate’ ways of

acting, interacting, and participating . . . ; ‘appropriate’ social and institutional

organizational structures; ‘appropriate’ ways of talking, listening writing, reading, and

communicating; ‘appropriate’ ways to feel or display emotion . . . and so on” (p. 90). In

the end, our judgments could be complicit with the exclusion and oppression of people

who are not members of the dominant social or cultural group.

This first section of Chapter Two has introduced the concepts of Discourse and

figured worlds and has illustrated their relevance to the anti-Latino narrative of the

dominant Discourse. The next section draws a connection to the ways social Discourses

and figured worlds inform and influence teachers in the classroom.

34

Theoretical Framework: Discourse and Teacher Beliefs

By the time teachers enter the field of education, they have already developed

complex views about literature and literary engagement (Grossman, 1990). These views

are interconnected with the prospective teachers’ beliefs and social Discourses. This

section attempts to provide an introductory foray into the study of prospective teachers’

beliefs and discourse and tries to clarify some of the factors that influence teachers’

attitudes, inform their classroom pedagogies for reading and English/language arts

instruction, and ultimately have an effect on their students. This section is not exhaustive

in any way. Each topic and subtopic merits deep investigation. Certainly, multiple

interpretations, arguments, and frameworks have and will be applied to the story of the

interconnectedness of teachers’ attitudes and experiences and Discourses with a capital

“D” (Gee, 2011) with reading and their approaches to the English language arts. This

section is an entrée into a multifaceted story. The discussion here regards teachers’

personal histories, subject matter and pedagogical knowledge, classroom practice, and the

union between teachers’ beliefs/orientations and their work with students, each of which

could be influenced by teachers’ figured worlds, their taken-for-granted theories about

what is normal in the world (Gee, 2011).

Conceptual Framework

This study is grounded in sociocultural theory. Within the framework of

sociocultural theory, readers, texts, and contexts are intrinsically connected and

indivisible of the local, social, cultural, historical, and global contexts from which they

originated (Galda & Beach, 2001). Under sociocultural theory, this section applies the

35

lens of New Literacies Studies (NLS), “a body of work that argues that reading and

writing should be viewed not only as mental achievements going on inside people’s

heads, but also as social and cultural practices with economic, historical, and political

implications” (Gee, 2007,p. 9). With respect to NLS, Xu (2007) suggests that literacy

regards the capacity to advance beyond the production and understanding of text to

incorporate multiple modes of meaning. Literacy and thinking are influenced by one’s

membership in different social and/or cultural groups, which, via various social practices,

inform the ways people read and think about certain types of text (Gee, 2007).

Literacy practices, as Barton and Hamilton (1998) see them, define the “cultural

ways of utilizing literacy” (p. 7). These practices are framed by social rules that not only

govern the accessibility and use of text, but also reflect the “social processes” (Barton &

Hamilton, 1998, p. 7) that join people together and foster like ways of thinking,

illustrated by common social identities and ideologies. Congruently, Brian Street (1997)

considers literacy to be ideological in nature because literacy practices are intertwined

with the structures of power and culture in society.

As schools participate in society’s culture and power structures, and as they can

reinforce mainstream literacy expectations in the form of school-based literacy practices

(Heath, 1983), it may be helpful to consider the context of this union between school and

society. Gee (2008) argues that school-based literacy is influenced by the goals and ideals

of society’s middle class elites who “control knowledge, ideas, ‘culture,’ and values” (p.

62). He suggests that academic literacy is usually most accessible to middle and upper

middle-class students, given that many middle-class parents enact and rehearse with their

36

young children school-based literacy and language practices. Rogoff (2003) concurs. She

observes the forms of communication and interaction that are common to school settings

are often mirrored in European American middle-class settings.

In middle-class families, children may start to assimilate the logic of the dominant

school culture at an early age, as they often experience books, school-like conversations,

and vocabulary, such that they can “talk like a book” before they learn to read (Rogoff,

2003). They also acquire Discourse that is ideological in that it specifically informs the

middle-class child’s values, viewpoints, and ways of being as a future student in our

writing-based society. Each time the young child has a social encounter or participates in

literacy events with books (Street, 2000), she acquires the knowledge and mental

resources (tools) to include in her toolbox or identity kit (Gee, 1989) for her future role as

a “good reader.” As her book experiences are often scaffolded and supported by a parent

or caregiver, the Discourse is acculturated into the child and may be integrated into the

child’s comprehensive sense of identity, which Gee calls one’s primary discourse.

Hence, the child begins her rehearsal of the sociocultural literacy practices that are

employed during each literary event of book reading.

Since the majority of teachers in the United States are white females (U.S.

Department of Education, 2008), commonly from rural or suburban white, middle-class

families (Zeichner et al., 1998), the link between dominant middle-class ways-of-being

and school is reinforced (Seidl, 2007). This link supports hegemonic literacy practice, as

many teachers who attended American public schools themselves likewise experienced a

Eurocentric approach to education. As teachers are influenced by their own educational

37

experiences and perform the same ways their teachers performed (Britzman, 2003, Lortie,

1975), there is great potential for passing from one generation of teachers to the next

certain figured worlds (Gee, 2011) for “normal” ways of teaching and responding to

literature. This cycle of reinforcing common figured worlds could be at the detriment of

students who are not members of the same cultural and social groups as their teachers.

Factors that Shape Teachers’ Beliefs and Knowledge

A belief, Richardson (1996) defines, is a “proposition that is accepted by the

individual holding the belief. It is a psychological concept; knowledge, on the other

hand, implies epistemic warrant” (p. 104). Both accepted propositions and held warrants

are impressed by an individual’s culture, environment, and experiences.

Shaping teachers’ beliefs about teaching. Speaking generally, prospective

teachers’ attitudes, beliefs and practices can be shaped by any number of societal and

cultural factors such as one’s gender, socio-economic background, family, culture, and

life choices (Richardson, 1996). Perhaps the most influential factors are the prospective

teachers’ personal educational histories and experiences (Britzman, 1986, 2003; Lortie,

1975/2002). Such experiences shape the teachers’ notions of what constitutes a “normal”

stance toward education in their figured worlds for classroom teaching.

Britzman (1986) suggests that teachers’ personal histories are “implicit

institutional biographies—the cumulative experience of school lives” (p. 443). She

proposes that these biographies serve as the foundation for prospective teachers’

understanding of school, curriculum, and the student experience, and as their frame of

reference for their identities as teachers. In other words, they serve as prototypes of

38

“normal” teaching. Based on her case study research of secondary high school student

teachers, Britzman (2003) also sees that prospective teachers’ biographies are often the

source of some teachers’ ambivalence about the role and work of teachers.

Britzman’s concept that prospective teachers carry institutional biographies is

consistent with Lortie’s (1975/2002) theory of an apprenticeship of observation. Lortie

(1975/2002) argues that for many prospective teachers, their 13 years of studentship in

grades K–12 constitute for them a 13-year apprenticeship in the trade of teaching.

Consequently, many prospective teachers’ beliefs and behaviors are a reflection of their

studentship. I use the term studentship because, in reality, the prospective teachers were

apprenticed to the student trade and not the teaching trade, even though both trades were

housed in the same classroom work site (Lortie, 1975/2002).

Congruent with Lortie’s (1975/2002) and Britzman’s (2003) observations, Holt-

Reynolds (1992), in her study of nine secondary preservice teachers in a content area

reading course, found that the teachers’ drew from their background experiences to

define, “what ‘good’ teaching should look, sound, and feel like” (p. 343). She reports that

the teachers’ conceptions about what a teacher does and thinks, “combine to personify a

‘good’ teacher—working behind the scenes as invisible, often tacitly known criteria for

evaluating the potential efficacy of ideas, theories, and strategies of instruction they

encounter as they formally study teaching” (p. 343). Similarly, Knowles and Holt-

Reynolds (1991) argue that prospective teachers’ beliefs are often founded on their

remembered youthful selves as students.

39

From a NLS perspective, teachers’ implicit biographies, apprenticeships of

observation, and remembered youthful selves could be shaped by figured worlds that, in

turn, shape teachers’ beliefs. Put simply, figured worlds are like silent movies of the

mind. They are comprised of commonplace stories, images, and ideas that show an

idealized concept of “normal,” which can differ across cultural groups (Gee, 2011).

These movies are silent because we are not usually aware that we are listening to them.

For teachers who are members of the dominant cultural group, such idealized scenes

could reflect values and perspectives that are complicit with mainstream oppression of

minority groups (Gee, 2008).

Shaping teachers’ knowledge and classroom practice. This section considers

the factors that inform teachers’ subject matter knowledge and teaching pedagogies. This

discussion also includes knowledge about Discourses that are not usually common to the

dominant group as subject matter knowledge.

Subject matter knowledge. In general, the level of teachers’ subject matter

knowledge in any discipline informs the content teachers will teach, as well as the

process and/or pedagogy by which they will teach (Fisher, Fox, and Paille, 1996;

Grossman, 1990; Grossman, Wilson, & Shulman, 1989; Shulman, 1987). Shulman

(1987) offers this anecdote in thinking about the relationship between a teacher’s subject

matter knowledge and classroom pedagogy:

We expect a math major to understand mathematics or a history specialist to

comprehend history. But the key to distinguishing the knowledge base of

teaching lies at the intersection of content and pedagogy, in the capacity of a

40

teacher to transform the content knowledge he or she possesses into forms that are

pedagogically powerful and yet adaptive to the variations in ability and

background presented by the students…

Comprehended ideas must be transformed in some manner if they are to

be taught. To reason one’s way through an act of teaching is to think one’s way

from the subject matter as understood by the teacher into the minds and

motivations of learners…

Preparation involves examining and critically interpreting the materials of

instruction in terms of the teacher’s own understanding of the subject matter

(Ben-Peretz, 1975). That is, one scrutinizes the teaching material in light of one’s

own comprehension and asks whether it is ‘fit to be taught.’ (pp. 15 – 16)

Shulman’s (1987) theory that teachers scrutinize teaching materials in light of

their own comprehension and ask whether they are “fit to be taught” corresponds with

Gee’s (2011) concept of figured worlds. Our comprehension of subject matter may be

influenced by our notion of what is normal. Our acceptance and/or rejection of teaching

materials may result from our reliance on simplified prototypes of what is “appropriate”

in our figured worlds. It is not uncommon to use our figured worlds to judge people,

situations, or events as being different (atypical) and thereby deviant. To the contrary, it

is this very kind of judgment that takes the notion of who is a “typical” American and

deems U.S.-born Americans and immigrants of Latino heritage as atypical and thereby

deviant.

41

One’s comprehension of subject matter is influenced by one’s notion of “normal”

or “appropriate.” In turn, teachers’ figured worlds and subject matter knowledge, which

includes knowledge of other Discourses, affect their notions about accommodating

certain content and curriculum. The dangers of this process are in the cyclical ways that

harmful attitudes, such as those reflected in the Latino Threat Narrative, are sustained

through the dominant Discourse, while the Discourse of U.S.-born American and

immigrants of Latino heritage are dismissed or marginalized at best. See Appendix L for

a diagram of this cycle.

Summary

This section has examined the factors that shape and are shaped by teachers’

beliefs and perspectives, and teachers’ subject matter and pedagogy knowledge.

Prospective teachers’ attitudes and beliefs are influenced by cultural factors such as

gender, socioeconomic background, family culture, and life choices, and by their

institutional biographies and apprenticeships as students for most of their lives. These

biographies and apprenticeships inform and are informed by figured worlds, everyday

assumptions about who or what is “normal,” which can be reflective of dominant

ideologies about race, class, gender, culture, and sexuality that maintain the oppression of

minority groups. The breadth of teachers’ subject matter knowledge influences the

curriculum and content teachers choose to teach. The more confident teachers feel about

their subject matter knowledge, the more confident they may be to expand and diversity

their curriculum.

42

Collectively, the research outlined in this second section suggest that there could

be a cyclical quality in the way figured worlds might be passed from one generation of

teachers onto students who will become the next generation of teachers. Given that

predominantly white middle class women fill most of the teaching positions, this cycle

could have significant consequence on the growing, diverse population of student who

attend public school. With this in mind, the next section in this chapter examines the

kinds of ideological stances that teachers adopt in response to multicultural children’s

literature.

Censorship and Subject Positioning

This section returns to the problem of teacher censorship as described in the

introduction of Chapter One. The national Conversation about the censorship of teaching

materials is alive and well, punctuated by school district book bans and the American

Library Association’s annual press release of the most frequently challenged books per

year. Such debate, in and of itself, can dissuade teachers from selecting books that might

counter dominant Discourse (Wollman-Bonilla, 1998). Less recognized, by the public

and by teachers themselves, censorship is a regular occurrence in school. Teachers

select, choose, and make up their minds as to what kinds of texts and materials to use

with their students based on their political beliefs and notions of what their roles are in

the education system. The way teachers privilege, exclude, and modify texts legitimate

specific types of literature, reading, and response as being “appropriate” and thereby

43

conforming to the Discourse of the dominant group (Jones, 2006; Taxel, 1994).

Furthermore, this censorship may be complicit with the oppression of subordinate groups

(Freire & Macedo, 1987; Giroux, 1987).

This section considers the intersection between teachers’ ideologies and their

selection and rejection of multicultural children’s literature. The discussion begins with a

brief examination of the scholarly literature on teacher censorship. The second part of

the discussion applies Beach’s (1993, 1997) reader response theory of subject positioning

in analyzing a body of research on prospective, preservice, and practicing teachers’

orientations toward multicultural children’s literature in the context of teacher education

and professional development classes. The third part is dedicated to exploring teachers’

rationales for avoiding “risky content” in multicultural children’s literature. Finally, this

chapter draws preliminary conclusions and implications associated with the body of

research for this literature review.

Teacher Identity and Censorship

Teachers’ perceptions about their roles in the education system could influence

their selection and rejection of multicultural texts for the classroom (Beach, 1993). On

the one hand, teachers might see as their duty as public servants the cultivation of a

common culture (Giroux, 1987). On the other hand, they might view their responsibility

as one of nurturing young people’s agency toward becoming adults who are “subversive,

imaginative, liberatory, politically liberated, personally liberated, self-motivated,

skeptical, reflective, and inquiring” (Smagorinsky, Jakubiak, & Moore, 2008, pp. 452–

44

453). The distinct ideological positions that teachers inhabit can determine the quality

and quantity of multicultural materials in the classroom.

In terms of quality, it is helpful to keep in mind that classroom materials are not

ideologically innocent. Children’s books, for example, implicitly “teach” culture

(Azripe, 2009) because they are cultural artifacts of authors’ worlds (Harris & Willis,

1996). Even picture books are political (Apol, 1998; Cai & Bishop, 2003; Hollindale,

1988; Harris, 1997; Luke & Freebody, 1997; Nodelman, 2008; Stephens, 1992). In short,

children’s literature is imbued with socializing messages, which can reinforce the kinds

of figured worlds that accept dominant racist, classist, sexist, and ageist biases of

dominant Discourse (Apol, 1998; Hollindale, 1988; Nodelman, 2008; Stephens, 1992).

Because writers use narrative tools to orient their readers toward accepting certain

values and bias (Luke & Freebody, 1997; Nodelman, 2008), an unexamined use of

children’s literature in the classroom could inadvertently reinforce authors’ (and

teachers’) passive ideology. According to Hollindale (1988), the author’s ideologies that

most influence children are “usually those which are taken for granted by the writer, and

reflect the writer’s integration in a society which unthinkingly accepts them” (p. 12). In

other words, they privilege the authors’ notion of normal as conceived by their figured

worlds.

Many teachers and teacher educators desire the autonomy to select their

classroom materials as a means of facilitating their curricular objectives and fostering

“correct or appropriate values” among their students (Luke, Cooke, and Luke, 1986, p.

209). Consequently, the literature teachers select for children to read is likely to

45

correspond with the teachers’ passive ideologies on social, political, and moral issues

(Luke, Cooke, & Luke, 1986). Interested in teachers’ concepts of appropriate books for

elementary school children, Luke, Cooke, and Luke (1986) asked 54 preservice teachers

enrolled in a three-year teacher preparation program in Queensland Australia first to

identify the children’s books they like and second to identify the books they think would

benefit children. Their analysis of the preservice teachers’ responses revealed an

underlying racial and gender bias particularly among the respondents who had limited

experience with children. Many selected books that they enjoyed as children as

benefiting their future students. As a result of this study, Luke, Cooke, and Luke (1986)

argue that teacher education courses that employ children’s literature need to “address

explicitly the matter of the ideological content of children’s literature . . . [and] include

concrete discussions of sex, race, and social class stereotyping” (p. 216-217).

Jipson and Paley (1991), who studied the text selections of 55 female elementary

school teachers in the U.S., observed the same kind of racial and gender bias that Luke,

Cooke, and Luke (1986) noticed. They found that the texts were unique to each of the

teachers’ classrooms and that the texts were reflective of “a multiplicity of curricular,

personal, aesthetic, social, as well as ideological factors—all of which vie for teacher

attention” (p. 157) and served to enliven course content. The aforementioned studies

illustrate implicit bias informing preservice and practicing teachers’ text selections.

Teacher Stance and Subject Positioning

This next section considers the connections between teachers’ ideological

orientations and their selection, rejection, and use of multicultural materials and literature

46

for the classroom. With specific regard to literature, Beach’s (1993/1997) reader

response theory of subject positioning provides a lens for examining teachers’

orientations toward multicultural texts. According to Beach’s (1997) definition, readers,

including teachers, are:

are socialized or positioned to adopt stances associated with their membership or

status in certain communities. These communities subscribe to certain cultural

maps (Enciso, 1997) or discourses constituting ways of knowing or organizing the

world (Gee, 1990; Lemke, 1995). By responding in ways consistent with the

values of a community, readers demonstrate their allegiance to a community’s

values. . . . Readers’ stances are constituted by ideological discourses of gender,

class, and racial differences. (p. 70)

These ideological notions of “normal” representations of gender, class, and racial

differences can be reflected in the figured worlds that inform teachers’ stances toward

their selection and use of multicultural literature in the classroom.

As an example of subject positioning, Beach (1997) describes the way members

of some fundamentalist religions could be socialized to regard the Bible as an actual

document of God’s word. They may reinforce their membership in the religious

community by recounting their literal interpretations of the Bible to fellow members.

Similarly, membership in broader groups, such as the dominant white middle-

class, also influences the readers’ subject position toward multicultural children’s

literature. In providing an example of how this subject position influences text

availability and selection in the marketplace, Beach (1997) cites a study by Janice

47

Radway (1988) who analyzed the text selection decisions of the editors for Book-of-the-

Month Club. Radway’s analysis showed that the editors made conscious decisions to

select and thus privilege books that were consistent with middle-class values and

perspectives so as not to agitate their clientele. In turn, they limited and rejected novels

that presented topics and contexts that were atypical or inconsistent with middle-class

sensibilities. In this scenario, white middle-class readers who apply dominant middle

class values to multicultural children’s literature might reject the text in which the

characters resist or fail to reinforce these values.

With regard to multicultural literature that depicts racial conflict, Beach (1997)

found that students regarded prejudice as a set of attitudes or opinions maintained by

individuals rather than institutions. The students conceived of racial discrimination in

terms of an individual’s failure to comprehend that “we are all human” and thus, “we are

all the same.” This view of prejudice and racism sees a problem that varies from person

to person instead of a pervasive institutional issue.

Beach (1997) suggests that this “individual prejudice” stance is pervasive in mass

media. As an example, Beach references a series about racism that aired in 1992 on “The

Oprah Winfrey Show.” In this series, racism is cast as an individual’s prejudice. It is

portrayed as a psychological condition that is resolved through individual and group

psychotherapy sessions that facilitate one’s release of anger and offer empathetic support

and forgiveness. In taking the stance that prejudice reflects an individual’s psychological

outlook, members of the dominant group can avoid examining (and owning) the

institutions of prejudice. Such a stance is explicitly reflected in a popular Public Service

48

Announcement (PSA) that aired on television in the early 1980s. This PSA depicts a

conversation between a young white boy and his grandfather while fishing:

Young Boy: Yesterday, Jimmy said I was prejudiced.

Grandpa: Do you know what prejudice is?

Young Boy: No

Grandpa: Well, prejudice is when you react to someone because of their religion

or their color.

Young Boy: But I don’t do that.

Grandpa: Who is Jimmy?

Young Boy: Jimmy is one of my Jewish friends.

Grandpa: Then you are prejudiced because you think of Jimmy as your Jewish

friend and not your friend.

In this PSA, Grandpa essentially diagnoses his grandson with an individual

prejudice disorder in his judgment, “you are prejudice.” Grandpa’s diagnosis could be

reflective of the ubiquitous quality of this individual prejudice narrative in the dominant

Discourse. Examining why the young boy refers to Jimmy as his Jewish friend in the

PSA could require an analysis of the dominant Discourse. Thus, it is more acceptable to

cast the child as being prejudiced than it is to critically consider the origins of the child’s

comment. In this way, the dominant Discourse is impervious to criticism as it defines

what is acceptable for critique (Gee, 2008), such as a boy’s description of his friend. To

what extent then does the tendency to confuse universality with fairness and the

49

deflection of criticism from institutional beliefs constrain teacher selection and

deployment of multicultural children’s literature?

Teacher Stances that Function as Censorship

The types of stances that prospective, preservice, and practicing teachers have

employed across a range of studies examine how multicultural children’s literature is

regarded in teacher education and professional development classes. A brief description

of the methodology begins this literature review. It is followed by a discussion about the

common stances teachers inhabit and concludes with an examination of the strategies

teachers enact to avoid potential risk and discomfort in using multicultural children’s

literature in the classroom.

Methodology. The articles that were selected for this review came from two

different sources. First, a search for peer-reviewed articles was conducted online via

EBSCO. A small set of related articles was cited on the website after several

combinations and permutations with the following search terms: “literature,” “reading,”

“teachers,” and “multicultural.” From this set, only articles that studied the use of

multicultural literature with prospective, preservice, and/or practicing teachers were

selected. Second, the table of contents and reference sections of a range of books about

using multicultural children’s literature in the classroom provided additional studies.

Table 2 provides a brief overview of each of the studies that resulted from the search.

After iterative readings of the studies, I analyzed the data for emerging themes (Glaser &

Strauss, 1967) associated with the positions teachers took in response to the multicultural

children’s literature they read in class.

50

Table 2: Literature Review Studies.

Self Study: Researcher(s) as Classroom Teacher(s)

• Dudley-Marling (2003). “I’m not from Pakistan” • Hade, D. (1997). Reading Multiculturally. • Pierce, K. M. (2006). Recognizing and resisting change: A teacher’s professional journey.

School Case Study Researcher(s): Classroom Observer(s)

• Barrera (1992). The cultural gap in literature-based literacy instruction.

• Fang, Fu, & Lamme, (2003). The trivialization and misuse of multicultural literature • Ketter & Lewis (2001). Multicultural literature in a predominantly white rural community.

Researcher: Professional Development Facilitator(s)

• Mathis (2000). Respond to stories with stories: Teachers discuss multicultural children’s literature. • Schmidt, Armstrong, & Everett. (2007). Teacher resistance to critical conversation

Prospective Teachers & Students • Moore & Ritter (2008). Changing the way preservice teachers interpret and respond to literature identities of children.

Researcher/Instructor Reflective Study of Teacher Responses to MC Literature

• Wollman-Bonilla (1998). Outrageous viewpoints: Teachers’ criteria for rejecting works of

Researcher/Instructor: Prospective or Preservice Teachers

• Apol, Sakuma, Reynolds, & Rop (2003). “When can we make paper cranes?” • Bercaw & Collins (2007). The discussion filter: children’s literature in teacher education classroom. • Escamilla & Nathenson-Mejia (2003). Latino Children’s Literature in Teacher Education • Herman-Wilmarth (2010). Preservice teacher dialogue after reading LGBT children’s literature. • Howrey & Whelan-Kim (2009). Preservice Teachers; Multicultural Children's Literature Project. • Lowery & Sabis-Burns (2007). Cross-Cultural Connections through Multicultural. • McNair (2003). “But The Five Chinese Brothers is one of my favorite books!” • Montero & Robertson (2006). “Teachers can’t teach what they don’t know” • Smith (2002). "Would I use this book?" White, female education students examine their beliefs

Researcher/Instructor: Practicing Teachers

• Baskwill (2008). Exploring teacher attitudes toward multicultural literature through the Arts. • Graff (2010). Teachers’ discourse about immigrants in children’s and young adult literature.

Researcher/Instructor: Preservice and Practicing Teachers

• Singer & Smith (2003). Changing Understanding of Self and Others.

51

The stances. In reviewing the literature, patterns of the following types of

stances emerged in the teachers’ responses to various works of multicultural children’s

literature:

Curriculum First Stance: Multicultural books must fit curriculum objectives.

Universalist Stance: Appropriate multicultural books show that “we are

all the same.”

Politically Correct Stance: There are acceptable and un-acceptable ways of

using language in books for children.

Law Abiding Citizen Stance: Children’s books are expected to reinforce lawful

behavior.

Not In My Backyard Stance: Children need not read stories that are not relevant

to their communities.

Protector of Children: Children should not be exposed to “inappropriate”

topics.

Risk Averting Stance: Avoid the potential for discomfort and controversy

in discussions.

Curriculum First stance. The Curriculum First stance suggests that a teacher

must fill a curriculum objective in choosing to include a multicultural children’s book in

the classroom. Jipson and Paley’s (1991) findings allude to this stance. Some of the

teachers in their study included and excluded books in the classrooms depending on how

well the books facilitated the curriculum.

52

Universalist stance. The Universalist subscribes to the notion that children’s

literature that is appropriate to the classroom illustrates the popular platitude that “we

might look different on the outside, but we’re all the same on the inside.” From the

Universalist perspective, characters in multicultural children’s literature might look

different, but they are really the same and like members of the dominant group on the

inside. Sarah, an experienced teacher in Ketter and Lewis’s (2001) study, takes the

position that multicultural children’s literature should reinforce universal (American)

values. For her, stories that features racially and ethnically diverse families and reinforce

“good values that stable families hold” are preferable (p. 178). Such books are consistent

with Sarah’s notion of a “normal” two-parent type family and community, as Sarah

avoided stories about families that did not fit these criteria during the study. In this way,

it may have been possible for Sarah to highlight the “normal” family structure as a

universal theme across cultures.

Ketter and Lewis (2003) likewise report on the Universalist stance of two other

teachers, Abby and Denise. Abby accepted and rejected books based on the books’

capacity to lead readers to believe that the characters, whose physical appearances differ,

“are basically just like the ‘we’ who are the ‘norm,’ the ‘we’ who have the right to name

those others as different when they do not act as we do or believe what we believe” (p.

178). When Denise uses multicultural children’s literature in the classroom she likes to

“talk about the similarities of people, universality” (p. 179).

Consistent with Denise’s approach of looking for similarities, Shannon (1994)

observed that the preservice and practicing teachers in his children’s literature courses

53

drew similarities between the experiences of character Cassie Louise Lightfoot of Faith

Ringgold’s (1991) Tar Beach and their childhood experiences of dances, birthdays, and

rooftop camp-outs. This book made the teachers become its characters and recognize

cultural similarities and differences.

Moreover, Shannon (1994) sees that books like Tar Beach, to which teachers

make personal connections, provide a forum for teachers not only to contemplate their

definitions of “normal,” but also to consider how distinguishing people and events as

normal or abnormal is more of a statement of “power than biological, historical, or even

moral fact” (p. 4). To illustrate this phenomenon, Shannon asked the teachers in his

course to identify the default (prototype) values and characteristics of a typical American.

The group generally described an educated, able-bodied, white, male, heterosexual

Protestant from a family with two parents. When Shannon invited the teachers to

compare this prototype of a normal American with their personal sense of normality,

some were surprised and some were angry to see who is privileged in dominant U.S.

Discourse. Moreover, the students were particularly sober in considering who benefits

from being “normal.”

Shannon (1994) sees that teachers’ revelation of privilege is core to reading

multiculturally. It may also be core to addressing a key question about the objectives of

taking a Universalist stance: “[P]latitudes such as, ‘We may be different on the outside,

but on the inside we’re all alike’ may make us feel good, but what are the implications of

such a statement?’’ (Kibler, 1996, p. 248). The implications of adhering to this narrative

may be that the culture of the dominant group is legitimated while the unique cultures of

54

subordinate groups are marginalized. Such a narrative can lead to “cultural blindness”

(Robin, Lindsey, Lindsey, & Terrell, 2006), which, as a practice of ignoring cultural

differences or rendering them inconsequential, can be harmful to children who are not

members of the dominant group. Via the Universalist stance, cultural blindness and color

blindness could implicitly position members of subordinate groups as being invisible.

Politically correct stance. Related to the Universalist stance, the Politically

Correct stance may be influenced by colorblind ideology as well as a hyper sense of what

is or is not “acceptable” or “appropriate” to say in the dominant Discourse. It is not

politically correct (“normal”) to draw attention to the fact that social inequities have and

continue to exist between the dominant and subordinate cultural groups in the U.S. As

Gee (2008) reminds, criticism of the dominant Discourse might ultimately render a

person who takes an alternative perspective as being deviant. In assuming the stance of

the Politically Correct Police, teachers might reject select works of children’s literature

that could be interpreted as explicitly stereotypical, racist, or offensive, no matter the

historical, political, or sociocultural context of the story. How far can teachers and

publishers take the politically correct stance?

Mark Twain scholar Alan Gribben of Auburn University in Montgomery

Alabama, who was invited to edit NewSouth Books’ 2009 and 2011 versions of

Huckleberry Finn and The Adventures of Tom Sawyer, argues that it can go as far as

censoring the word “nigger” from Twain’s text and replacing it with the word “slave”

(Schultz, 2011). After several library talks for general readers about The Adventures of

Tom Sawyer, Gribben encountered local teachers who “would love to teach this novel,

55

and Huckleberry Finn, but we feel we can't do it anymore. In the new classroom, it's

really not acceptable" (Schultz, 2011, p. 6). Given teachers’ trepidation to introduce

Twain’s classic in the classroom, Gribben and NewSouth Books created an alternate text

to assuage teachers’ anxiety and potentially help teachers avoid addressing critical

contextual questions that might critique the dominant Discourse, such as “Why would a

child like Huck use such reprehensible language?” (Schultz, 2011, p. 8). (This question

would fall along the same lines as asking why the young boy in the 1980’s public service

announcement would refer to Jimmy as one of his “Jewish friends.”)

Consistent with the teacher sentiment that Gribben references, McKoy-Lowery

and Sabis-Burns (2007) found that the predominantly white preservice teachers in their

study were generally uncomfortable in discussing slavery and “anything negative about

an unfamiliar culture” (p. 52). Similarly, Ketter and Lewis (2001) observed that some of

the practicing teachers in their study “feared that teaching literature focusing on the

oppression of racial and ethnic groups in the United States could be seen as inappropriate

for school study” (p. 178). In this instance, including books that take an alternative or

different perspective from the dominant Discourse is considered deviant; lest we forget

that in 2012 Tucson Unified School District banned a set of books that reflect the

perspectives of members of subordinate groups such as Latinos.

Via a colorblind ideology, any discussion of inequality could be construed as

unnecessary and not politically correct (Wise, 2010). “The habit of ignoring race,” in the

words of Toni Morrison (1992), “is understood to be a graceful, even generous, liberal

56

gesture” (pp. 9-10). Thus, this is a gesture that many white teachers may have been

socialized to embrace as a means of remaining neutral (Ketter & Lewis, 2001).

Given the colorblind ideology and discomfort associated with the discussion of

the historical legacy of racism that is reflective of mainstream American society, perhaps

it is not surprising that some teachers believe that it would be politically incorrect to use

certain texts. In taking this stance, teachers’ rejection of some works of multicultural

children’s literature might signify their membership in the dominant social group. For

example, Smith (2002) observed that some teachers’ rejection of The Friendship (Taylor,

1987) was due to the way whites in the story use the word “nigger.” Schmidt, Armstrong,

and Everett (2007) found that teachers rejected Nightjohn (Paulsen, 1995) because of the

violence and use of the “N” word, and likewise rejected From Slaveship to Freedom

Road (Lester, 1999) due to content. This stance embraces the censorship of Mark

Twain’s classics as a means to sidestep the messiness of discussing the sociocultural

contexts of the historical racial inequities that could implicate whites via indirect

association with historical oppressors. By attending to what is politically correct in the

here and now, it might be possible for teachers to instead reinforce that they do not

condone or participate in oppressive activities (Damico & Apol, 2008; Levine-Rasky,

2000; Trainor, 2002; Thompson, 2003).

Law abiding citizen stance. Following the Politically Correct stance of

hypersensitivity to what is “correct” and “acceptable” in dominant Discourse, teachers

who take the Law Abiding Citizen stance are concerned with the depiction of unlawful

behavior in multicultural children’s books. The preservice teachers in Moore and Ritter’s

57

(2008) study, for instance, were concerned about the classroom use of the picture book,

The Man Who Walked between the Towers (Gerstein 2003). This book chronicles French

high wire artist Philippe Petit's 1974 tightrope walk between the World Trade Center

towers. Petit and his crew evaded Trade Center guards to perform the stunt. The

teachers “wondered if the book ‘sent the right messages’ to the children about doing

something illegal and dangerous” (p. 509).

In taking a Law Abiding Citizen stance, preservice teachers in Escamilla and

Nathenson-Mejia’s (2003) study also worried about books that present characters whose

behaviors are atypical and are thereby construed as being “deviant.” These teachers

rejected Gloria Anzaldúa’s picture book Friends from the Other Side. In this story, the

main character, Prietita, helps the boy Joaquin and his mother, who have just crossed the

border from Mexico, to evade the U.S. immigration police. In the words of one group of

students in the study:

We do not feel comfortable teaching children that it is OK for a person to break

the law and provide shelter for two illegal aliens. We don’t like the way the book depicts

the border patrol. We don’t think that little children should be taught to be afraid of the

“migra’’ (immigration). (p. 244)

The preservice teachers’ response suggests that for them, it is “normal” for U.S.

citizens to abide by the law no matter the situation. As citizens, Prietita’s and the herb

woman’s decision to assist Joaquin and his mother was both unlawful and deviant.

Moreover, the group’s label “illegal aliens” clearly positions Joaquin and his mother as

foreign invaders and is consistent with the language of the Latino Threat Narrative

58

described in the previous chapter. The preservice teachers’ suggestion that Anzaldua

should not foster fear of la migra in her book categories Anzaldúa as being deviant, as

well. Lastly, it is interesting to note that in both studies, the teachers were concerned

about characters who are outsiders. These outsiders got around the rules to evade

authorities and achieve their immediate objectives in the U.S.

Not in my back yard (NIMBY) stance. While some teachers worry about

providing children a window through which to see unlawful foreign behavior, others

seem primarily concerned with providing mirrors to their students. In the Not in My

Back Yard stance, some prospective, preservice, and practicing teachers take the position

that the issues raised in some children’s books do not reflect the experiences of their

students or communities. They see little reason to include multicultural books in the

classroom that are irrelevant to their school communities.

For instance, one of the teachers in Wollman-Bonilla’s (1998) study suggested

that the picture book Fly Away Home (Bunting, 1991), which depicts the experience of a

homeless child and his father who live in the airport, might be applicable for “inner-city

kids” (p. 290) but not for all children. Another teacher in Schmidt, Armstrong, and

Everett’s (2007) study—whose home state was severely hit by Hurricane Katrina,

causing many people to live in airports—argued that she would only use Fly Away Home

with her kindergarteners if a student was personally facing homelessness. In other words,

her use of the text would be conditionally based on her student population. If she had a

student facing homelessness, then she would consider the book to provide a “mirror” for

that child.

59

The same attitude was true of some teachers’ responses to Smoky Night (Bunting,

1994). According to these teachers, because riots are not part of their students’ lived

experiences there is no need to read about them (Wollam-Bonilla, 1998). Finally, a

teacher purported that because the students in her school community are already

accepting of racial diversity, there would be no need to introduce a story such as The

Jacket (Clements, 2003), which examines issues of intolerance (Schmidt, Armstrong, and

Everett, 2007). In short, the teachers’ NIMBY stance in these studies seems to be

founded on the beliefs that teachers know every aspect of their students’ lives and that the

use of certain types of multicultural literature is only warranted in instances when

students’ experiences are reflected in the text. In this instance, certain works of

multicultural children’s literature are expected to primarily serve as mirrors rather than

windows (Sims Bishop, 1994).

Protector of children stance. The Protector of Children stance adheres to the

belief that school is a haven from reality. Wollman-Bonilla (1998) found that many of the

practicing and preservice teachers in her methods course believed in censoring children’s

literature that “might frighten or corrupt [children] . . . by introducing them to things they

don’t or shouldn’t know about” (p. 289). For example, some teachers objected to the

classroom use of Fly Away Home (Bunting, 1991) because the book could foster angst

and fear of homelessness among children. Some also rejected the novel Bridge to

Terabithia (Patterson, 1977) for similar reasons, suggesting that it was inappropriate to

have children consider death. Schmidt, Armstrong, and Everett (2007) also found in their

work with preservice and practicing teachers that some teachers believed in protecting

60

students’ “innocence” (p. 52) by avoiding books that expose children to the real world.

Some teachers in this study also rejected Fly Away Home (Bunting, 1991) because the

characters’ homelessness was not resolved by the end of the story and could disturb

children.

In working with preservice teachers, Moore and Ritter (2007) found that like

Pierce (2006), who as a young teacher claimed “[I am] protecting my young charges from

the ‘weight of the world’ and adult issues and responsibilities” (p. 428), some of their

preservice teachers also wanted to protect children from real world issues by avoiding

certain books. Congruently, the preservice teachers in Apol, Sakuma, Reyonlds, and

Rop’s (2003) study wanted to protect children from the sadness that Sadako (Coerr,

1993) and other WWII stories about Japan could elicit. In sum, the urge to protect

children by limiting or censoring certain books or portions of text appears to be prevalent

among some preservice and practicing teachers.

Risk averting stances. This next section is dedicated to the many ways that

prospective, preservice, and practicing teachers position themselves to avert risk,

controversy, and discomfort around the prospect of using multicultural children’s

literature in the classroom. Enciso (2001) perfectly captures the teachers’ voices in the

following account of an opening conversation in her multicultural children’s literature

course:

Students point out that this [using multicultural children’s literature in the

classroom] is going to be hard. Uhm hmm. There’s censorship. Hum hmm.

There are angry parents. Uhm hmm. There are principals who will make you

61

leave the school. Uhm hmm. Maybe a special letter to parents would help, that

warns them of the planned breach of mainstream history and stereotypical

images. Maybe that would work. Hmm. Other idea? Okay. We’d better stick

with Little House on the Prairie. No. No. Wait a minute. But even if we read

these stories, there will still be racism and oppression. So, why bother? . . . [And]

what if the kids have a fight that is actually sparked by a book or discussion? And

what if a kid says something that is really racist or homophobic? And another

thing. Not everyone is like the kids in those books. What if the class gets the idea

that all Mexican families are migrants? (p. 138)

Glimpses of conversations like this were common to many of the studies in this

literature review. By far the most common theme across the studies, prospective,

preservice, and practicing teachers expressed discomfort around the prospects of

critically reading and/or discussing certain multicultural children’s literature with

students in the classroom (Apol, Sakuma, Reyonlds, & Rop, 2003; Escamilla &

Nathenson-Meja, 2003; Herman-Wilmarth, 2010; Ketter & Lewis, 2001; Lowry & Sabis-

Burns, 2007; Montero & Robertson, 2006; Schmidt, Armstrong, & Everett, 2007; Moore

& Ritter, 2007; Smith, 2002; Wollman-Bollina, 1998). Some researchers observed that

teachers enacted different strategies to evade uncomfortable situations when reading and

discussing children’s literature. These included emphasizing universal themes; projecting

attitudes and beliefs onto others; practicing familiar reader response patterns; and

rejecting literature due to limited content knowledge and experience.

62

Emphasizing universal themes. Preservice teachers in three studies (Apol,

Sakuma, Reyonlds, & Rop, 2003; Escamilla & Nathenson-Meja, 2007; Ketter & Lewis,

2001) passed over difficult conversations about the issues of diversity and social injustice

in certain books by focusing on universal themes, no matter how flawed. For example, in

response to the heartbreaking picture book about the way Japanese zookeepers were

forced to starve their elephants to death during WWII in Faithful Elephants: A True Story

of Animals, People, and War (Tsuchiya, 1988), some preservice teachers focused on the

“universal” experience of visiting a zoo and suggested that children could draw pictures

of their favorite zoo animals as a follow-up activity. In this same study, preservice

teachers overlooked the WWII bombing of Japan and the historical inaccuracies of the

text to embrace the universal themes of morality and world peace in Sadako (Coerr,

1993). In this way, teachers could accommodate multicultural children’s literature in the

curriculum sans the responsibility of enacting multicultural education pedagogy.

As a counterpoint to embracing universal themes to skirt tough conversations,

Smith (2002) found that for some preservice teachers, recognizing universal themes in a

story helped them to engage in the text. This finding is consistent with Creighton’s

(1997) observation that “it may be possible to allow for a certain degree of universality

within the parameters of critical literacy” (p. 431). She sees that in some instances,

universal themes can help children to see commonalities across groups of people. For

instance, this was the desired effect that the two parents in Ketter and Lewis’ (2001)

study wanted by introducing students to works of multicultural children’s literature that

shows African American characters not as victims, but as individuals who universally

63

hold as much agency, power, respect, creativity, intelligence, and opportunities in life as

white characters. In other situations, universal themes could also help to increase

readers’ sensitivity to stories about specific cultural and/or gender groups. As an

example of this latter result, Hermann-Wilmarth (2010) concluded that in future lessons,

she would like to help teachers “relate the situations that they read about [in LGBTQ

themed children’s literature] to their own life experiences” (p. 197).

Practicing familiar reader response patterns. As discussed earlier, based on their

own K-12 educational experiences, some teachers are familiar with an over-simplified

version of reader response pedagogy. For many, personal connection with the text is

primary. It seems natural to invite students to share their personal responses to the text

and to put away the text once each child has shared. Thus, they may never broach issues

that are not raised by the students. Moreover, by viewing reading as an entirely personal

issue, rather than a social practice (Freebody & Luke, 1997), teachers who do not

personally relate to some characters or stories are also likely to avoid certain

multicultural texts (Herman-Wilmarth, 2010; Singer & Smith, 2003). For example,

Singer and Smith (2003) found that while the teachers who made a personal connection

with the novel From the Notebooks of Melanin Sun (Woodson, 1995) demonstrated a

deeper engagement, the teachers who did not connect with the novel tended to distance

themselves from the topics of race and/or sexual orientation. Consequently, these

scholars revised their teaching practices and became more explicit in directing students to

consider their responses to the topics of diversity in the text.

64

Projecting attitudes onto parents, administrators, and students. As a means of

avoiding the use of certain multicultural books altogether, it is not uncommon for some

teachers to project onto parents or administrators the notion that “they would never let me

get away with reading a book like this in my class!” For example, some preservice

teachers believed that they couldn’t use a book such as The Friendship (Taylor, 1987)

because parents would object to the way whites in the story use the word “nigger”

(Smith, 2002). Similarly, after reading Nightjohn (Paulsen, 1995), a teacher in Schmidt,

Armstrong, and Everett’s (2007) study argued, “Parents in my district would never

approve of this book. There's too much violence and the 'N' word is used throughout the

book” (p. 52). Also projecting attitudes onto parents after reading From Slaveship to

Freedom Road (Lester, 1999), a teacher worried, “there might be some

miscommunication with parents, and they would get mad if I read a book like that”

(Schmidt, Armstrong, & Everett, 2007, p. 52). Given that some teachers fear

repercussions from their book selections (Ketter & Lewis, 2001; Wollman-Bonilla,

1998), choosing to reject a text could help to avoid problems.

Barrera (1992) observed another type of projection in her case study about the

ways teachers and administrators at a diverse elementary school in the Southwest

incorporate multiculturalism in their model language arts program. She observed that

some teachers projected ambivalence and indifference onto their students. Not only did

they assume that some of the children’s cultures lacked literary traditions, they also

presumed that culturally relevant books were not available. Barrera reports that their

65

projections led to the omission of multiethnic texts in the curriculum at some grade

levels.

Rejecting literature due to limited content knowledge and experience. This

last set of rationales for censorship regard teachers’ intellectual and pedagogical

confidence.

Limited content knowledge. Botelho and Rudman (2009) observe that several

scholars discuss the ways some teachers sidestep multicultural children’s literature

“because they are unprepared and lack the background and knowledge to feel

comfortable engaging in teaching these texts (Cooper and Floyd, 2002; Davis, Brown,

Liedel-Rice, and Soeder, 2005; Harris and Willis, 2003; Hinton-Johnson, 2002; Jenkins,

1999)” (p. 265). In this review of the literature, while there is a wide range of reasons

that teachers could feel uncomfortable in reading and talking about multicultural

children’s literature, two of those reasons are discussed here. First, in Apol, Sakuma,

Reyonlds, & Rop’s (2003) study, teachers expressed trepidation around critiquing

multicultural historical fiction and nonfiction texts because they lacked the historical

background knowledge about the subject matter of the text. In discussing a text set of

children’s books regarding Japan during WWII, the preservice teachers shared that they

had little background knowledge about the circumstances surrounding the bombing of

Japan. Consequently, they felt unqualified to discuss the historical context of the books in

the text set. Similarly, Smith (2002) observed that the preservice teachers in her class felt

at a loss in discussing the context of Christopher Columbus’s “discovery” of America.

Most of these teachers understood a Eurocentric version of history and had little or no

66

knowledge of alternative perspectives such as those of the Taino people in the book

Morning Girl (Dorris, 1999). Apol, Sakuma, Reyonlds, and Rop’s (2003) and Smith’s

(2002) observations substantiate Giroux and McLaren’s (1996) argument that the study

of history “should play a more expansive role in teacher education programs” (p. 320).

In addition to feeling unqualified to discuss the historical context of some books,

teachers also felt uneasy about examining the cultural context of books. Escamilla and

Nathenson-Meja (2003) observed this problem as teachers avoided discussing the cultural

aspects of Latino children’s books. They resolved that in the future, they would help

preservice teachers learn about Mexican and Mexican-American culture in tandem with

reading corresponding works of multicultural children’s literature. Montero and

Robertson (2006), in their study using global children’s literature with teachers, report

that over the course of their graduate level class, “it became obvious that one of the

barriers to using books that fall outside of the mainstream was knowledge (or lack

thereof) about a country, its language(s) and culture(s) as represented in the books” (p.

31). While this lack of knowledge inhibited some teachers from using certain global

literature in their classrooms, Montero and Robertson found that the teachers were

interested in learning more about world cultures. They saw that as the teacher increased

their cultural knowledge, they started to feel more comfortable using the literature in their

classrooms. Willis and Harris’s (1997) argument that prospective teachers need to have

comprehensive cultural studies courses as part of their college educations is particularly

relevant to these findings.

67

Limited experience. Reflecting on her avoidance of certain topics as an

elementary school teacher, Pierce (2006) also provides insight into the experiences of

some teachers: “I was hiding from my own inexperience and discomfort and my

unwillingness to make belief-level changes in my work. I was afraid of where this

journey might take me and what it might require of me as a teacher” (p. 428). Like

Pierce, the prospective, preservice, and practicing teacher’s limited experiences in

reading critically (Apol, Sakuma, Reynolds, & Rop, 2003; Harris, 1993; Schmidt,

Armstrong, & Everett, 2007), in talking about their own cultures (Lowry & Sabis-Burns,

2007), and in deconstructing their own assumptions and beliefs (Fang, Fu, & Lamme,

2003; Ketter & Lewis, 2001) contributed to some teachers’ discomfort in discussing the

themes raised in some multicultural texts such as cultural diversity, racism, sexism, and

social inequality. Consequently, the teachers avoid such texts and conversations. Some

are equally fearful that using books, which confront dominant ideologies about race,

gender, and culture could cause controversy and alarm parents (Ketter & Lewis, 2001;

Schmidt, Armstrong, & Everett, 2007; Smith, 2002). Finally, like Pierce (2006), the

teachers’ inexperience and incomplete knowledge about how to read and discuss

multicultural literature with children increased the teachers’ apprehension, too (Escamilla

& Nathenson-Meja, 2003; Ketter & Lewis, 2001; Montero & Robertson, 2006; Smith,

2002).

Summary

Talking about race, culture, gender, religion, and social class can be daunting to

even the most thoughtful teachers. Consequently, there are several strategies teachers

68

employ, consciously or unconsciously, to avoid uncomfortable discussions. Some of

those strategies include: focusing on holidays, heroes, foods, and crafts; taking an

efferent reading stance; emphasizing universal themes; projecting attitudes and beliefs

onto others; practicing familiar reader response patterns; and rejecting literature due to

limited content knowledge and experience.

While teachers can only operate within the discourses (Gee, 1996) that are

available to them (Schmidt, Armstrong, & Everett, 2007), they are often the “victims of

systems that require they know things that are not accessible through their experiences or

their teacher preparation” (Ketter & Lewis, 2001, p. 180). This literature review has

examined the positions prospective, practicing, and preservice teachers take up in

response to multicultural children’s literature and the ways in which teachers avoid risk,

controversy, and discomfort. Although there are many reasons why teachers may feel

uncomfortable about using certain multicultural children’s literature, it is rarely because

they simply do not like the text. Rather, a lack of social, historical, and cultural

knowledge, confidence, self-reflection, and/or know-how seems to be at the root of much

teacher’s discomfort.

In closing, Mingshui Cai (2009) observes that regardless of the pedagogical label,

“in either the implementation of multicultural education or the reading of multicultural

literature, we may focus on diversity only and do not talk about power structures and

struggles. The problem lies in our practice” (p. 281). This chapter has demonstrated

teachers can embrace multicultural children’s literature as a means of fostering diversity

awareness while simultaneously avoiding the discussion of power structures and

69

struggles and the critique of dominant Discourse. The next chapter considers the ways in

which enacting critical literacy practices with prospective, preservice, and practicing

teachers could facilitate a shift in stance.

Critical Literacy and Teachers

This section of Chapter Two examines how teacher educators have used critical

literacy practices to support teachers in reading children’s literature with a critical lens.

The section begins with a rationale for reading critically. Then, it establishes a

conceptual framework and methodology for the literature review. Next, it synthesizes the

data on using multicultural children’s literature in teacher education and professional

development programs and describes two major themes across the studies: cultivating

critical readers and nurturing culturally responsive teachers. Given the paucity of data on

teachers’ engagement with Latino children’s literature, this section reviews literature on

prospective, preservice, and practicing teachers’ engagement with multicultural

children’s literature in the context of professional development, children’s literature, or

English/Language Arts methods courses in which the researchers were also the

instructors.

Rationale for Critical Literacy

Some teachers assume ideological positions that lead to the censorship and

exclusion of certain works of multicultural children’s literature in the classroom. Some

teachers also take the position that children’s literature is as a tool for teaching children

70

about the ways of being in the world. In wholly accepting works of children’s literature

as models of culture, teachers are not likely to approach reading as a critical process

(Friere & Macedo, 1996; Wollam-Bonilla, 1998). This is problematic because, as

mentioned in the previous chapter, children’s literature is not ideologically neutral. It is

filled with coercive socializing messages that can reinforce a sense of normality to

accepting racist, classist, sexist, and ageist biases of dominant Discourse without question

(Apol, 1998; Hollindale, 1988; Nodelman, 2008; Stephens, 1992).

Hade (1997) gives body to this phenomenon in his observation of a classroom that

is regarded as being progressive, student-centered, and reading-rich:

[C]hildren “read” the social context in which they interpret literature and produce

readings according to what they believe their teacher wants in that particular

situation. The richness of the readings in the classroom appeared to be influenced

heavily by the kinds of readings the teacher values. Interpretation is a cultural

product. If children do not read in a certain way, is it not because they do not read

that way naturally, it is because they are not taught how to read that way (Hunt,

1991). To view what children do with books as natural is to allow the influence

of culture and the manner in which certain signs are interpreted to go

unchallenged. This is imposition by omission. (p. 238)

Hade’s description suggests that no matter whether a classroom is progressive and

literature rich, children are socialized to read, respond to, and interpret literature in the

way that their teacher believes is “natural.” In some cases, reading “naturally” means

reading without question, such that the Discourse of the text is neither critiqued nor

71

challenged. For some teachers, challenging the author’s figured story world is atypical

behavior and thus unnatural.

On the other hand, teachers who are oriented toward seeing children’s texts as

cultural artifacts, which are underpinned by societal ideologies about culture, race, class,

and gender, are more liable to approach reading as a critical process (Friere & Macedo,

1996; Luke & Freebody, 1997). In taking a critical approach to reading, children's

literature is not regarded as a socializing tool, but rather as a vehicle for engaging

students in critical discussions of complex issues such as gender, race, and social class.

Via a critical approach, the reading process could also support the objective of

multicultural education (Botelho & Rudman, 2009) by engaging readers in talking back to

the text (Enciso, 1997) and reading against the grain to identify the limitations of authors’

visions (Bartholomae & Petrosky, 2003). Such an approach engages both teachers and

students in challenging dominant figured worlds.


Multicultural children’s literature has been used in teacher education and

professional development programs to support prospective, preservice, and practicing

teachers in becoming multicultural educators who are both critical literacy practitioners

and culturally competent/responsive teachers (Apol, Sakuma, Reyonlds, & Rop, 2003;

Baskwill, 2008; Bercaw & Collins, 2007; Dudley-Marling, 2003; Escamilla &

Nathenson-Meja, 2003; Graff, 2010; Hade, 1997; Herman-Wilmarth, 2010; Howrey &

Whelan-Kim, 2010; Ketter & Lewis, 2001; Lowry & Sabis-Burns, 2007; Mathis, 2001;

McNair, 2003; Montero & Robertson, 2006; Schmidt, Armstrong, & Everett, 2007;

72

Singer & Smith, 2003; Smith, 2002; Wollman-Bollina, 1998). As Hade (1997) puts it,

“Multiculturalism is about reform. . . . We need to teach reading accordingly.

Challenging assumptions about race, class, and gender must be at the core of

multicultural education; our reading needs to do the same” (p. 252). As a reform

movement, multicultural education does not simply address curricular revisions. It

advocates for/is concerned with a systemic, institutional shift in education that guarantees

equal opportunities for learning to all students regardless of race, gender, culture, social

class, or language (Banks, 2010).

With this in mind, critical literacy practitioners/critical readers, as characterized

by Lewison, Flint, and Van Sluys (2002), examine how texts position readers and

emphasize some voices but not others; appreciate multiple perspectives and

counternarratives; critique how language can be employed to maintain or destabilize

power structures and can likewise be interpreted as a cultural resource; and confront and

cross borders to understand others. Critical literacy advocates like McLaughlin and

DeVoogd (2004) even offer an overview for a two-phase pedagogical approach to

fostering a critical reading stance among novice readers: First, ensure that students

posses the necessary social, cultural, and/or historical contextual knowledge for critically

reading a specific text; Second, scaffold students’ learning via a guided practice

sequence such as (a) describe what it means to be a critical reader; (b) demonstrate

critical reading through a combined read-aloud/think-aloud; (c) guide student practice in

asking critical questions such as “Whose voices are amplified and whose are

marginalized or missing?”; (d) establish time for students to practice independently; and

73

(e) regroup to reflect on the process. An approach like this could be employed with

teachers in a university course and likewise serve as a model for working with children.

Culturally competent/responsive teachers, as described by Ladson-Billings (2001)

and Villegas and Lucas (2002) understand the role of culture in education, learn about

their students’ lives and communities, affirm students’ diverse background and

communities as cultural resources, enact pedagogy that builds on students’ local and

global culture and experiences, and assume responsibility for making schools more

accommodating of every child. Taken together, teachers who are both critical readers as

well as culturally responsive educators enact critical multicultural analysis of children’s

literature (Botelho & Rudman, 2009).

According to Botelho and Rudman, critical multicultural analysis of children’s

literature “acknowledges that all literature is a historical and cultural product and reveals

how the power relations of class, race, and gender work together in text and image, and

by extension, in society” (p.1) and “equips the reader with strategies to unmask dominant

ideologies, integrate what they know about themselves with what they learn about others,

and translate their reading and thinking into social action” (p. 9). The studies in this

literature review investigate how teachers respond to and engage with this paradigm and

consider the implications for teacher preparation and professional development programs.

Methodology

The articles that were selected for this review came from two different sources.

First, a search for peer-reviewed articles was conducted online via EBSCO. A small set

of related articles was cited on the website after several combinations and permutations

74

with the following search terms: “literature,” “reading,” “teachers,” and “multicultural.”

From this set, only articles that studied the use of multicultural literature with

prospective, preservice, and/or practicing teachers were selected. Second, the table of

contents and reference sections of a range of books about using multicultural children’s

literature in the classroom provided additional studies. Table 3 provides a brief overview

of each of the studies that resulted from the search. After iterative readings of the studies,

I analyzed the data for emerging themes (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Two categories of

data resulted: cultivating critical readers and nurturing culturally responsive teachers.

75

Table 3. Sources for Literature Review. Self Study: Researcher(s) as Classroom

Teacher(s) • Dudley-Marling (2003). “I’m not from Pakistan” • Hade, D. (1997). Reading Multiculturally. • Pierce, K. M. (2006). Recognizing and resisting change: A teacher’s professional journey.

School Case Study Researcher(s): Classroom Observer(s)

• Barrera (1992). The cultural gap in literature-based literacy instruction. • Fang, Fu, & Lamme, (2003). The trivialization and misuse of multicultural literature • Ketter & Lewis (2001). Multicultural literature in a predominantly white rural community.

Researcher: Professional Development Facilitator(s)

• Mathis (2000). Respond to stories with stories: Teachers discuss multicultural children’s literature. • Schmidt, Armstrong, & Everett. (2007). Teacher resistance to critical conversation.

Prospective Teachers & Students • Moore & Ritter (2008). Changing the way preservice teachers interpret and respond to literature identities of children.

Researcher/Instructor Reflective Study of Teacher Responses to MC Literature

• Wollman-Bonilla (1998). Outrageous viewpoints: Teachers’ criteria for rejecting works of

Researcher/Instructor: Prospective or Preservice Teachers

• Apol, Sakuma, Reynolds, & Rop (2003). “When can we make paper cranes?” • Bercaw & Collins (2007). The discussion filter: children’s literature in teacher education classroom. • Escamilla & Nathenson-Mejia (2003). Latino Children’s Literature in Teacher Education • Herman-Wilmarth (2010). Preservice teacher dialogue after reading LGBT children’s literature. • Howrey & Whelan-Kim (2009). Preservice Teachers; Multicultural Children's Literature Project. • Lowery & Sabis-Burns (2007). Cross-Cultural Connections through Multicultural. • McNair (2003). “But The Five Chinese Brothers is one of my favorite books!”

• Montero & Robertson (2006). “Teachers can’t teach what they don’t know” • Smith (2002). "Would I use this book?" White, female education students examine their beliefs Researcher/Instructor: Practicing Teachers • Baskwill (2008). Exploring teacher attitudes toward multicultural literature through the Arts. • Graff (2010). Teachers’ discourse about immigrants in children’s and young adult literature.

Researcher/Instructor: Preservice and Practicing Teachers

• Singer & Smith (2003). Changing Understanding of Self and Others.

Discussion A: Cultivating Critical Readers who are Teachers

In several of the studies in this review, researchers advocate that prospective,

preservice, and practicing teachers learn and exercise critical literacy practices in order to

facilitate multicultural pedagogy via the use of multicultural children’s literature in the

76

classroom (Apol, Sakuma, Reyonlds, & Rop, 2003; Baskwill, 2008; Fu, Fang, & Lamme,

2003; Graff, 2010; Hade, 1997; Lowry & Sabis-Burns, 2007; Mathis, 2001; Schmidt,

Armstrong, & Everett, 2007; Singer & Smith, 2003; Smith, 2002). According to

McLaughlin and DeVoogd (2004), in applying a critical lens to text, readers access their

existing knowledge to make sense of the ways their ideas and the ideas of the text may or

may not relate. In doing so, they critique the text and consider alternate perspectives to

the author’s assumptions. Through the critical lens, readers can begin to uncover who

does and does not have power in the text and who benefits and who is disadvantaged in

reading the text.

Teachers as critical readers. For students, the teacher’s job is to help them to

cultivate a “meta-awareness and meta-language” (Comber, 2001, p. 1) to help them

interrogate not only texts, but also social issues of school and life. More specifically, the

teacher’s role originates from “personal understanding and use of critical literacy and

extends to teaching students about critical literacy, modeling reading from a critical

stance in everyday teaching and learning experiences, and providing access to a variety of

texts that represent critical literacy” (McLaughlin & DeVoogd, 2004, p. 55). In short,

teachers who engage in the process of assimilating critical literacy practices and

pedagogies and begin to accommodate alternate viewpoints into their professional

discourse (Gee, 1996) are equipped to teach their students to become critical readers

(Lowry & Sabis-Burns, 2007). Thus, the first step in helping children to cultivate critical

literacy practices is to support teachers in becoming critical readers (Apol, Sakuma,

Reyonlds, & Rop, 2003). Unfortunately, explicit instruction on how to read children’s

77

and young adult literature through a critical lens is not always a part of teacher

preparation courses (Harris, 1993). In fact, a theme that emerged in this review is that

teacher educators need to recognize that many prospective, preservice, and practicing

teachers have limited experience in reading critically (Apol, Sakuma, Reynolds, & Rop,

2003; Ketter & Lewis, 2001; Schmidt, Armstrong, & Everett, 2007).

Across the studies, however, various researchers support teachers in learning to

read critically through a variety of pedagogies for pre-and post-reading activities (Apol,

Sakuma, Reyonlds, & Rop, 2003). These include: transmediation events in which

teachers “transfer” meaning from one medium to another such as print to visual arts

(Baskwill, 2008) or print to drama (Graff, 2010); scholarly readings (Baskwill, 2008;

Graff, 2010; Lowry & Sabis-Burns, 2007; Mathis, 2001; Schmidt, Armstrong, & Everett,

2007; Singer & Smith, 2003; Smith, 2002); and written reflection and dialogic response

activities (Apol, Sakuma, Reyonlds, & Rop, 2003; Baskwill, 2008; Bercaw & Collins,

2007; Escamilla & Nathenson-Meja, 2003; Graff, 2010; Herman-Wilmarth, 2010; Lowry

& Sabis-Burns, 2007; Mathis, 2001; Montero & Robertson, 2006; Schmidt, Armstrong,

& Everett, 2007; Singer & Smith, 2003; Smith, 2002). What follows is a discussion

about the scholarly readings and the types of questions that teacher education instructors

used to support dialogic response activities.

Scholarly readings. Among the researchers who conducted professional

development or instructed children’s literature and/or methods courses, some

incorporated into their course curricula scholarly articles about critical literacy and/or

multiculturalism to support the teachers in becoming critical readers. For example,

78

Mathis (2001) paired “Making Classroom Instruction Culturally Pluralistic” (Branch,

Goodwin, & Gualtieri, 1993) with the novel Seedfolk (Fleischman, 1997). Hermann-

Wilmarth (2010) paired “Dangerous Discourses: Using controversial books to support

engagement, diversity, and democracy” (Lewison, Leland, Flint, & Möller, 2002) with

three book options for her class to read The Misfits (Howe, 2001), Holly’s Secret

(Garden, 2000), and The House You Pass on the Way (Woodson, 1997). Apol, Sakuma,

Reynolds, and Rop (2003), on the other hand, provided students socio-historical

resources about WWII to inform their reading of the novel Sadako (Coerr, 1993). The

instructor/researchers invited the teachers to consider the relationship between the

children’s literature and the articles, in addition to sharing their personal responses to the

books. In many instances, the scholarly articles provided alternative perspectives to the

teachers’ views and offered counterpoints to their discussions (Montero & Robertson,

2006; Smith, 2002).

Critical questions. Nearly all of the instructor/researchers facilitated written

reflection and dialogic response activities in their courses (Apol, Sakuma, Reyonlds, &

Rop, 2003; Baskwill, 2008; Escamilla & Nathenson-Meja, 2003; Lowry & Sabis-Burns,

2007; Mathis, 2001; Montero & Robertson, 2006). For example, to help teachers think

about their personal responses to each of the multicultural children’s books they read for

class, Escamilla & Nathenson-Meja (2003) asked two general questions: “What has this

book led you to think about? Have you had any experiences similar to this? In what

way?” (p. 242). To support teachers in considering their curricular and pedagogical

perspectives, other instructor/researchers inquired: “Would you use this multicultural

79

children’s book in your classroom? Why or why not?” “How would you use this book in

your classroom to teach about culture or diversity?” (Apol, Sakuma, Reyonlds, & Rop,

2003; Escamilla & Nathenson-Meja, 2003; Lowry & Sabis-Burns, 2007). To engage

teachers in the practice of critical reading, the instructor/researchers required the teachers

to mull over questions like: “How are people who are not members of the mainstream

culture represented in the text?” (Lowry & Sabis-Burns, 2007). “Who is authorized to

write about or from within a cultural experience?” (Montero & Robertson, 2006).

Finally, prompting teachers to have a go at critical narrative analysis (see Table 4,

below), Baskwill (2008) asked teachers to ponder who the intended audience and the

implied reader (Iser, 1978; Stephens, 1992) are for the texts. Merging the concepts of

intended audience and implied reader, teachers might consider who the ideal reader

(Aldama, 2009) is. Congruently, Apol, Sakuma, Reyonlds, and Rop, (2003) encouraged

teachers to consider the ways peritext (Aldama, 2009) influences readers. With regard to

multicultural historical fiction, they asked, what kind of claims does the text or the book

jacket, introduction, and afterward (peritext) make to substantiate the “truthfulness” of

the historical context of the story? See Table 4.

80

Table 4. Definitions of Ideal Reader, Peritexts, and Implied Author. An ideal reader is:

An image of the ideal recipient of the text, this reader is an assumed addressee who understands the text optimally, that is, in a way that fully matches its structure and its aesthetics and other values and norms… [T]he ideal reader takes on the beliefs and values that the narrator ascribes to him or her, and in most cases this reader responds to the characters and events as if they were real (Aldama, 2009, p. 27).

Peritexts are mostly marketing tools, including cover art and book jackets, blurbs, text descriptions, endorsements, reviews, photos, and even sales displays. They “establish initial reader contracts and cues that trigger in the reader’s mind important scripts – comic or tragic, for instance – that we anticipate encountering once inside the story proper” (Aldama, 2009, p. 22). Peritexts can help consumers feel confident that they will not be disappointed in purchasing more of what they know and enjoy (Hale, 2002).

The implied author is “inferred from the text as a whole and is taken to be accountable for the selection, distribution, and combination of all of its ingredients… [S/he] is the image of the author constructed by the reader” (Aldama, 2009, p.26). The implied author and the ideal reader work in tandem to propagate and reinforce the ideologies, which are embraced by the actual author and may be reflected in hegemonic values and epistemologies.

General questions like those listed above provide a springboard for teachers to

begin to critically evaluate and delve into the text. As Hermann-Wilmarth (2010)

surmised from her study, however, explicit questions could help engage teachers further.

Her conclusion is consistent with Simpson’s (2006) observation that instructors need to

craft questions founded on the understandings they would like children to cultivate.

Simpson argues that she should prepare explicit questions and use scenarios and/or

quotes from the texts to help preservice teachers see potential connections between the

characters in the text and people in their lives; require small groups to reflect on and

generate a list of the perspectives that were presented in their groups; and model how to

listen and respond to differing viewpoints in a conversation. None of the

instructors/researchers in this review report on the use of explicit questions in their

studies.

81

Written, visual, and dialogic response. This section of the discussion considers

the types of written, visual, and dialogic responses that were employed by the

researchers.

Written and visual response. Each of the instructor/researchers created space in

her/his curriculum for teachers to author written responses to assigned texts prior to each

class session as a means of organizing their thoughts and critically processing their ideas

in preparation for in-class discussions. After in-class discussions, a few of the

instructor/researchers likewise asked teachers to reflect on their conversations, account

for the different perspectives that were voiced in their group, and/or to describe how their

thinking may have changed as a result of the discussions (Lowry & Sabis-Burns, 2007;

Montero & Robertson, 2006; Smith, 2002). Likewise, Baskwill (2008), who welcomed

teachers to create visual aesthetic responses to the text, used the teachers’ artwork as

tools for initiating discussion. Her approach is consistent with Rosenblatt’s (1985)

observation, “Criticism should make the aesthetic transaction the starting point of a

further transactional relationship between reader/critic and text—or between

reader/historian and text, or reader/semiotician and text” (p. 105). In other words,

teacher’s personal responses and understanding of the text provide a starting point for

developing critical awareness (McLaughlin & DeVoogd, 2004).

Dialogic response. In conjunction with the teachers’ written responses, all of the

instructors/researchers provided for in-class, open and guided dialogues in the form of

literature response groups and small and large group discussions (Apol, Sakuma,

Reyonlds, & Rop, 2003; Baskwill, 2008; Bercaw & Collins, 2007; Escamilla &

82

Nathenson-Meja, 2003; Graff, 2010; Herman-Wilmarth, 2010; Lowry & Sabis-Burns,

2007; Mathis, 2001; Montero & Robertson, 2006; Schmidt, Armstrong, & Everett, 2007;

Singer & Smith, 2003; Smith, 2002). Discussions provided the forum for examining

issues of injustice, racism, privilege, and power. In multicultural education, conversing

about the text is as important as the text (Rice, 2005), because dialogue is “an initial

action toward critical examination of self and society and can lead to further action

toward challenging existing undemocratic social injustices” (Bercaw & Collins, 2007, p.

31). For some of the researchers, the small group discussion model affords a

“nonauthoritarian classroom in which students are invited to create knowledge by sharing

their own perspectives and feelings” (Singer & Smith, 2003, p. 19) and a semi-private

space for students to express opinions that might otherwise be filtered in the presence of

the instructor (Bercaw & Collins; Smith, 2002). Moreover, small group discussions

provide the chance for teachers to practice talking about issues of injustice and cultural

difference so that such conversations would not feel as risky in their own classrooms

(Herman-Wilmarth, 2010).

Personal responses in the discussion groups. Among the college

course/professional development studies, there were two sets of researchers who

established literature response groups specifically for discussing the multicultural

children’s literature and not scholarly readings (Escamilla & Nathenson-Meja, 2003;

Schmidt, Armstrong, & Everett, 2007). In describing the structure of the literature

response group conversations, Schmidt, Armstrong, and Everett (2007) recall,

“discussions often began with quick aesthetic responses to the literature and moved

83

almost immediately to ways they could use the book in their classrooms” (p. 51). One

reason for this quick transition from personal response to the discussion of classroom

usage is that teachers are in the habit of considering practical matters that could assist

them in preparing for their daily engagements with students (Nieto, 2007). In these

literature response groups, teachers did not appear to move beyond the level of sharing

personal responses. Escamilla and Nathenson-Meja (2003) were frustrated by this

outcome and reflected that they would not apply the same open-ended strategy in future

classes. Alternately, Schmidt, Armstrong, and Everett (2007), who critically analyze the

underpinnings of teachers’ personal responses and find that they distanced teachers from

the issues of diversity and social injustice in multicultural texts, recognize that it takes

time to cultivate a change in attitudes. For them, discussion provides a starting point.

Although Apol, Sakuma, Reynolds, and Rop (2003) provided scholarly text that

explicitly challenged the historic context and validity of Sadako (Coerr, 1993), they also

found that the majority of pre-service teachers in their study did not move beyond

personal response during small group discussions. These scholars suggest that one of the

several reasons that the preservice teachers, who were generally between the ages of 18 –

22, resisted entering into deeper discussions about the conflict between the scholarly text

and the novel was that the preservice teachers were likely more familiar with personal

response pedagogy as an over-simplified version of reader response from their own K-12

educations in the late 1980s and 1990s. They may have been neither familiar nor

comfortable with engaging in critical reading and inquiry strategies. Similarly, Hermann-

Wilmarth (2010) found that despite the scholarly text she provided, in one of the five

84

small group discussions in her children’s literature class, the conversation was dominated

not only by two preservice teachers’ personal responses, but also their personal text, the

Bible. Reflecting on this phenomenon of stagnation, Smith (2002) concludes, "When

personal experiences are limited and reflect the viewpoint that is sanctioned as the norm,

as is the case with many White preservice teachers, the connections made to literature

and the ability to reflect also will be limited" (p. 58).

Discussion group dynamics. Beyond personal response, other factors

characterized the discussions in some studies. For example, teachers’ sense of comfort

influenced some participants. Natalie, a teacher in Bercaw and Collin’s (2007) study,

argued that it was “easier to sit back and let the status quo exist. . . . I would have loved

to have . . . hashed them [books] out with somebody. I didn’t . . . [know] anyone well

enough to hash it out . . . let your guard down” (p. 27). She didn’t trust that it was

worthwhile to express her opinion and challenge her peers about the text or topics of

diversity and injustice. Along this same line, Trina, a teacher in Graff’s (2010) study,

confided that while she was comfortable to share anything with Graff, for class

discussions she “just had to prepare for the worst and get ready to defend what I believe”

(p. 119). According to Graff, Trina’s discussion participation was limited because of “the

defensive place she felt she needed to occupy in class” (p. 119) as a person with

conservative views. Schmidt, Armstrong, and Everett’s (2007) observation that teachers

take more risks in discussion when they feel at ease rings true with Natalie’s and Trina’s

testimonies.

85

Scholarly reflections on discussions. In considering the implications of their

studies, some scholars warn that without discussion, “taboo” topics of diversity and

injustice remain taboo (Escamilla & Nathenson-Meja, 2003; Schmidt, Armstrong, &

Everett, 2007; Singer & Smith, 2003). Thus, more opportunities for discussion are

needed to provide a forum to engage in critical reading, self-reflection, and understanding

of other’s viewpoints (Bercaw & Collins, 2007), to interrogate teachers’ views about

multicultural texts in order to avoid teachers’ unnecessary censorship of texts (Wollman-

Bonilla, 1998), to participate in broader discussions about multicultural education and

diversity (Dudley-Marling, 2003), and to support teachers in learning and talking about

multicultural books in order to develop a critical literacy pedagogy (Mathis, 2001).

Alternatively, some scholars also suggest that prospective, preservice, and practicing

teachers be exposed to texts and/or in-person experiences, which demonstrate how

children are capable of applying a critical reading lens to attend to the sociocultural

values embedded in a story (Apol, Sakuma, Reyonlds, & Rop, 2003; Smith, 2002;

Wollman-Bonilla, 1998). In this approach, the children model for the teachers how to

read critically.

Furthermore, although discussing and reflecting upon multicultural literature with

others can support teachers’ development of critical literacy practices, provide windows

into other cultures, and reveal alternative and/or counter perspectives, Graff (2010)

warns, “as evidenced by Fecho and colleagues (2010), entering and remaining in dialogic

spheres can be quite difficult. . . . [W]e run the risk of naming structures and mechanisms

. . . that harm others or perpetuate oppressive policies” (pp. 127 - 128). She advises that

86

before teachers can enter into dialogue, they need to identify those structures and

mechanisms, and suggests that “[o]nly then will counter-narratives [which destabilize

harmful and oppressive norms] become narratives with an open-ended invitation for

future narratives which reflect the societal transformations inherent in life” (p. 128).

Summary on cultivating critical readers. Recognizing that teachers who are

critical readers and advocates of multicultural education have a greater chance of helping

students foster critical literacy practices and an appreciation for diversity, the

instructors/researchers in this review employed a range of activities to support teachers in

reading critically and understanding alternative perspectives to texts. Most engaged

teachers in written and dialogic response activities that were framed by general questions.

Teachers’ familiarity and comfort in reading text through a personal lens stunted some

discussions. Other factors such as the social dynamics between group members also

limited the effectiveness of some discussions. Moreover, without prompting teachers to

confront dominant ideologies around race, gender, culture, and equality through explicit

inquiry questions, counter texts, or other strategies, it could be difficult for some teachers

to accommodate alternative perspectives into their professional discourse.

Discussion B: Nurturing Culturally Responsive Teachers

Anaya (1992) sees that multicultural children’s literature, which reflects the

culture and lived experience of people in the neighborhood, local community, and region,

could help students connect with social realities and see their culture and background as a

vital part of learning, too. He argues that students “must be exposed to stories that portray

their history and image in a positive manner . . . [and] must be given the opportunity to

87

read the literatures of the many different cultures of our own country” (p. 18). In

considering the work of a culturally responsive teacher, Ladson-Billings (1995) depicts a

scene from a lesson situated in a predominantly African American, low-income

elementary school in California. The teacher enacts culturally relevant pedagogy via a

multicultural children’s book about an African princess. Midstream in a discussion, the

teacher stopped and read the story to challenge the children’s assertion that all princesses

have blond hair. The teacher told Ladson-Billings, “I just couldn’t let them [children] go

on thinking that only blond-haired, White women were eligible for royalty. . . . I have a

responsibility to contradict some of that [dominant ideas] . . . that kind of thinking [is] . . .

more devastating for our children” (p. 479). The teachers’ pedagogical decision supports

her role as a culturally responsive teacher. In order to counter the mainstream princess

narrative that privileges white superiority, she demonstrates that persons of color also

hold positions of authority. She provides a mirror to show her students that they, too, are

noble and powerful.

Although not always explicitly stated, several of the studies in this review are

informed by a culturally relevant approach to multicultural education (Dudley-Marling,

2003; Hade, 2003; Escamilla & Natehnson-Meja, 2003; Howrey & Wehlan-Kim, 2010;

Ketter & Lewis, 2001; Montero & Robertson, 2006). Three consider the importance of

knowing and understanding the students’ backgrounds, cultures, and communities in

applying culturally relevant pedagogy via multicultural children’s literature (Dudley-

Marling, 2003; Escamilla & Natehnson- Ketter & Lewis, 2001).

88

Understanding the community. Ketter and Lewis (2001) consider how to enact

culturally relevant pedagogy via multicultural children’s literature in their book group

study with middle school teachers and parents in a predominantly white, rural

community. When Abby, a young white teacher, had her students read Sounder

(Armstrong, 1969), a novel that depicts the victimization of a Black character, Angela,

the parent of Abby’s only African American student grew very concerned. Since Abby

did not provide a historical context for the book, Angela’s son “felt isolated and

alienated, and people were looking at him for answers and solutions” (p. 176). In

planning for Abby’s next book selection, Cynthia Lewis suggested the novel Scorpions

(Myers, 1988), which tells the story of an African American boy who is a member of a

gang to which he does not wish to belong. She reasoned that Scorpions provides a clear

view of social inequity. Angela, however, questioned the message that this book sends to

predominantly white students who have little experience with African American people.

She was concerned that the white students would make generalizations about African

Americans based on the novel. Congruently, the mother of an African American

elementary school student advocated for books that show African Americans in positions

of power. She believed that in a rural community, providing images of African

Americans as educated members of the middle class would have greater impact on

decentering whiteness than presenting images of inequity. Ketter and Lewis conclude

that it is imperative for educators to thoughtfully consider the context and nuances of the

local community prior to recommending and/or selecting multicultural children’s

literature for the classroom. They also recommend that stakeholders in the school

89

community clarify their varying objectives for multicultural education in order to

appreciate the complexities of reform within the social constructs of the classroom and

community.

Knowing students’ backgrounds. Similar to Ketter and Lewis, in his self-study,

Dudley-Marling (2003), a teacher educator who returned to the classroom in a diverse

Canadian community, found that in order to enact culturally relevant pedagogy via

multicultural children’s literature, teachers must first learn about their students’ lives in

the community. Believing that he was being responsive to his third-grade students’

background and heritage, Dudley-Marling constructed a folktale unit comprised of stories

that matched his students’ ethnic, racial, cultural, and religious backgrounds. He read

tales set in Egypt, Persia, India, Portugal, Greece, China, Scotland, Africa, Pakistan, and

North America as a means to acknowledge his students. When Nadar, whom Dudley-

Marling assumed was Pakistani, declared, “I am not from Pakistan,” Dudley-Marling

took pause. He realized that he grossly misrepresented the heritage of this student.

Reflecting further on his unit, he also recognized that he completely missed the mark

with other students, too. Concluding that when teachers use literature "to represent

students' cultural and religious heritage . . . [they assume] an essential homogeneity in

people's cultural heritage that clearly does not exist" (p. 311), Dudley-Marling advocates

that teachers refrain from speaking on behalf of their students. Doing so could perpetuate

stereotypes and is neither fair to students nor helpful in fostering learning. Rather, he sees

that teachers need to create space for students to represent themselves and to affirm the

students’ diverse backgrounds as cultural resources in the classroom. They also need to

90

consider the limitations of their own knowledge and background experiences in working

with children from diverse backgrounds.

Learning about students’ cultures. Finally, recognizing that their white

preservice teachers had limited knowledge about the Latino population of students whom

they would teach in Colorado public schools, Escamilla and Nathenson-Meja (2003)

initiated a three-year project using Latino children’s literature as a tool for cultivating

preservice teachers’ knowledge about Latinos and fostering preservice teachers’

commitment to the Latino community. During the first year, 27 preservice teachers who

were completing their field assignments in urban, inner city schools participated in the

project, meeting for a seminar once per month. As part of the seminar, the preservice

teachers met in literature response groups to discuss their responses to the two Latino

children’s books they read over the course of the month. In preparation for their open-

ended small group discussions, each preservice teacher responded to the following three

questions: “1. What has this book led you to think about? 2. Have you had any

experiences similar to this? In what way? 3. Would you use this book with students?

Why/Why not?” (p. 242).

Based on their analysis, Escamilla and Nathenson-Meja found that while the

preservice teachers’ responses reflected general connections to the Latino children’s

literature, it was unclear whether the preservice teachers increased their knowledge about

Latino culture. These findings suggest that simply reading the Latino children’s books

does not “create the knowledge base, compassion, or call to action that we [Escamilla and

Nathenson-Meja] desire. . . . We are less confident that they [preservice teachers] know

91

more about either Mexicans or Mexican Americans than when we began this study” (p.

246). Not satisfied that the Year 1 preservice teachers were prepared to be culturally

responsive teachers, Escamilla and Nathenson-Meja required the Years 2 and 3

preservice teachers to use the Latino children’s literature with the students in their field

placements. By Year 3, Escamilla and Nathenson-Meja realized that still more

preparation was needed. If they were to conduct the project again, they would pair the

children’s books with explicit teaching about Mexican and Mexican American culture,

make time for in-depth discussions about the themes of their book selections and the

preservice teachers’ assumptions and biases about the books, require that preservice

teachers consult with parents and research the books’ topics, and create space for follow-

up conversations about the preservice teachers’ experience in discussing the books with

students and parents in the community.

Summary of discussion. To summarize, the above-mentioned studies

collectively demonstrate that educators must invest in thoughtful preparation in order to

use multicultural children’s literature to enact multicultural education and culturally

relevant pedagogy. In assuming the role of a culturally responsive teacher, these studies

imply that teachers: a) are clear on their objectives for multicultural education; b) respect

the multicultural education objective of other members of their school communities; c)

understand the social polities and nuances of the school and local community in which

their students reside; d) know their students and their students’ families; e) learn about

their students’ cultural heritage and traditions; f) create space for students’ to express

their identities; h) interrogate their own assumptions and biases about multicultural texts;

92

i) reflect on their practice; and j) recognize their own limitations.

Conclusion

In terms of pedagogical methodology, the researchers recommend that teacher

education instructors:

• provide ample opportunities in teacher education programs for prospective and

preservice teachers to read multicultural children’s literature (Lowry & Sabis-Burns,

2007; Mathis, 2001);

• help teachers to interrogate their own criteria for selecting children’s literature

(Schmidt, Armstrong, & Everett, 2007; Wollman-Bonilla, 1998);

• ensure that teachers have the cultural background knowledge needed to

critically engage with a multicultural children’s text (Escamilla & Nathenson-Mejia,

2003);

• structure discussion around explicit inquiry questions that engage teachers in

talking about the sociocultural and/or sociopolitical themes of the books that may feel

uncomfortable (Herman-Wilmarth, 2010);

• advocate for long term support for new teachers in continuing to develop their

identities as critical readers and culturally responsive educators through multicultural

children’s literature (Apol, Sakuma, Reyonlds, & Rop, 2003; Escamilla & Nathenson-

Meja, 2003; Fu, Fang, & Lamme, 2003; Hade, 1997; Ketter & Lewis, 2001; Lowry &

Sabis-Burns, 2007; Mathis, 2001; Montero & Robertson, 2006; Schmidt, Armstrong, &

Everett, 2007; Smith, 2002; Wollman-Bollina, 1998).

93

This literature review has examined the ways in which prospective, practicing,

and preservice teachers respond to multicultural children’s literature and how teacher

education instructors use this literature in their courses and programs to support teachers

in becoming critical readers and culturally responsive educators. In closing, to quote

Sonia Nieto (2000), teacher education instructors cannot “change everything in just one

course, obviously, or even with ten courses, but I do think that we can, if we teach in a

critical way, encourage teachers to become critical teachers and to ask the right kinds of

questions” (Aaronsohn, 2000, p. 5).

Religion, Multiculturalism, and Children’s

Literature in the Public School

This chapter began with the story of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s visit to

the Basilica of Our Lady of Guadalupe. In this story, Clinton’s query about who painted

the image of Guadalupe suggested that she did not know the dance steps of the dominant

Discourse of Mexico and fumbled on the international stage. This final section now

considers the story from another angle. Clinton’s well-intentioned yet uninformed

gesture at the basilica was, perhaps, representative of a pervasive yet veiled quality of the

dominant Discourse: Ignorance of religious traditions outside of the dominant Discourse

is a socially accepted norm. This norm is reflected in the institution of American public

education (Bishop & Nash, 2007; Douglas, 2000; Green & Oldendorf, 2005; Noddings,

1993; Peyton & Renck, 2008; Rosenblith & Baily, 2007; Sanders, Foyil, & Graff, 2010;

94

Whitaker, Salend, & Elhowers, 2009). For example, the way public school vacation days

have historically been aligned with Christian religious holidays while the mid-week

celebrations of other religious holidays are inscribed as unexcused absences implies that

awareness of the dominant religion is all that really matters (Peyton & Jalongo, 2008).

This section examines some of the primary issues that emerge when it comes to

fostering religious awareness in public schools. The first section provides background

information about the national Conversations around religion and public education and

around diversity and multiculturalism. After establishing the conceptual framework and

methodology for the literature review presented in this chapter, the next section begins

with a brief overview of the benefits of teaching about religion in public education and

the obstacles to this endeavor. Because several scholars recommend the use of

multicultural children’s literature as a tool for fostering students’ religious literacy, the

final section considers the ways in which religion intersects the educational scholarship

through classroom use of multicultural books for children.

The Diversity and Religion Awareness Conversations

Circling back to Hillary Clinton, one could argue that her faux pas is reflective of

the nation’s tolerance for “religious illiteracy” (Moore, 2007, p. 3) and the nation’s

Christian-Protestant hegemony (Meyers & Meyers, 2002; Noddings, 1993; Nord, 2010;

Peyton & Jalongo, 2008). Such hegemony poses challenges in advancing the

Conversation about cultivating a pluralistic society (Sanders et al., 2010), while the topic

of private school vouchers captures many people’s imagination (Nord, 2010).

Referencing the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, Moore (2007)

95

warns that the cost of religious illiteracy includes the promotion of cultural wars, the

inhibition of cultural and historical understanding, and the fueling of race-based and

religious prejudice. In terms of politics, Prothero (2007) argues that religious illiteracy

leaves Americans “too easily swayed by [political] demagogues on the left or the right.

Few Americans are able to challenge claims made by politicians or pundits about Islam's

place in the war on terrorism or what the Bible says about homosexuality. This ignorance

imperils our public life” (p. 138). Further complicating matters—and despite the fact that

one’s religion reflects the culture and social environment in which s/he is immersed

(Bloom, 2007)—silence about religion in schools can suggest to students that religions

are unconnected to culture and society (Hayne, 1992; Noddings, 1993).

In truth, religion is inseparable from culture and society. At a young age children

develop the religious discourses that are embraced by their cultures in the same way that

they learn the languages of their cultures in order to communicate with others (Bloom,

2007; Noddings, 1993; Wiley, 1997). For this reason, people’s spiritual perspectives are

influenced by their family, community, culture, class, race, and gender as well as the

historical and sociopolitical context in which they live (Carr, 1992). Moreover, “millions

of Americans find the most profound sources of meaning in their lives in their religious

traditions and define themselves less in terms of ethnicity, gender, or nationality than in

terms of religion” (Nord, 2010, p. 139).

Unfortunately, given that some middle school students know little about their own

religions and most are uninformed about other religions in the world (Bishop & Nash,

2007), the trivialization of religion in schools fosters intolerance and leaves students

96

vulnerable to skewed notions about how people have historically struggled to make sense

of their lives (Hayne, 1992; Nord 2010). Bishop and Nash (2007) see this trivialization

of religion as an “act of educational neglect” (p. 31) on the part of public schools. They,

like other scholars, argue that we can no longer pretend that religion does not have a

fundamental effect on the world (Fraser, 1999; Green & Oldendorf, 2005; Hayne &

Thomas, 2007; Moore, 2007; Noddings, 1993; Nord, 2010; Nord & Haynes, 1998;

Rosenblith & Baily, 2007; Sanders, Foyil, & Graff, 2010; Whitaker, Salend, & Elhowers,

2009).

Why hasn’t learning about major and minor world religions been incorporated in

public education? Why hasn’t the nation’s constitutional commitment to religious

pluralism been translated into educational goals for religious literacy (Sanders, Foyil, &

Graff, 2010)? These questions intersect the Conversation about diversity and

multicultural education. As mentioned earlier, multicultural education regards the

experiences, interests, and concerns of people who are outside of the dominant social

group and supports curricular, pedagogical, and policy related reforms that are inclusive

of all students. A critical component of the multicultural education agenda is to affirm

“the pluralism (ethnic, racial, linguistic, religious, economic, and gender, among others)

that students, their communities, and teachers reflect” (Nieto & Bode, 2008, p. 44,

emphasis added). This affirmation of pluralism is consistent with the national

Conversation about respecting diversity, which is reinforced by some state and federal

laws.

97

Applying a political lens, Nord (2010) argues that despite the objective of

affirming pluralism, “the multicultural movement has been largely tone-deaf to religious

cultures and subcultures” (p. 139). This is in part because, historically, Multiculturalists

were first concerned with the way American education was for so long dominated by an

oppressive Eurocentric, white, male, Protestant agenda (Nord, 2010; Taxel, 1995). As

the Religious Right political conservatives started to make advances toward restoring

Protestant models of “traditional values,” prayer, and creationism in public education,

“multiculturalism has shown little sympathy for religion” (Nord, 2010, p. 139). Nord

(2010) interprets this apathy toward the educational oppression of religious subcultures as

“a betrayal of principles” (p. 139) because a matter of justice is at stake.

Applying a cultural lens, Fraser (1999) argues that educational efforts “to

understand different cultural traditions without attention to their religious roots invites a

shallowness unhelpful to cultural understanding” (p. 5). Such efforts also undermine the

objectives of multicultural education. Like Nord, Fraser (1999) sees that

Multiculturalists “have found ways to approach some of our society’s most divisive

issues with new levels of respect and tolerance while also insisting that the sometimes

hidden dimensions of power and control are understood and dealt with properly” (p. 5).

He argues that the same approach is needed to foster the religious literacy that is

necessary to cultivating pluralism.


In contextualizing religion as a cultural phenomenon, the multicultural education

lens provides a framework for an informed and respectful exploration of religious

98

pluralism and literacy (Fraser, 1999). The need for culturally responsive pedagogy

(Ladson-Billings, 1995) underpins this chapter’s discussion, suggesting a focus on the

ways in which religion intersects with multicultural children’s literature studies in

education and with the use of children’s books to foster religious awareness.

Methodology

The articles, chapters, and books that were selected for analysis came from three

different sources. In looking for articles about religion, children’s literature, and

education, I conducted an online search with the EBSCO database and consulted a wide

range of education books about multicultural children’s literature. This search resulted in

a small set of relevant articles and chapters, illustrating the limited research in this area. I

used the OSU library catalog to identify not only texts about religion and education in the

United States, but also books about religion in Latin America. Last, I consulted the table

of contents and reference sections of these relevant materials in order to identify

additional studies. After iterative readings of the relevant materials, I analyzed the texts

for emerging themes (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Table 5 provides a list of the articles and

chapters that specifically address the pedagogical use of children’s literature to foster

religious literacy and cultural pluralism.

99

Table 5. Sources for Literature Review. Using Children’s Literature as One Tool for

Teaching About Religion in the Public School Classroom

• Ayers & Reid (2005). Teaching about Religion in Elementary School: One Texas District. • Bishop & Nash (2007). Teaching for Religious Literacy in Public Middle Schools. • Green & Oldendorf (2005). Teaching religious diversity through children’s literature. • Peyton & Jalongo (2008). Honoring religious diversity and modeling respect for faiths through children’s literature. • Rosenblith & Bailey (2007). Educating for a Religiously Literate Society. • Whitaker, Salend, & Elhoweris, (2009). Religious diversity in schools: Addressing the issues.

Analysis of Religious Representations in Children’s Literature

• Lehman (2005). Religious representation in children’s literature: Disclosure through character, perspective, and authority. • Sanders, Foyil, & Graff (2010). Conveying a stance of religious pluralism in children’s literature. • Trousdale (2005). Intersections of spirituality, religion and gender in children’s literature.

Booklists & Annotated Bibliographies • Kipling, (2008). Using children’s literature to teach about religion in America. • Peyton (2008). A list of picture books to promote religious understanding. • Zeece (1998). “Can God come here?” Using religion-based literature in early childhood.

Discussion A: Benefits and Obstacles to Fostering Religious Literacy

Benefits. Basic knowledge about the concepts, symbols, and practices of various

religions cannot only promote cross-cultural understanding and help students to make

sense of history, art, literature, and modern society, but can also help students appreciate

the civic framework of American government that provides for religious liberty under the

Bill of Rights (Hayne & Thomas, 2007). In addition, learning about religions supports

students in becoming global citizens who embrace a democratic culture of toleration,

respect, and understanding of diversity in our nation and world (Fraser, 1999; Green &

Oldendorf, 2005; Haynes, 1992; Moore, 2007; Rosenblith & Baily, 2007). Furthermore,

by fostering accurate knowledge about religious traditions (Rosenblith & Baily, 2007),

religious studies can be a springboard for countering stereotypes and discussing the issues

of racism and prejudice (Ayers & Reid, 2005).

100

These outcomes are not only consistent with the tenet of multicultural education,

but also consistent with the United States International Religions Freedom Act. The 2010

annual report to the Office of the Secretary of State outlines that each child:

shall be protected from any form of discrimination on the ground of religion or

belief. He shall be brought up in a spirit of understanding, tolerance, friendship

among peoples, peace and universal brotherhood, respect for freedom of religion

or belief of others, and in full consciousness that his energy and talents should be

devoted to the service of his fellow men. (Appendix C, Article 5)

In order to raise the nation’s children to be understanding, tolerant, and respectful

of all people’s freedom of religion or belief under the U.S. Constitution, it is critical to

foster religious literacy as a national value in the public forum. Perhaps even more

immediate to educators, the National Council for the Social Studies (1998) advocates that

learning about religions “has a rightful place in the public school curriculum because of

the pervasive nature of religious beliefs, practices, institutions, and sensitivities” (p. 1).

This national organization sanctions the study of religions under the NCSS Curriculum

Standards for Social Studies, which state, “Students in social studies programs must study

the development of social phenomena and concepts over time; must have a sense of place

and interrelationships . . .; must understand institutions and processes that define our

democratic republic” (p. 1).

Obstacles. While the benefits of fostering religious literacy and cultural

pluralism are invaluable, there are at least six major issues to navigate:

• the dominance of Christianity in mainstream American culture

101

• the taboo nature of topics like religion

• the myth about the separation of Church and State

• the lack of clarity on what it means to teach about religion

• the lack of preparation on the part of teachers

• the paucity of published research

Dominant American culture. As mentioned at the beginning of this chapter,

most Americans believe that the United States is a Christian nation. Correspondingly,

mainstream American culture is influenced by Christian ideals and the notion that the

religious majority rules (dominates). Noddings (1993) suggests that one of the greatest

societal obstacles to fostering religious literacy in public schools “is probably

fundamentalism and all those linguistic practices implicitly associated with it” (p. 141);

this statement acknowledges that some fundamentalists reject learning about religions

other than their own. Teachers, administrators, and students who are not fundamentalists,

but are members of the dominant Christian religion, still may not recognize the need for

or value of exploring religious diversity because they “have no need for it” (Sanders,

Foyil, & Graff, 2010). Consequently, a systemic shift of attitude may be needed to

overcome this obstacle.

Taboo topic. The call for religious literacy challenges the dominant social norm

that talking about religion—like talking about sexuality, race, class, and gender

identity—is taboo. Several scholars speak to this general reluctance to discuss religion

(Bloom, 2007; Fraser, 1999; Green & Oldendorf, 2005; Hayne & Thomas, 2007; Moore,

2007; Noddings, 1993; Nord & Haynes, 1998; Rosenblith & Baily, 2007; Sanders, Foyil,

102

& Graff, 2010; Whitaker, Salend, & Elhowers, 2009). To provide a broader context for

this issue, Bloom (2007) observes that the reluctance is not exclusive to education. He

sees that even developmental psychologists consider religion a “taboo” topic, likely

because they do not want to offend anybody or they are personally sensitive about the

taboo. Similarly, some teachers avoid any discussion of religion for fear of offending

someone or inciting opposition from parents and/or school administrators, potentially

causing a negative impact on their employment (Peyton & Renck, 2008; Sanders, Foyil,

& Graff, 2010).

It is interesting to note, however, that schools contend with many taboo topics

such as race, gender, sex education, and politics. Controversy surely cannot be isolated

to discussing religion. Excluding religious awareness from the curriculum, on the other

hand, is controversial, too. Given that many public schools do not take religion seriously,

it is not surprising that “parents raise a ruckus or desert them for private schools or home

schooling” (Nord, 2010, p. 186). Controversy might actually be mediated or lessened if

religious literacy was embraced in public education.

The myth about Separation of Church and State. A dominant myth in

mainstream American culture is that learning about religion (Church) has no business in

public education (State). Thus, many teachers believe it is unlawful to discuss religious

worldviews in the classroom (Bishop & Nash, 2007; Escamilla & Nathenson-Meija,

2003). This is not true. According to Hayne and Thomas (2007), the Supreme Court has

ruled that public schools may teach about religion, but may not sponsor religious

practices (Engel v. Vitale, 1962; Abington v. Schempp, 1963). In Abington v. Schempp,

103

the landmark case in which the Supreme Court declared that it is unconstitutional for

public schools to sponsor Bible reading, Associate Justice Tom Clark wrote,

[I]t might well be said that one’s education is not complete without a study of

comparative religion or the history of religion and its relationship to the

advancement of civilization. It certainly may be said that the Bible is worthy of

study for its literary and historic qualities. Nothing we have said here indicates

that such study of the Bible or of religion, when presented objectively as part of a

secular program of education, may not be affected consistently with the First

Amendment. (Haynes & Thomas, 2007, p. 97)

Justice Clark’s remarks indicate that a comprehensive education includes the

study of religions. Moreover, provided that the program of study reflects an objective

approach on the part of the teacher and school, learning about religions in public

education is consistent with the First Amendment to the Bill of Rights.

Lack of clarity regarding the parameters of teaching about religion. Some

teachers who recognize that it is acceptable to teach about religion still steer clear of it in

their classrooms because they are unclear on what they can and cannot discuss (Green &

Oldendorf, 2005; Peyton & Renck, 2008; Whitaker, Salend, & Elhowers, 2009). For

some, the line between proselytizing and teaching about religion is difficult to define

(Nord, 2010). In a document specifically designed for teachers, Finding Common

Ground: A First Amendment Guide to Religion and Public Schools, Haynes and Thomas

(2007) provide guidelines to distinguish between teaching about religion in public

schools and religious indoctrination. See Table 6.

104

Table 6. Guidelines for Teaching About Religion.

1. The school’s approach to religion is academic, not devotional.

2. The school may strive for student awareness of religions, but should not press for

student acceptance of any one religion.

3. The school may sponsor study about religion, but may not sponsor the practice of

religion.

4. The school may expose students to a diversity of religious views, but may not

impose any particular view.

5. The school may educate about all religions, but may not promote or denigrate any

religion.

6. The school may inform the student about various beliefs, but should not seek to

conform him or her to any particular belief. (p. 97).

These guidelines are representative of the 14 principles for teaching about religion

adopted by the National Council for the Social Studies in 1998. Teachers, administrators,

parents, and community members who would like clarity on teaching about religion

could consult these or NCSS’s guiding principles.

Lack of teacher preparation. Teachers’ confusion about what is and is not

appropriate for classroom discussion could stem from a lack of preparation in learning to

successfully teach about religion (Black, 2003; Haynes, 1992; Douglas, 2000; Noddings,

1993; Rosenblith & Baily, 2007). According to Douglas (2000), few elementary teachers

would argue that they received adequate preparation to teach about social studies, let

alone religion, across the curriculum. Haynes (1992) concurs, suggesting that even state

mandates to include more discussion about religion in schools are not always reflected in

teacher education programs. Some programs could do much to clarify for teachers that

the study and discussions of major and minor religions are not only legitimate, but also

105

crucial to public education if we are to support young people in becoming citizens of a

pluralistic society (Black, 2003; Fraser, 1999; Haynes, 1992; Douglas, 2000; Noddings,

1993; Rosenblith & Baily, 2007).

On this subject, Nord (2010) offer an analogy: “Several decades ago, most

teachers were woefully unprepared to deal with women's and minority history and

literature. . . . Educators did not say ‘Well, we better not teach that stuff.’ . . . Rather we

started preparing teachers to deal with multiculturalism” (p. 187). He advocates that

educators train teachers to deal with religion, too. To help teachers develop the

necessary background knowledge for talking about religions, the aforementioned scholars

recommend that teacher education programs incorporate historical, religious, and cultural

studies into the curriculum. With the appropriate content knowledge, teachers could then

situate their discussions about religion within historical and cultural contexts (Haynes,

1992; Douglas, 2000; Rosenblith & Baily, 2007).

Paucity of research. As evidenced by the limited number of articles listed in the

EBSCO database, teaching about religion in the public school is somewhat absent from

the research agenda. Bishop and Nash (2007) argue that although multicultural education

advocates that schools respect individual differences and honor the unique qualities of

different cultures, consideration of religious difference “remains largely unexamined in

the ongoing work toward equity, perhaps because of a general reluctance to address

religious issues in a public school setting” (p. 21). Along this same line, Fraser (1999)

suggests, “If religion can be added to the multicultural agenda, then there is hope of

106

transcending some of the nation’s longest-running and most bitter school wars” (p. 5).

Raising awareness through educational research could provide a starting point.

Summary of discussion. A dichotomy exists between our national commitment

to religious and cultural pluralism and local support for fostering religious literacy.

Learning about the major and minor religions of the world could help our nation’s youth

to better understand and respect people from different religious traditions; to make

connections between historical, political, and social events in the world; to expand their

perspectives of literature and the visual and fine arts; and to appreciate the civic

framework of American government. In contrast, hegemonic ideas about the dominance

of Christianity and misunderstandings about the separation of Church and State permeate

mainstream culture and hinder religious literacy. Some scholars believe that religious

literacy could be examined as part of the agenda for multicultural education.

Discussion B: Religion in the Research on Multicultural Children’s Literature

Literature can support readers in understanding religious traditions (Nord, 2010).

This next discussion examines some of the academic literature that is available.

Although limited in scope, the academic literature demonstrates an intersection between

religion and multicultural children’s literature in at least four general ways:

• defining the scope of multicultural children’s literature

• analyzing for religion representations

• teaching about religion with certain texts

• influencing teachers’ selection and use of some texts

107

Defining the scope of multicultural children’s literature. While the definition

of multicultural children’s literature has its origins in multicultural education, the term

has historically regarded literature by and for people of color (Cai, 2003; Cooperative

Children’s Book Center, 2010; Gilton, 2007). Some scholars see that an expanded

definition is necessary. As a result, children’s literature, which depicts the culture and

experiences of people belonging to different religious groups, might also be included

under the umbrella of multicultural literature. For example, Harris (1994) argues that

multicultural children’s literature includes not only books about people of color, but also

books about “the elderly, gays and lesbians, religious minorities, language minorities,

people with disabilities, gender issues, and concerns about class” (p. 117, emphasis

added). Sims Bishop (1997) believes that multicultural children’s literature “should

include books that reflect the racial, ethnic, and social diversity that is characteristic of

our pluralistic society and of the world” (p. 3). Stood-Hill and Amspaugh-Corson (2008)

expand on that definition by including texts that reflect the experiences of white ethnic,

cultural, and religious groups.

Last, Kiefer (2010), in reflecting on the evolution of multicultural education,

suggests that an alternate to the term multicultural children’s literature “might be

literature of diversity. Such a term allows us to broaden our understanding of the term

culture” (p. 85, emphasis added). Thus, literature of diversity accommodates multiple

aspects of culture, which “consists of the values, traditions, worldview, and social and

political relationships created, shared, and transformed by a group of people bound

together by a common history, geographic location, language, social class, religion, or

108

other shared identity” (Nieto & Bode, 2008, p. 171, emphasis added). Just as they learn to

communicate with the languages of their cultures, children also develop religious

discourses that are informed by their cultures (Bloom, 2007; Noddings, 1993; Wiley,

1997).

Analyzing for religion representations. When it comes to analyzing

multicultural children’s literature, Bishop (1994) offers two general considerations that

accommodate an examination of religion as an aspect of people’s cultures, “the book

should contribute in a positive way to an understanding and appreciation of persons-of-

color and their culture, or . . . offer a positive vision of a diverse society and a

multicultural world” (pp. xiv–xv). In other words, the text should support readers in

assuming a healthy or affirmative stance toward other cultures and a pluralistic global

community.

Teachers also need to support students in assuming an affirmative stance toward

such text by ensuring students receive the necessary background knowledge to

understand the context of the story, as recommended by McLaughlin and DeVoogd

(2004) and other scholars in the previous chapter. In this way, they might be less inclined

to automatically impose their own religious frameworks onto the story. “If we screen

alternative traditions through our own conceptual filters, assuming that we know how to

interpret the world,” Nord (2010) argues, then “we will gain no critical perspective on our

own assumptions (p. 110).

Among the studies examined in this literature review, some scholars attend to the

religious themes of multicultural children’s literature (Lehman, 2005; Sanders, Foyil, &

109

Graff, 2010; Trousdale, 2005). For example, as a religiously informed critical reader,

Lehman (2005) considers the ways in which religion is represented across three young

adult novels—Gideon’s People (Meyer, 1996), Habibi (Nye, 1997), and The Storyteller’s

Beads (Kurtz, 1998). Sanders, Foyil, and Graff (2010) analyze 14 religiously pluralistic

fiction and nonfiction works of children’s and adolescent literature to examine the literary

strategies by which children’s authors promote a positive vision of pluralism. Trousdale

(2005) examines adolescent and young adult novels that are informed by a Christian

perspective and raise critical issues about gender. She concludes that such books reflect

complex issues, make for rich discussions, and generate questions that could help readers

take a critical stance toward the representations of spirituality, religion, and gender.

Teaching about religion. As advocates of developing students’ religious literacy

within a multicultural education agenda, several scholars examine the possibilities for

using multicultural children’s literature to facilitate this objective (Ayers & Reid, 2005;

Bishop & Nash, 2007; Green & Oldendorf, 2005; Kipling, 2008; Peyton, 2008; Phelps,

2011; Whitaker, Salend, & Elhoweris, 2009; Zeece, 1998). For example, Phelps (2011)

adopts a critical lens to examine the use of nonfiction children’s literature to teach about

Islam and the Muslim world. Kipling (2008), Peyton (2008), and Zeece (1998) address a

range of multicultural books with religious themes to aid elementary school teachers in

fostering religious literacy. Collectively, the five remaining articles (Ayers & Reid, 2005;

Bishop & Nash, 2007; Green & Oldendorf, 2005; Whitaker, Salend, & Elhoweris, 2009;

Zeece, 1998) discuss the pedagogical approaches to implementing classroom and school-

110

based religious literacy programs via different activities and texts, including multicultural

children’s literature.

Influencing teacher text selections. Finally, religion also intersects the

examination of teachers’ engagement with and use of multicultural children’s literature.

Two examples are discussed here. First, with regard to enacting culturally relevant

pedagogy, Hade (1997) describes the way he attempted to honor the religious heritage of

his third-grade Muslim students via multicultural children’s literature about Ramadan.

He reflects that his pedagogical decision was founded on his presumption that the

Muslim children in his class shared a common religious discourse. As a result, he

effaced his students’ religious differences by selecting texts that did not acknowledge the

cultural diversity of Islam, but rather presented a homogeneous view. Hade reports, “My

efforts to recognize Christian holidays fared no better since our readings and discussions

did not acknowledge the range of ways the [his] Christian students lived their traditions

either" (p. 310). Consequently, his limited background knowledge of his students and

content knowledge of Muslim and Christian religious traditions undermined his

objectives for culturally responsive teaching.

Second, in contrast to Hade’s good intentions for acknowledging the religious

diversity of the school community, other studies show that the religious beliefs of some

teachers can become obstacles to using multicultural children’s literature. For example, in

studying the teachers in their children’s literature courses, Hermann-Wilmarth (2010) and

Schmidt, Armstrong, and Everett (2007) observed that some teachers rejected books with

nontraditional families and LGBT characters because, for these teachers, the themes in

111

such books infringed on their religious perspectives. In both studies, the teachers felt that

by using such books, they might inadvertently reveal their religious disapproval of

nontraditional families and LGBT relationships.

Summary of discussion. As a “vital resource that can help us navigate our way

through past and present views of who we are and who we might become as members of

a diverse society” (Enciso, 1994, p. 524), multicultural children’s literature can be a

vehicle for fostering religious literacy in our pluralistic global community. The

scholarship reviewed in this section demonstrates that as an important aspect of people’s

culture, religion is necessarily entwined with multicultural education and culturally

responsive teaching.

Discussion C: Emerging Themes from the Literature

The scholars who have written about using multicultural children’s literature to

help students learn about religions agree that the selection of appropriate books is crucial.

They also suggest that in employing a critical multicultural lens, they could help to

develop students’ critical reading skills, cultural awareness, and respect for religious

diversity (Green & Oldendorf, 2005; Rasinski & Padak, 1990; Sander, Foyil, & Graff,

2010; Whitaker, Salend, & Elhowers, 2009; Zeece, 1998).

Preparation. In preparing to use children’s literature, Sander, Foyil, and Graff

(2010) advise that teachers first familiarize themselves with the social, historical, and

cultural contexts of the texts they have selected for teaching about religion. This advice

is consistent with Black’s (2003), Haynes’s (1992), Douglas’s (2000), and Noddings’

(1993) observation that teachers need to have a solid foundation in historical, cultural,

112

and religious studies in order to establish a context for examining religions with students.

The text selections should include a variety of books and materials to provide a range of

perspectives. As Lehman (2005) argues, teachers need to “read and compare multiple

texts (including nonfiction) about the same religion to gain a sense of accuracy and

authenticity” (p. 20). She sees that no single book can provide a comprehensive story

about a religious tradition, since the text usually reflects the author’s interpretation of that

story. In addition, Sander, Foyil, and Graff (2010) also recommend that prior to sharing

the texts in their classrooms, teachers consider the local context in which their students

and the school are situated in order to understand the multiple and sometimes subtle

factors that could influence the class’s discussion. In other words, teachers need to enact

culturally responsive pedagogy that is specific to their local situations. With the

necessary advance preparation, a teacher could create in her classroom a “space of

reaffirmation” (Medina & Enciso, 2002, p. 42) that offers a forum in which to foster

religious and cultural understanding and to enact multicultural education.

Book recommendations. Scholars have several different perspectives on book

recommendations. To begin, Rosenblith and Baily (2007) put forth a general

recommendation that middle school teachers consider and evaluate for their classrooms

young adult novels in which the protagonist struggles to make sense of her/his own

religion as well as other religions. Other scholars endorse specific children’s literature

titles for teaching about religion and, occasionally, cultural identity (Green & Oldendorf,

2005; Peyton, 2008; Whitaker, Salend & Elhowers, 2009; Zeece, 1998). With the

exception of Sander, Foyil, and Graff (2010), who specifically analyzed 14 books, none

113

of the scholars who provide book recommendations in their articles explicitly state that

their endorsements resulted from the critical reading and review of many different texts

for children. One might presume that this is implied, however, given the articles’

inclusion in academic publications and unique theme of using children literature to teach

about religious diversity. Zeece’s (1998) booklist focuses on books that offer a general

discussion of religions of the world and the concept of God, albeit more Judeo-Christian

in nature. The other articles also list books that are specific to certain religious traditions.

Multicultural books for teaching about Catholicism. Of note, the authors of two

of the articles (Green & Oldendorf, 2005; Peyton, 2008) endorse the same book for

teaching about Catholic Christianity, The Lady of Guadalupe (dePaola, 1980). Peyton

(2008) includes The Lady of Guadalupe, along with nine other nonfiction titles, in her

text set for teaching about Catholicism. Six of the other books on her list are biographical

about saints and holy people. The remaining three books discuss the Catholic faith and

religious practices. In contrast to Peyton’s text set, Green and Oldendorf (2005), whose

booklists contain abundant texts describing other religions, recommend dePaola’s picture

book as the only resource for teaching about Catholicism under the umbrella of

Christianity. Similarly, Whitaker, Salend, and Elhowers (2009) endorse a single book for

teaching about Catholicism, Las Posadas: An Hispanic Christmas Celebration (Hoyt-

Goldsmith, 1999).

It is remarkable that each of the two books Green and Oldendorf (2005) and

Whitaker, Salend, and Elhowers (2009) collectively recommend for teaching children

about Catholicism specifically depicts Mexican and Mexican American people. In the

114

absence of any other books depicting Catholicism on either Green and Oldendorf’s or

Whitaker, Salend, and Elhowers’ lists, one could make a racialized inference that all

Mexican and Mexican American people are Catholic and/or few people from other ethnic

groups practice Catholicism in North America. Neither inference is true, of course.

It is particularly noteworthy that these scholars’ seemingly taken-for-granted

assumptions or prototypes (Gee, 2011) for “typical” Catholics are consistent with the

underlying assumptions of the Latino Threat Narrative (LTN) by which persons of Latino

heritage are “locked into Catholic doctrine” (Chavez, 2008, p. 41). Coincidence or not,

the fact that two well-meaning articles intended to support multicultural education reflect

the LTN speaks not only to the pervasiveness of the narrative but also to Lehman’s

(2005) argument that educators must carefully consider their own backgrounds and biases

when it comes to addressing the religious content of children’s literature.

Analysis and evaluation. Teachers need to carefully evaluate for accuracy, bias,

and stereotypes in the children’s literature they plan to use to teach about religion (Green

& Oldendorf, 2005; Haynes & Thomas, 2007; Lehman, 2005; Trousdale, 2005; Whitaker,

Salend, & Elhowers, 2009). Just as some teachers apply a critical reading lens to evaluate

works of multicultural children’s literature, that same critical lens is mandatory for

considering children’s books with religious themes. Some general questions for

consideration appear in Table 7.

115

Table 7. General Questions for Critical Reading.

General Questions for Critical Reading

• Who is the ideal reader? (Aldama, 2009)

• Who is the implied author? (Stephens, 1992)

• How does the text position readers? (Freebody & Luke, 1997)

• How does the book and its peritext (Aldama, 2009) substantiate claims of

truthfulness? (Apol, Sakuma, Reynolds, & Rop, 2003)

• Where are bias and stereotypes in the text?

• What are the silences or gaps in the text and what do these imply?

• How do my background and assumptions influence or bias my position as a

critical reader? (Lehman, 2005).

In addition to applying a critical lens to the general questions, Lehman (2005, p.

12, 16, & 18) and Trousdale (2005, pp. 75–76) provide a second set of specific questions

to support teachers’ critique of the way religious themes are presented in the text. See

Table 8.

Table 8. Critique Questions for Religious Themes.

Questions to Critique the Presentation of Religious Themes

• How accurately does the author depict the beliefs and practices of the religion?

Does s/he present beliefs simplistically or with a range of complexities?

• Does there seem to be a spiritual reality that underpins the religion in the story,

or is religion presented as a human, social construction?

• How much information about the religion is shared by the author and why?

• What images are shown in the story? How do these enhance the story?

• How do the images affect the reader’s view of the religion?

• Does the story attempt to teach readers what to think about a particular issue,

or to stimulate thought and discussion?

• What is the author’s (and our) relationship to the religion being depicted?

• What does my critical reading suggest about the author’s representation of the

[religious] culture in relation to the reader living outside of the culture?

116

An additional question for teachers to consider when evaluating texts might be:

How does the author accommodate for diversity within the religion s/he depicts in the

text? A question like this could be valuable in light of Dudley-Marling’s (2003) account

(earlier in this paper) of trying to be a culturally responsive teacher for his diverse group

of Muslim students; he had selected books that depict a homogeneous view of Islam, thus

failing to accommodate for diversity within the religion. Another question to consider,

especially when evaluating nonfiction books, might be: How does the author situate the

religion in a sociocultural and historical context for readers? This question could help

teachers to consider what background knowledge is needed in order to thoughtfully

discuss the text.

Summary. In preparing to use multicultural children’s literature to help students

learn about religious diversity, it is crucial that teachers not only establish a social,

historical, and cultural context for their text selections, but also enact culturally

responsive pedagogy that is tailored to their local school community. The text sets that

teachers assemble for teaching about different religious traditions should reflect a range

of perspectives, genres, and materials when possible, because no single book can

represent a religious group. Finally, in conducting a critical multicultural analysis of

their text selections, teachers should attend both to general questions about the text and

specific questions about the way religious themes are presented, while also considering

their own biases.

Conclusion. This section started by revisiting Hillary Clinton’s visit to the

Basilica of Our Lady of Guadalupe in Mexico City. Her lack of understanding of

117

Mexican culture and religious beliefs was the topic of news stories in the days that

followed. One columnist suggested that President Obama should demand that all of his

diplomats “learn, not simply to think, but to study before they speak” (Richert, 2009, para

3). This message is also true for teachers who want to use multicultural children’s

literature with religious themes in their classrooms as much as for educators who

recommend or endorse books in journal articles. Simply because a book features Latino

characters and contains a religious theme, it does not mean that the book is an appropriate

tool promoting religious and/or cultural literacy among students. As Fang, Fu, and

Lamme (2003) warn, “Despite their inaccuracies, many multicultural books are

nonetheless favorably reviewed and touted as authentic renditions of certain ethnic,

cultural and literary heritages” (p. 287). Consequently, it is both up to authors “to get it

right” when they write about religion in children’s books (Lehman, 2005) and up to the

teachers and teacher educators “to get it right” when they talk about religion in children’s

books.

118

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY

This chapter describes the methodology for addressing the following six research

questions:

• Question One. How do prospective teachers describe their knowledge of and

relationships to the cultures depicted in select works of Latino children’s literature

that includes religious content (In My Family; Friends from the Other Side;

Abuelito Eats with His Fingers)?

• Question Two. What are prospective teachers’ general responses to works of

Latino children’s literature that include religious content?

• Question Three. What kinds of stances/subject-positions (Beach, 1997) do

prospective teachers adopt in considering the use of each book in their future

classrooms?

• Question Four. How does applying a critical lens to a re-reading of a book of

one’s choice (In My Family; Friends from the Other Side; or Abuelito Eats with

His Fingers) influence the prospective teachers’ interpretations of that book?

• Question Five. What is the likelihood that prospective teachers would discuss

with their future students the religious content of the books in this study?

119

• Question Six: What kinds of Discourses and figured worlds (Gee, 2011) do

prospective teachers construe about Latinos around works of Latino children’s

literature that includes visual religious content?

The sociocultural theoretical frame for addressing these questions is grounded in

qualitative, interpretive research (Erickson, 1986; Glesne, 1999) with an emphasis on

James Gee’s (2011) concepts of Discourses and figured worlds. Gee (2008) argues:

any Discourse is a theory about the world, the people in it, and the ways in which

“goods” are or ought to be distributed among them. . . . [E]ach of us has a moral

obligation to reflect consciously on these theories—to come to have meta-

knowledge of them—when there is reason to believe that a Discourse of which we

are a member advantages us or our group over other people or other groups. Such

meta-knowledge is the core ability that schools ought to instill. . . . Such

knowledge is power, because it can protect all of us from harming others and

from being harmed, and because it is the very foundation of resistance and

growth. (p. 221)

The methodological objective for this study is to develop a meta-knowledge of the

Discourses prospective teachers employ in response to Latino children’s literature that

includes religious content via careful analysis and thoughtfully discussion.

Data Collection

The data for this study comes from a set of non-random surveys (a pilot survey

and the main survey) conducted at the Ohio State University in the spring and autumn

quarters of 2011.

120

I selected this data collection tool because I was interested in the prospective

teachers’ attitudes toward Latino children’s literature that includes visual religious

content. In comparison with other data collection methods (e.g., observation, interviews)

surveys generate a large amount of standardized data that can be analyzed both

quantitatively and qualitatively. Well-structured surveys allow researchers to draw

accurate conclusions about “institutions and communities by studying individuals and

other components of those communities that represent these entities in a relatively

unbiased and scientifically rigorous manner” (Rea and Parker, 2005, p. 7).

Both the pilot and the main survey consist of several open-ended and closed-

ended questions. While open-ended questions have the advantage of extracting more

information than closed-ended questions, the latter provide the researcher with more

precision and less space for misinterpretation (especially when trying to code complex

open-ended responses).

Limitations

Participant Selection

Since survey respondents were selected based on their availability for the study

(students enrolled in the Introduction to Children’s Literature course), the survey

findings cannot be easily generalized to other populations (e.g., prospective teachers in

another US state). However, the findings reveal important information about these

prospective teachers’ Discourses around Latino children’s literature and religious content.

In the future, the same study could be replicated with different populations to assess how

respondents’ demographics might inform the findings.

121

Research Setting

A potential source of bias is related to the fact that I facilitated the main study as

an instructor-researcher and thus participated in the research setting. While all of the

students agreed to permit their coursework to be used as data for the study, their

responses may have been construed as socially desirable comments that comply with the

Discourse of school. In order to minimize the bias I assured the students (PTs) that their

responses and coursework would not be analyzed until after the completion of the class

and that their grades would not be influenced in anyway by the content of their responses.

I thus encouraged the students to provide honest, candid responses.

Sociocultural theory requires that as an instructor-researcher, I reflect on my own

understanding of the social constructs of my classroom and the student/school

community such that I pause to consider the premises of my framework in order to

accommodate alternative perspectives and realities. According to Baumann and Duffy-

Hester (2002), instructor-researchers are prone to apply their own ideological frameworks

and draw from their previous experiences to pose problems, collect data, and to theorize

responses to inquiries that are local to their classroom context. Hence, I acknowledge that

my methodology and data analysis foreground certain values and orientations that I have

as a researcher while I subjectively background other positions. For example, my

experience as a former “whole language” primary grade teacher in a racially and

linguistically diverse urban California community informs my understanding of culturally

responsive teaching. My hope is that my inquiry project will improve my instructional

122

practices as a teacher educator and provide a forum to engage in the broader conversation

about current theories and research paradigms.

Main Survey Tool Design

Survey questions. A potential source of bias could be related to the wording of

some of the main survey questions. (See the Appendix to view the surveys. Also see

Figure 13, below.) For example, to address Research Questions Three and Four, data

were collected from the following survey questions: “Would you use (title of book) in

your future classroom?” and “If you were to use (title of book) in your future classroom,

how likely would you/comfortable would you feel to discuss the significance of the

religious content?” The word “use” in these questions could be suggestive of a curricular

objective. In contrast, a word such as “include” might yield different results in a future

study.

In addition, the latter of the two questions above varied in presentation across the

three books in the study. For In My Family, the question states: “If you were to use In

My Family with your future students, how likely would you discuss the religious

significance of the water tank painting, ‘The Miracle’?” The question for Friends from

the Other Side differs in asking “If you were to use this book with your future students,

how comfortable would you feel in discussing the religious significance of some of the

paintings and artifacts in the herb woman’s bedroom?” Here, the question asks

participants about their comfort level rather than their likelihood of discussing the

religious content. For Abuelito Eats with His Fingers, the question asks “…how likely

would you initiate a discussion about the meaning of the candles and statues in Abuelito’s

123

house?” This phrasing explicitly regards the initiation of a discussion. Such initiation is

implicit in the first two questions.

Question Sequence. Another source of bias in the data collection of the main

study could also be related to the order in which the questions were presented in the

survey. Questions associated with the picturebook In My Family were presented first

followed by questions for Friends from the Other Side and Abuelito Eats with His

Fingers. The respondents’ consideration of the first book(s) and early questions could

invariably influence their responses to latter questions and book(s).

Main Study Pedagogy and Research Question One

As will be described later in this chapter, a portion of the main study follows the

critical reading pedagogical sequence outlined by McLaughlin & DeVoogd’s (2004).

These teacher educators recommend that readers consider their background and biases to

a text prior to applying a critical reading lens. In the main study sequence, the PTs first

read the picturebooks independently and responded to the survey questions at their leisure

as a homework assignment. Only after examining the critical reading process in class

and learning about the historical, cultural, and social contexts of the picturebooks did the

PTs consider their own backgrounds and biases. Thus, the data collection for Research

Question One, “How do prospective teachers describe their knowledge of and

relationships to the cultures depicted in selected works of Latino children’s literature?”

occurred after the data collection for Research Questions Two and Three and in

conjunction with the data collection for Research Four, “How does applying a critical

lens to a re-reading of a book of one’s choice influence the prospective teachers’

124

interpretations of that book?” (See Appendix K for the critical reading survey

instrument.) As a result, the data set for Research Question One does not reflect the PTs’

background knowledge prior to initiating the survey. Given this limitation, data from the

pilot survey augment the data collection for Research Question One as will be discussed

in Chapter Four.

Duration of Main Study

This study is also limited in that it was confined to a lesson segment of a survey

course in children’s literature. Most of the data set was collected from the PTs’

aforementioned homework assignment. Additional data were collected from the PTs’

two-hour and thirty-minute class session during Week 8 of the course term.

Consequently, as mentioned previously, the findings from this study cannot be

generalized to other populations nor can they be compared with studies that follow

different methodologies. The data set is nonetheless pertinent to the PTs in this study.

Pilot Survey

This next section discusses the pilot survey that preceded the main study. During

the spring quarter of 2011 I conducted this pilot survey with 141 prospective teachers

enrolled in four sections of an undergraduate upper-division course titled Introduction to

Children’s Literature and taught by doctoral students. See Appendix H. The majority of

survey respondents were white women (70%) followed by white men (18%). Figure 1

shows the distribution of race and gender among the pilot study respondents. The

majority of the respondents were between 21 and 23 years old. For the respondents’ age

distribution, see Figure 2 below.

125

Figure 1. Pilot Study Respondents’ Race and Gender. Numbers Indicate How Many Respondents (out of 141) Belong to Each Category.

Figure 2. Pilot Survey Respondents’ Age.

Pilot survey participants were presented with seven images related to different

religions (Jewish menorah, Christian cross and bible, meditating Buddha, Hindu symbol

Om, and Islam’s Quran) and cultures (Virgin of Guadalupe and a decorated skull used

!!"

#" $" %" &"

%$"

&" '" %" '"

!"#$%& '()*+& ,#-%.& /$"%0& 12&

3)*%&)4.&5%4.%0&

()*+,)" -+,)"

!"#$

"%#$

&#$ !#$ '#$ '#$(#$

)(#$

&(#$

*(#$

!"#$%&'(& $!#$)&'(& $*#$+&'(& $,#$-&'(& .)%& /0&

012&

126

during the Day of the Dead in Mexico). Participants were instructed to assume the role of

a local public school teacher as the framework for their survey responses. They were

asked to describe the image and report the likelihood (i.e. Very Un-likely, Somewhat Un-

likely, Somewhat Likely, or Very Likely) that they would read and discuss a children’s or

young adult book featuring such image and why. See Appendix H. Although the

respondents were not specifically asked to recognize and name the symbols depicted in

the images, the majority described images in terms of their cultural and religious

meaning.

Content analysis of the survey results revealed a possible connection between the

participants’ personal beliefs and their rejection of children’s books that include religious

content that differs from their religions. The analysis also showed a possible connection

between teachers’ background (subject-matter) knowledge about the religious visual

content and their likelihood of using children’s books with religions content in their

future classroom. Generally speaking, the latter connection is consistent with the theory

that teachers’ level of subject matter knowledge in any discipline informs the content

teachers will teach, as well as the process and/or pedagogy by which they will teach

(Fisher, Fox, and Paille, 1996; Grossman, Wilson, & Shulman, 1989; Shulman, 1987).

These survey results illustrate how prospective teachers’ subject matter knowledge and

personal orientations toward specific cultural/spiritual content could dictate students’

access to certain works of multicultural children’s literature. See Appendix L for a

diagram that describes this model. With the growing diversity of the United States, these

127

findings are disturbing as they could undermine the call for culturally competent and/or

responsive teachers to enact multicultural education.

Main Study

Given the pilot survey results, and given that the pilot survey questions were

presented as hypothetical propositions, I decided to conduct a new study that addressed

similar questions in the context of actual works of Latino children’s literature. During the

autumn quarter of 2011 I surveyed eighty-three prospective teachers enrolled in the same

course as the respondents of the pilot study. At the time of this study, the children’s

literature course primarily served juniors and seniors who required the class as a

prerequisite to a post-baccalaureate teacher licensure program. Two sections of the

course, Monday afternoon (Mon. PM) and Tuesday morning (Tues. AM), were held at

the main campus of the university located in a major city. The third section of the course,

Tuesday evening (Tues. PM), was held at a regional campus of the university located in a

suburban region. In this study, the survey questions were specifically focused on

prospective teachers’ responses to three works of Latino children literature: In My

Family, Friends from the Other Side, and Abuelito Eats with His Fingers.

Out of 83 respondents two-thirds (67%) were from a metropolitan area and one-

third from a rural area. The demographic background of the survey participants was very

similar to that of a pilot study: out of 83 respondents 70% were white females and 19%

white males. Demographic data was collected during Week 1 as part of an introductory

survey. See Appendix I for the complete survey. See Table 9 for a distribution of race

and gender.

128

Table 9. Respondents’ Race and Gender. Race Female Male Total White 58 16 74 Asian 2 0 2 Black 1 0 1 Chinese 1 0 1 Hispanic 1 0 1 Korean 1 0 1 South African 1 0 1 White/Latin American 1 0 1 White/Puerto Rican 1 0 1 Total 67 16 83

The average age of survey respondents was 22.1 years old. For the age

distribution see Figure 3.

Figure 3. Participants’ Age.

When asked about their career objective nearly eight out of ten respondents (78%)

indicated teacher (not specific). For a full list of career objectives, see Table 10 below.

!"#$

"!#$

%#$ &#$ '#$

(#$

)(#$

'(#$

!(#$

&(#$

"(#$

%(#$

!"#$%&'(& $!#$)&'(& $*#$+&'(& ,)%&'(& ,*%&'(&

-./&

129

Table 10. Participants’ Preferred Career Objectives. Career objective Number of respondents Teacher (general) 66 Teacher (special education) 9 Teacher (middle school) 4 Physical therapy 1 Speech pathologist 1 Non-response 2 Total 83

Respondents further were asked about the preferred career grade. Two out of five

respondents said that they would choose elementary school, about one-fourth of

respondents would choose junior high (27%) and primary grades (25%). For a full list of

responses refer to Figure 4 below.

Figure 4. Respondents’ Preferred Career Grade Level.

!"#

$!#

!!#

$# %#

"#

&#

'#

"&#

"'#

!&#

!'#

$&#

$'#

!"#$%"&'("%)*+' ,-*$*./%"&'+0122-'

34.#2"'1#(1' 5#(1'+0122-' 64-78-*'-*9*-+' :2.;"*+82.+*'

<*+82.)*./+='8"*>*""*)'("%)*'-*9*-'

130

Research Pedagogy

In conducting teacher research, which can facilitate improved teaching and

learning in the classroom (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1993; Lankshear & Knoble, 2004),

the pedagogical objectives for this study expose prospective teachers to accurate and

affirmative works of Latino children’s literature by responsible authors. By critically

reading and discussing Latino children’s books in an introductory survey course of

children’s literature, the participants might increase their appreciation of Latino cultures,

social practices, and belief in the context of a diverse society. This study occurred during

the eighth week of the Introduction to Children’s Literature course, which was structured

according to genre and featured works of multicultural children’s literature each week.

Week 8 was dedicated to understanding critical literacy and examining works of Latino

children’s literature. (See Appendices for materials.)

The pedagogical approach to this study is informed by the critical literacy

pedagogies that are described in Chapter 2. It is also influenced by the conclusions and

implications of the related teacher-research studies that are reviewed in the same chapter.

Specifically, this study was facilitated via the following pedagogical sequence of activity:

1. Prior to the Week 8 class session, prospective teachers (PTs) independently

read the following three picture books in this order: In My Family (Garza, 1996);

Friends from the Other Side (Anzaldúa, 1993); and Abuelito Eats with His

Fingers (Levy, 1999).

2. Using SurveyMonkey, an online, password protected survey tool, the PTs

electronically responded to open-ended questions about their story predictions and

131

interpretations of the picture books, their reading experiences, and their thoughts

on both using the picturebooks and discussing the religious content of the books

in their future classrooms. Explicit questions were developed for each

picturebook. (See Table 11.) This decision was informed by the work of

Hermann-Wilmarth (2010), who found that general questions were not adequate

in engaging the PTs in her children’s literature course in critical discussions, and

the work of Simpson (2006), who argues that instructors need to craft explicit

questions to require students to reflect on specific topics or aspects of the

literature.

3. At the beginning of the Week 8 class session, using chart paper and sticky

notes, PTs responded to six excerpts from professional literature about reading

multiculturally (Hade, 1997), the critical multicultural analysis of children’s

books (Botelho & Rudman, 2009), and the use of critical literacy in the classroom

to support multicultural education (McLaughlin & DeVoogd, 2004). For each

excerpt, a small group of students thematically organized the approximately 30

sticky-note responses and presented their analysis to the class. This was followed

by a whole class discussion in which PTs considered the implications of critical

literacy practices in the classroom.

4. Next, I presented McLaughlin & DeVoogd’s (2004) approach to fostering a

critical reading stance among novice readers. Step 1. Ensure that students posses

the necessary social, cultural, and/or historical contextual knowledge for critically

132

reading a specific text; Step 2. Scaffold students’ learning via a guided practice

sequence such as

(a) describe what it means to be a critical reader;

(b) demonstrate critical reading through a combined read/think-aloud;

(c) guide student practice in asking critical questions such as “Whose voices are

amplified and whose are marginalized or missing?”;

(d) establish time for students to practice independently; and

(e) regroup to reflect on the process.

5. As part of ensuring that the PTs had the necessary social, cultural, and/or

historical contextual knowledge for critically reading a specific text, I delivered a

PowerPoint presentation about the Spanish conquest of Mexico and the

significance of La Virgen de Guadalupe in Mexican and Mexican American

Discourse. Then PTs discussed brief excerpts from Goddess of the Americas

(Castillo, 1996) and Our Lady of Guadalupe (Poole, 1995).

6. Following the next steps in McLaughlin & DeVoogd’s (2004) approach, I

demonstrated my own critical reading of the picture book Talking Eagle and the

Lady of Roses (Córdova, 2011) via a combined read/think-aloud. Then I

distributed copies of The Lady of Guadalupe (dePaola, 1980) and led a guided

practice in critically reading this picture book.

7. As an independent practice in reading critically, the PTs gathered in small

groups of four to critically re-read their choice of one of the following three

133

books: In My Family (Garza, 1996); Friends from the Other Side (Anzaldúa,

1993); and Abuelito Eats with His Fingers (Levy, 1999).

8. After critically re-reading their choice of picture book, the PTs discussed their

responses to the picture book that they initially completed on SurveyMonkey.

9. Finally, they both discussed and responded in writing to a set of reflection

questions about their critical re-reading of the picture books.

Main Study Procedures

The data for this study are drawn from different sources over the pedagogical

sequence of the study. Data were collected in the following order:

• During Week 1: PTs’ independent written responses to the introductory

course survey, which requested demographic information and required

respondents to consider general questions about their future book

selections;

• Prior to Week 8: PTs’ independent written responses to the pre- and post-

reading questions for each book collected electronically via

SurveyMonkey;

• Beginning of Week 8 Session: PT’s written responses and thematic

organization of sticky notes regarding six excerpts about critical literacy

practices from the professional literature;

• During Week 8 Session: Audio recordings of each whole class and small

group discussion over the course of the 2 hr, 18 min session;

134

• End of Week 8 Session: PT’s individual and/or group written reflections

on critically re-reading one of the picture books;

• Throughout Week 8 Session: Teacher-researcher field notes;

• Throughout Course: Teacher-researcher autobiography and journal entries.

Table 11 provides an outline of the rationale for each data source.

135

Table 11. Rationale for Selecting Data Sources. Q 1. How do prospective teachers describe their knowledge of and relationships to the cultures depicted in select works of Latino children’s literature that includes religious content? Data Sources Analysis Question(s) PTs’ written self-descriptions in relation to a book of their choice: In My Family; Friends from the Other Side; or Abuelito Eats with His Fingers

What are the themes of the PTs’ descriptions?

Q 2. What are prospective teachers’ general responses to works of Latino children’s literature that include religious content? Data Sources Analysis Question(s) PTs’ written responses to reading questions: • Describe your general response to In My Family. • Describe your general response to Friends from the Other Side. • Describe your general response to Abuelito Eats with His Fingers.

What topics or themes do the PTs discuss in their general responses to the books?

Q 3. What kinds of stances/subject-positions (Beach, 1997) do prospective teachers adopt in considering the use of each book in their future classrooms? Data Sources Analysis Question(s) PTs’ written responses to reading questions: • Would you use In My Family in your future classroom? Why? • Would you use Friends… in your future classroom? Why? • Would you use Abuelito… in your future classroom? Why?

What are the PTs’ rationales for using or not using the books in their future classrooms?

Q 4. What is the likelihood that prospective teachers would discuss with their future students the religious content of the books in this study? (See Appendix for images of religious content.) Data Sources Analysis Question(s) PTs’ written responses to reading questions • If you were to use Friends with your future students, how comfortable would you feel in discussing the religious significance of some of the paintings and artifacts in the herb woman’s bedroom? Please explain your rationale. • If you were to use Abuelito with your future students, how likely would you initiate a discussion about the meaning of the candles and statues in Abuelito’s house? (See pages 2, 3, and 10.) Please explain your rationale. • If you were to use In My Family with your future students, how likely would you discuss the religious significance of the water tank painting, “The Miracle”?

What are the PTs’ rationales and/or conditions for discussing or not discussing the religious content of the books in their future classrooms?

Q 5. How does applying a critical lens to a re-reading of a book of one’s choice influence the prospective teachers’ interpretations of that book? Data Sources Analysis Question(s) • PTs’ written reflections on re-reading the books in this study with a critical lens. • PTs’ audio recorded group and class discussions about the books

What are the topics or themes of the PTs’ reflections?

Q 6. What kinds of Discourses and figured worlds (Gee, 2011) do prospective teachers construe about Latinos around works of Latino children’s literature that includes visual religious content? Data Sources Analysis Question(s) • All PTs’ written responses to reading and reflection questions

What Discourse or Discourses are involved? What Conversations are relevant to understanding the language? What figured worlds, if any, are relevant and/or being used to make value judgments about oneself or others?

136

Selection of Latino Children’s Literature

As mentioned earlier, each of the picture books selected for this study contains

visual religious content. Specifically, images of La Virgen de Guadalupe appear at least

twice in each of the stories. In two of the picture books, In My Family and Abuelito Eats

with His Fingers, Guadalupe and/or the religious images and artifacts are likewise

mentioned in the text. In addition to having common religious content, each of the three

books is about familial experiences, and each is explicitly set in the United States.

Anzaldúa (1993) tells her readers that Friends from the Other Side is set in South Texas

near the U.S.-Mexico border. Similarly, Garza (1996) tells her readers that In My Family

is specifically set in Kingsville, also near the border in South Texas. Abuelito Eats with

His Fingers is set in a region of the U.S. where English-speaking protagonist Tina has a

friend whose famous grandfather drives a corvette and has a large swimming pool.

Parallel culture and critical fiction literature. These three stories are also

representative of the category of multicultural children’s literature specifically reserved

for insider writers, who best represent the collective consciousness, lived experiences,

and self-image of their cultural groups (Cai & Sims Bishop, 1997). Cai and Sims Bishop

(1997) recommend that teachers primarily select books from this category of parallel

culture literature by insider authors for use in the classroom. I also see that, in addition to

being works of parallel culture literature, at least two of these books, In My Family and

Friends from the Other Side, are “critical fictions” (Mariani, 1991). Critical fictions are:

137

those literary texts that speak about the political, social and cultural

experiences of the authors and the communities they represent. Critical

fictions often feature the voices of those authors from underrepresented

and marginalized communities where their writing works as an agent of

liberation to claim a space in society, including a literary community that

has been dominated by white male perspectives. (Medina, 2006, p. 72)

In My Family. As an artist and author whose work is inspired by her memories

and experiences growing up in South Texas, Garza started her work toward claiming a

space in society for Mexican Americans early in life. According to her website, Garza

(2012) “saw the need to create images that would elicit recognition and appreciation

among Mexican Americans, both adults and children, while at the same time serve as a

source of education for others not familiar with our culture” (para. 1). The primary

objective of her work is to foster pride in Mexican American history and culture as part

of American society (Garza, 2012). Thus it makes sense that Garza (1996) dedicated In

My Family to her nieces, nephews, and other children who will see themselves in her

paintings.

Friends from the Other Side. In her preface to Friends from the Other Side,

Anzaldúa’s (1993) tells readers:

I grew up in South Texas, close to the Rio Grande, the Mexican-U.S. border.

When I was a young girl, I saw many women and children who had crossed to

this side to get work because there was none in Mexico. Many of them got wet

while crossing the river, so some people on this side who didn’t like them called

138

them “wetbacks” or “mojados.” This is the story of Prietita, a brave young

Mexican American girl, and her new friend Joaquín, a Mexican boy from the

other side of the river. (p. 3)

Anzaldúa, renown Latina feminist writer, speaks to the political, social, and

cultural experiences of U.S.-born Americans of Mexican heritage and immigrants of

Mexican heritage who risk their lives to cross the Rio Grande for the promise of work

and a better life. In this story, Anzaldúa provides a counter narrative to the Latino Threat

Narrative. The child Joaquín and his mother are bueña gente, good Christian people as

conveyed by the religious artifacts they have collected (Lopez & Serrato, 2001). They

are not invading aliens implied by the Latino Threat Narrative (LTN), nor are they taking

jobs away from Americans. Rather, they are the kind of people who would be nice

friends and neighbors.

Abuelito Eats with His Fingers. Finally, in Abuelito Eats with His Fingers

author Janice Levy, who is fluent in both Spanish and English, tells a generational story

that, intentionally or unintentionally, alludes to the experiences of some Latino families

in trying to conform to what Santa Ana (2002) calls the “Anglo-American narrative”

(AAN) (p. 289). Santa Ana argues that in order for persons of Latino heritage to “prove

their loyalty to the hegemony of Anglo-American culture” (p. 289), they must embrace

the AAN in three ways. They must: (a) present themselves as monolingual English

speakers; (b) present themselves as white-identified by rejecting all “foreign” qualities

associated with being from Latin America; and (c) try to become white is as many ways

139

as possible, which includes accepting that racial hierarchy that ranks white Americans

superior to Americans of darker skin tone (Santa Ana, 2002).

In Abuelito Eats with His Fingers, Levy tells the story of Tina, a monolingual

English-speaking girl of Latino heritage, who must spend the day with her monolingual

Spanish-speaking grandfather, Abuelito. As the story opens, Tina dislikes and rejects

everything “foreign” about Abuelito, from his language, to his fried bananas, to his

candles and statues in every room. She cannot wait to get out of his house. Tina’s

behavior is entirely consistent with the three criteria for being loyal to the AAN. Santa

Ana (2002) argues that such acculturation often divides generations. He sees that as

children like Tina become linguistically and culturally separated from their grandparents

and parents, families are more likely to be severed.

Metaphorically, Levy describes how Tina transcends her allegiance to the AAN

throughout the story by getting to know Abuelito, embracing her Spanish heritage

language, and coming to appreciate everything that she once thought was “foreign” about

her grandfather. The story ends with hope that Tina’s family will not fall victim to the

AAN. In this sense, then, Abuelito Eats with His Fingers is likewise a work of critical

fiction.

All three books could thus be considered works of critical fiction that are also

works of parallel culture literature. In selecting these books for this study, the prospective

teachers were not only introduced to the lived family experiences of American children

of Latino heritage. They were also exposed to three compelling counter narratives to the

dominant Discourse about Latinos.

140

Data Analysis

This study employs Gee’s (2011) concepts of figured worlds, Discourses, and

Conversations as tools of inquiry for analyzing the data sources. The study also employs

the tools of quantitative content analysis and thematic network analysis (Attride-Stirling,

2001).

Figured worlds, Discourses, and Conversations

Gee (2011) identifies six different tools of inquiry: situated meanings, social

languages, figured worlds, intertexuality, Discourses, and Conversations. He argues that

these six concepts “are tools of inquiry in the sense that they lead us as discourse analysts

to ask specific sorts of questions about our data” (p. 214). As tools, they act as “thinking

devices” (p. 60) that guide the analysis of pieces of written and oral language, such as the

written response and class discussions of the PTs in this study. While all of the tools are

important, three are especially relevant to this study: figured worlds, Discourses, and

Conversations.

As discussed in earlier chapters, a figured world is a notion or taken for granted

assumption about “normal” behavior, attitudes, events, people, things, and the like. A

Discourse is “a socially accepted association among ways of using language and other

symbolic expressions of thinking, feeling, believing, valuing, and acting, as well as using

various tools… to identify oneself as a member of a socially meaningful group” (Gee,

2008, p. 161). Conversations are popular public debates and arguments that are

recognized by many people. These three tools of inquiry lead me ask the following of

Gee’s questions to guide my data analysis: a) What Discourse or Discourses are

141

involved? b) What Conversations are relevant to understanding the language? c) What

figured worlds, if any, are relevant and/or being used to make value judgments about

oneself or others?

Quantitative Content Analysis

Quantitative content analysis, as described by Krippendorff (2004) is founded on

the premise that text (written or spoken) “is produced by someone to have meanings for

someone else, and these meanings therefore must not be ignored and must not violate

why the text exists in the first place” (p. 19). Krippendorff (2004) explains that content

analysts infer the answers to their particular research questions via “the systemic reading

of a body of texts [to] narrow the range of possible inferences concerning unobserved

facts, intentions, mental states, effects, prejudices, planned actions, and antecedent or

consequent conditions” (p. 25).

In this study, systemic reading of the data serves to narrow the possible range of

inferences concerning figured worlds, Discourse, and Conversations. It also produces the

quantifiable “numbers” that represent the frequencies of certain kinds of themes across

the PTs’ written responses. Gee (2011) suggests that discourse analysts “use numbers

simply to guide us in terms of hypotheses that we can investigate through close scrutiny

of the actual details and content [of the text]” (p. 154). The numbers that result from the

quantitative content analysis of the PTs’ responses serve as a springboard for the

discussion of hypotheses in the last chapter.

142

Thematic Network Analysis

Thematic network analysis, as a qualitative methodology, specifically focuses on

the technique for organizing, structuring, and depicting the themes that are presented in

the data. This approach is similar to Corbin and Strauss’ (1990) grounded theory

methodology that examines data at the levels of concepts, categories, and propositions It

does not, however, endeavor to reveal the beginning or end of an argument or rationale

(Attride-Sterling, 2001). The benefit of employing a thematic network strategy is in the

production of a “web-like network as an organizing principle and a representational

means… [as] it makes explicit the procedures that may be employed in going from text to

interpretation” (Attride-Stirling, 2001, p. 388).

Attride-Stirling’s (2001) thematic network approach represents a three-stage

process: a) the reduction of the text; b) the exploration of the text; and c) the

amalgamation of the exploration. In order to progress through the stages, I see that

analysts can frame their iterative readings of the text around the principles of critical

literacy. In reading the text with a critical lens, analysts might recognize their own

subjectivities to substantiate the underlying assumptions of the themes in the data.

After establishing codes and a coding framework, Attride-Stirling’s (2001)

approach begins with the identification of “Basic Themes” in the data. These are the

most basic, lowest-order themes that are founded in a particular idea. Once the Basic

Themes are identified, they are grouped into categories that represent the main concept of

the related low-order themes. This categorization requires the researcher to probe the

underlying assumptions of the low-level themes to establish a common “Organizing

143

Theme” that unites and summarize the quality of the grouping. Finally, the Organizing

Themes are categorized in terms of “macro themes that summarize and make sense of

clusters of lower-order themes abstracted from and supported by the data.” (p. 389) As a

result, the Global Themes reveal the collective tenets of the data within the constructs of

the analysis.

Given the specificity of the research questions for this study, I have applied

different levels of Attride-Stirling’s (2001) thematic network analysis to address each

inquiry of the data. This process necessitated extensive iterative readings of the data. It

also required a rigorous and regimented approach to ensuring that each code represents a

concise definition and set of parameters that are neither redundant nor interchangeable

with any other code.

Code Validity

To ensure the validity of the codes and coding framework, I worked closely with

peer debriefer Ausra Padskocimaite, a quantitative social scientist whose research focuses

on human rights issues. Padskocimaite did not have prior knowledge about the topic and

helped to reduce the possibilities for cognitive bias in the coding procedure. She offered

an alternative perspective and thoughtful feedback. We engaged in multiple analytic

discussions about the merits, variations, consistencies, and potential biases of each code

across the data set. For example, the codes for PTs’ religion-based objections to using the

picturebooks in the classroom underwent a series of revisions to fully capture the nuances

of the PTs’ sentiments and concerns. In the first round of coding, “No religion in school”

served as a general marker for any PT who expressed concern over discussing religious

144

content in school. Over the course of iterative readings and conversation, this single code

evolved into multiple codes:

a) Discussing religion makes me uncomfortable/confused

b) I would not discuss religion (general – no rationale)

c) I would not discuss religions that contradict my beliefs

d) Little/no religion permitted in public schools (expectation)

e) Observe Separation of Church & State (specifically cited in rationale)

f) Religion does not belong in school (statement of opinion)

g) Parents teach religion (not teachers)

As a result of a rigorous protocol, the codes and coding framework, which are

based on the inquiry objective and the recurrent topics in the data set, are both explicit

and limited to the scope and focus of the study. Only after the completion of this process

were the codes applied for analysis.

Common Codes for Separate Analyses

For Research Questions 1 - 5, the data sets for In My Family, Friends from the

Other Side, and Abuelito Eats with His Fingers are analyzed separately because each

book contains unique content. For consistency and comparisons across the books,

however, each of the analyses draws from the same body of codes. Give the narrow scope

of the data set for each book, the Basic Themes level of analysis is descriptive.

The analysis for Research Question 6, which regards the figured world PTs

construe around Latinos in response to works of Latino children’s literature, draws from

the data that reference (explicitly and/or implicitly) Latinos, Hispanics, Mexicans, or

145

Mexican-Americans. These references are used interchangeably among the PTs with

regard to the characters in each of the books. Most of this data was included among

popular Basic Themes for Questions 1 – 5 such as Family life, traditions, relationships,

childhood and Foster cultural awareness. This new data set was reduced in analyzing

each response according to this question: “What figured worlds, if any, are relevant

and/or being used to make value judgments about oneself or others?” After this inquiry

step, the process for developing new Basic Themes and Organizing Themes ensued.

The next chapter shows the results for all of the analyses for the Research Questions.

146

CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

This chapter discusses the data sets for each of the six research questions:

• Question One. How do prospective teachers describe their knowledge of and

relationships to the cultures depicted in select works of Latino children’s literature

that includes religious content (In My Family; Friends from the Other Side;

Abuelito Eats with His Fingers)?

• Question Two. What are prospective teachers’ general responses to works of

Latino children’s literature that include religious content?

• Question Three. What kinds of stances/subject-positions (Beach, 1997) do

prospective teachers adopt in considering the use of each book in their future

classrooms?

• Question Four. How does applying a critical lens to a re-reading of a book of

one’s choice (In My Family; Friends from the Other Side; or Abuelito Eats with

His Fingers) influence the prospective teachers’ interpretations of that book?

• Question Five. What is the likelihood that prospective teachers would discuss

with their future students the religious content of the books in this study?

• Question Six: What kinds of Discourses and figured worlds (Gee, 2011) do

prospective teachers construe about Latinos around works of Latino children’s

literature that includes visual religious content?

147

Research Question One

How do prospective teachers (PTs) describe their knowledge of and relationships to

the cultures depicted in select works of Latino children’s literature that includes

religious content (In My Family; Friends from the Other Side; Abuelito Eats with His

Fingers)?

This first question of the study considers the kind of experiences the PTs bring to

reading Latino children’s literature that includes visual religious content. As presented in

the Methodology section, 70% of the PTs in the study were white women and 19% were

white males, totaling 89% of the respondents. These demographics are consistent with

the national statistics on public school teachers in which 83% of K-12 teachers are white,

non-Hispanic (U.S. DOE, 2008). As prospective teachers, 88% were age 23 or younger.

This inquiry into PTs background knowledge was conducted during the Week 8 session

of an undergraduate survey of children’s literature course as part of a critical reading

strategy (McLaughlin & DeVoogd, 2004). As the first step to this strategy, the PTs were

provided background information about the historical/cultural significance of the La

Virgen de Guadalupe. Then, the critical reading process was modeled through a

read/think-aloud of Talking Eagle and the Lady of Roses (Córdova, 2011) and was

followed by a guided practice with The Lady of Guadalupe (dePaola, 1980).

Prospective Teachers’ Background Knowledge

After these initial steps and upon initiating their own independent critical re-

reading of In My Family, Friends from the Other Side, or Abuelito Eats with His Fingers,

the PTs described their background knowledge relative to the stories. The themes of their

responses are described in Figure 5.

148

Figure 5. Respondents’ Background Knowledge of Mexican and Mexican American Cultures. Numbers Indicate How Many of the 68 Respondents Selected Each Answer.

Having just learned about the historical, cultural, and religious significance of La

Virgen de Guadalupe (Guadalupe) in the first part of the Week 8 class session, about one-

fifth the 68 PTs who participated in the reflection activity, not surprisingly, stated that

they were familiar with Guadalupe (22%) during the latter part of the session. Given the

timing of this data collection and potential bias of the PTs, the finding from the pilot

study, described in the methods section, augments this data set.

As a point of comparison, only 6 out of 141 respondents in the pilot survey, who

shared the same demographics as the PTs, accurately identified an image of Guadalupe.

Pilot survey results show that while 83% of respondents could identify a cross and a bible

as Christian symbols, only 4% recognized La Virgin de Guadalupe. The majority of

!"#

!$#

%#

%#

%#

&#

'#

(#

$#

$#

)#

!#

!#

!#

!#

*# (# %# !)# !'#

+#,-#.,-/0/,1#2/34#5/16/7#8.#9:,;,0:<=#

>8#?,@A618:7;#A7820=;6=#

B<,7/C4#0,76:,6=#@0,CC#

DE8;,FGC#@0,CCD#

>87H1=C<87C=#

B8:1@=#783#C<=@/I=;#

B@4880J:7/K=1C/3F#

+#,-#.,-/0/,1#2/34#L,3480/@/C-#

M=N/@,7#.88;#

M=N/@,7JO/C<,7/@JP,Q78#.1/=7;C#

E1,K=0C#38#P,Q7#R-=1/@,#

+#,-#M=N/@,7JP,Q78JO/C<,7/@#

+#,-#.,-/0/,1#2/34#S,F#8.#34=#S=,;#

M=;/,#

MF#827#1=C=,1@4#

!"#$%&'"&(#)*+,-./0%1&'*2&%34"'/"*

149

respondents (69%) described the image of La Virgen de Guadalupe as a “Catholic

symbol” or “Virgin Mary,” but did not provide Guadalupe’s actual name. See Figure 6.

Figure 6. Pilot Survey Respondents’ Recognition of Guadalupe.

Returning to the PTs who participated in the Week 8 reflection activity, it is also

not surprising that eight respondents (12%) described the source of their knowledge as

Spanish classes or “today’s class.” What is remarkable about this data set is the variety of

sources that support the PTs’ background knowledge. One PT stated that she did not

have any background knowledge because, “I am an American and I am not related to

anyone and do not know much about the culture.” In this statement, the PT seems to

suggest that as an “American” she does not have contact with persons of Mexican

heritage. Other PTs draw from multiple sources such as food, travel, friends to inform

their notions of what constitutes Mexican/Hispanic/Latino culture. These sources could

work in tandem with dominant Discourse to shape the PTs’ figured worlds in defining,

for example, the “typical” Mexican-American family.

!"#

$%"#

&'"#&("#

'"#

&'"#

)'"#

*'"#

!'"#

+'"#

$'"#

('"#

,'"#

!"#$ %&'"()*+$ ,&$ ,&-./"#0&-#"$

1&$2"#0&-3"-+#$2"4&5-67"$86256-$&9$:;*3*<;0"=$

150

Research Question Two

What are prospective teachers’ general responses to works of Latino children’s

literature that include religious content?

This second question of the study considers the PTs general response to the three

picture books, In My Family, Friends from the Other Side, and Abuelitio Eats with His

Fingers. This question was addressed in the PTs’ written descriptions of their general,

open-ended responses to In My Family, Friends from the Other Side, and Abuelito Eats

with His Fingers. For each book, the themes and comments of the PTs responses are

described below.

In My Family

Given the nature of Carmen Lomas Garza’s paintings and stories about her

childhood in Kingsville, Texas, 40% of all of the PTs mentioned the themes of family.

(See Table 12.) Even more respondents (45%) described personal connections they made

to Garza’s family story and celebrations, and 12% described Garza’s stories as being

relatable. For example, one respondent writes, “Our cultures are relatable, even if we

aren’t doing the same things.” Another suggests, “I too have a very large family. We

have many family get-togethers with lots of people and more food than anyone can eat.”

A third person offers, “This book made me think of how different a Spanish home is and

how much a like it is to ours. Their families get together to eat and celebrate and so do

we.”

Nearly half (46%) of all respondents also suggest that In My Family provides a

window into a different culture. At the same time, 12% reported that they could not

relate to the story. One respondent writes, “the experiences of children growing up

151

Mexican are so different than the ones I had.” Another reports, “This book led me to

think about the differences between our culture and Mexican culture. I realized that there

were a great deal of differences.” A different PT suggests, “I would use this book because

of all the different ways it talks about [sic]. It is just a good way to show different

cultures.” In short, the PTs’ general responses most frequently regarded comparisons of

the similarities and differences between Garza’s family and the readers’ figured worlds

for “typical families” and “typical ways of being together.” Among other common

responses, 18% liked the family album quality of In My Family while 6% did not.

152

Table 12. Respondents’ General Response to the Book In My Family.

General response to In My Family: Respondents (Total 83)

Themes: Culture/traditions: 38 (46%)

• Other/different 26 (31%) • Mexican/Hispanic/Latino 13 (16%)

Family life, traditions, relationships, childhood: 33 (40%) • General 27 (33%) • Mexican/Hispanic/Latino 6 (7%)

Healer/Herb Woman 2 (2%) Hardship/struggle in life (general) 2 (2%) La Llorona 1 (1%) Non-traditional medicine/treatment (earache) 1 (1%) Immigration: General 1 (1%) Other comments: Personal connection: 37 (45%)

• Family life 30 (36%) • Traditions/holidays 17 (20%) • Feelings/experiences 3 (4%) • Religion 1 (1%)

Like the style/format/content of book 15 (18%) No personal connection 10 (12%) Relatable/interesting for the reader: 10 (12%)

• General 8 (10%) • Relatable for the reader (traditions/holidays) 1 (1%)

Dislike the style/format/content of book 5 (6%) Book is suitable for ESL/Mexican/Spanish-speaking readers 2 (2%) Not exciting 2 (2%) Questionable content: La Llorona 1 (1%)

Students might not relate/be interested in story 1 (1%) Empathize with characters' struggles in story 1 (1%)

Friends from the Other Side

When asked about their thoughts on the book Friends From The Other Side,

nearly one fourth of respondents talked about helping/treating other people with kindness

153

(24%) and standing up to bullying/being brave (24%). With respect to other comments,

about one fourth (23%) of respondents said that they could not connect to the story and

about one fifth (18%) of all respondents said they had a personal connection to the story.

(See Table 13 below.)

The most common themes to emerge from the PTs’ responses to Friends from the

Other Side are about immigration (55%). Among the various lenses that the respondents

apply to immigration, by far the most frequent is undocumented or “illegal” immigration,

representing 22% of the respondents. All of these respondents used the term “illegal” to

describe Joaquin and his mother’s crossing of the Rio Grande from Mexico into the U.S.

For example, one respondent writes, “I found this book relevant to current issues because

illegal immigration is a hot topic in the political world.” Another reports, “I liked the

story. I feel this makes everyone think of real reasons why there are so many illegals

coming into America.” Lastly, a PT reflects, “Again, I couldn't really relate to any of the

characters in the story, but the examination of the border patrol's hunt for illegal

immigrants from a child's perspective was interesting.” Of note, this PT’s presumably

unconscious use of the word “hunt” is disturbing, as it suggests an association of

immigrants from Mexico with animals. Santa Ana (2002) argues that the use of animal

metaphors is likewise employed in dominant Discourse to fan anti-Latino sentiment by

some politicians.

154

Table 13. Respondents’ General Response to the Book Friends from the Other Side. General response to Friends from the Other Side: Respondents

(Total 83) Themes: Immigration: 46 (55%)

• Hardship/struggle in life (Mexican immigrant) 20 (24%) • Immigration: Undocumented/illegal 18 (22%) • Immigration: Alternative perspective 9 (11%) • Immigration: Causes 9 (11%) • Immigration: Border Patrol 7 (8%) • Immigration: General 6 (7%) • Immigration: Mexican 4 (5%) • Immigrants are like Jews/Slaves/Japanese 3 (4%)

Helping and/or treating people who are different/in need with kindness 20 (24%) Standing-up to bullying/being brave 20 (24%) Friendship: 14 (17%)

• General 7 (8%) • Friends helping/supporting each other 7 (8%) • With people who are different 3 (4%)

Acceptance/respect for others 9 (11%) Healer/Herb Woman 7 (8%) Mexicans and Mexican Americans support each other 5 (6%) Hardship/struggle in life (general) 3 (4%) Family life, traditions, relationships, childhood: 3 (4%)

• General 2 (2%) • Mexican/Hispanic/Latino 1 (1%)

Mexican/Hispanic/Latino culture/traditions 2 (2%) Other/different culture/traditions 1 (1%) Other comments:

No personal connection 19 (23%) Personal connection: 15 (18%)

• Feelings/experiences 9 (11%) • Not specified 6 (7%)

Empathize with characters' struggles in story 6 (7%) Students should know about national/regional issues 4 (5%) Dislike the style/format/content of book 2 (2%) Topic is not for kids (immigration) 2 (2%) Questionable content: racial slurs 2 (2%) Book is suitable for ESL/Mexican/Spanish-speaking readers 2 (2%) Book has/promotes a good message/lesson 1 (1%) I like the style/format/content of book 1 (1%) Students might not relate/be interested in story 1 (1%)

155

Despite the PTs’ responses, nowhere in Friends does Anzaldúa use the term

“illegal.” Rather, this is an instance when knowledge of the national Conversation (with

a capital C) (Gee, 2011) regarding immigration and the border is necessary to understand

the context of the PTs’ remarks. In the Conversation, the terms “illegal” and “aliens” are

most frequently used to describe immigrants from Mexico in the dominant Discourse

(Chavez, 2008; Chomsky, 2007; Santa Anna, 2002). As described by Chomsky (2007),

“Mexicans cross the border ‘illegally’ because they are not allowed to cross the border

legally. The law discriminates by making it illegal for some people who do what is

perfectly legal for others” (p. 187). Unfortunately, the data in this study does not reveal

whether the respondents are aware of the historical/political circumstances, which lead

them to render Joaquin and his mother “illegal.” The data for this particular research

question does show that at least a couple of people are concerned that the Conversation

about immigration is controversial and is not a topic for kids.

As immigration is a “hot topic” in the public arena, it is perhaps not surprising

that nearly one quarter of the respondents focused on the moral theme of helping and/or

treating people who are different with kindness. One respondent says that she “liked how

the issue addressed in the book is based upon characters helping each other out, and how

doing good things for other people can be something that is difficult at times, but is very

helpful for those people.” A PT who made a personal connection to the story adds that,

like Prietita who helped Joaquin, “One way I could relate was by being the girl who stood

up for and helped those who are less fortunate.”

156

An additional quarter of respondents discussed the importance of standing-up to

bullies just as Prietita stood up to her bully cousins who picked on Joaquin. In response

to the story, one PT writes, “this book really talked about morals and how important it is

to stick up for people when they need someone.” Another PT shares that her favorite part

of the story regards “the way Prietita stood up for her new friend Joaquin. I think this is

an important message to share with children, not only how bullying can hurt feelings but

about having the courage to do what’s right.” Acceptance and respect for others and

friendship were likewise themes that appeared among some responses: “The text had a

great theme. I believe it was to accept everyone and that we are all human” and “I

thought the book was good and it really showed the value of friendship.”

Abuelito Eats with His Fingers

Nearly two thirds of the responses (64%) to Abuelito Eats with His Fingers

included comments about how Tina, the young girl in the story, transcends her rejection

of her Spanish-speaking grandfather as a foreigner such that she can embrace her

Abuelito and the cultural heritage he maintains. (See Table 14 below.)

157

Table 14. Respondents’ General Response to the Book Abuelito Eats With His Fingers.

General response to Abuelito Eats With His Fingers: Respondents (Total 83)

Themes: Communication/language 14 (17%) Acceptance/respect for others 13 (16%) Family life, traditions, relationships, childhood (general) 10 (12%) Comparing yourself to others 8 (10%) Culture/traditions: 5 (6%)

• Mexican/Hispanic/Latino culture/traditions 4 (5%) • Other/different culture/traditions 1 (1%)

Elders are source of knowledge/should be respected 3 (4%) Exposure to your own culture 3 (4%) Overcoming generation gaps 2 (2%) Other comments: Comments about Tina and Abuelito: 53 (64%)

• Development of Tina’s and Abuelito’s relationship 40 (48%) • Tina's negative feelings towards Abuelito 10 (12%) • Tina's relationship with Abuelito (general) 3 (4%) • Comments about Abuelito 2 (2%)

Personal connection: 32 (39%) • Grandparents 24 (29%) • Not specified 3 (4%) • Feelings/experiences 3 (4%) • Family life 2 (2%)

Relatable/interesting for the reader: 7 (8%) • General 4 (5%) • Relatable for the reader (feelings/experiences) 2 (2%) • Relatable for the reader (grandparents) 1 (1%)

No personal connection 4 (5%) Book has/promotes a good message/lesson 2 (2%) Dislike the style/format/content of book 1 (1%)

The PTs offered various comments on Tina’s transformation. “I thought this book

was clever. The way it transitioned from Cristina disliking her grandfather and visiting

with him to her enjoying the visit was fun to watch and experience with her,” writes one

respondent. Another shares that Abuelito Eats with His Fingers was her “favorite story

out of the three books.” She adds, “many children don't look forward to their

158

grandparents house but I thought the way the author shows Cristina's process of

becoming close, even with the language gap, was very interesting.” Congruently, 39% of

the PTs made personal connections to the story regarding their experiences with their

grandparents. One respondent writes, “I can relate to this book because my Oma

(grandmother in German) lived with my grandparents. . . . She spoke German and had

very little broken English. . . . it was just weird at times because I was young and didn’t

appreciate or understand the beauty of the situation.” “My grandfather is from Peru,”

reveals another respondent. Like Abuelito, “his house always stunk and he ate weird

food. I thought the little girl was going to complain the whole time…” Recalling her

grandparents, yet another PT shares, “Everything that Cristina did with Abuelito is

reminiscent of things I have done with my own grandparents, such as cooking, drawing,

and seeing things that belonged to family members who are now gone. I enjoyed this

personal connection to the story.”

The theme of communication and language was also common to 17% of the

respondents. “I especially liked that while there was a language barrier between Cristina

and her grandfather, they were still able to communicate and have a nice time,” one PT

comments. In contrast, another respondent was “surprised that the two main characters

spoke different languages yet were still able to communicate and have a wonderful day

together.” Someone else adds, “This book led me to think about how hard it must be to

try and interact with a family member who does not speak your language.” Comments

like this suggest that in the respondents’ figured worlds, encounters between people who

speak different languages are not typically “wonderful.” Thus, Tina and Abuelito’s

159

capacity to overcome their language barriers offers a surprising counter narrative to some

PTs.

Finally, Tina’s negative feelings toward Abuelito at the beginning of the story

also made for a popular topic among 12% of respondents. Some of the PTs were

dismayed: “I think the girl had prejudgments of her grandfather before getting to know

him;” “The start of the book surprised me how she [Tina] is just putting her Grandpa

down the whole time;” “She was very negative about him;” “[It] surprised me that this

little girl hated or didn't like going to her grandfathers place;” and “[Tina] did not like to

visit her grandfather. . . . This just makes me wonder why she wouldn't like that.” In each

of these responses, the PTs seem to assume what Beach (1997) calls an “individual

prejudice” stance, discussed in Chapter 2. From this stance, readers view prejudice as a

problem that varies from person to person rather than a pervasive institutional issue.

Much like the young boy in the 1980s Public Service Announcement (PSA) who

refers to a boy, Jimmy, as “one of my Jewish friends” and who is diagnosed as being

prejudiced by his grandfather, some of the PTs appear to make the same diagnosis of

Tina. Only one person wonders why Tina wouldn’t like visiting her grandfather. As a

work of critical fiction (Mariani, 1991), which speaks to the political, social, and cultural

experiences of the Mexican-American community, Abuelito Eats with His Fingers

illustrates the way Tina’s behavior is a reflection of the institutional rejection of

monolingual Spanish speakers who maintain the traditions of their home countries. In the

context of the Anglo-American narrative (Santa Ana, 2002), Tina’s initial rebuff of

Abuelito, his language, and her cultural heritage are necessary for Tina to access and

160

establish membership in the dominant social group of which her friend Hope and Hope’s

famous grandfather are, presumably, established members.

Of note, although Tina shifts her attitudes and behaviors over the course of the

story, she is nonetheless cast in the same lot as the bully Tete in Anzaldúa’s Friends from

the Other Side. Per many of the comments about bullying, Tete is likewise diagnosed as

having an individual prejudice disorder by which he is cruel and harasses Joaquin for no

apparent reason. Just as in the responses to Abuelito Eats with His Fingers, none of the

PTs recognize that Tete is an acculturated manifestation of American institutionalized

prejudice against Mexican immigrants. This is despite the fact that in her author’s note to

readers, Anzaldúa alludes to the way some people in the U.S. call Mexican immigrants

“wetbacks.” Like Tina, who is initially loyal to the hegemony of American Discourse,

Tete rejects foreigners and rebuffs any association with his Mexican heritage. Unlike

Tina, however, Tete does not transcend his behavior over the course of the story.

Comparison Across Books

Survey findings indicate that two and a half times more respondents connected to

In My Family than to Friends from the Other Side. See Figure 7.

161

Figure 7. Respondents’ Personal Connection to Books.

While in Abuelito Eats with His Fingers and In My Family the respondents’

personal connections generally regarded experiences with grandparents, family, and

family traditions, the respondents’ personal connections to Friends from the Other Side

were about experiences of being bullied or standing up for other people. Table 15

highlights the most popular themes in each of the books for a side-by-side comparison:

Table 15. Most Popular Themes. In My Family: % Culture/traditions 46% Personal connection to story 45% Family life, traditions, relationships, childhood 40% Friends from the Other Side: % Immigration 55% Helping and/or treating people who are different/in need with kindness 24% Standing-up to bullying/being brave 24% Abuelito Eats with His Fingers %

Comments about Tina and Abuelito 64% Personal connection to story 39% Communication/language 17%

!"#$

%&#$

'(#$

)#$

')#$

*)#$

%)#$

!)#$

")#$

!"#$%&$'()*+&!$ !,-./+*01$2(03$4*05$6*3$'*#7/83!$

!'8*/#93$:81)$05/$;05/8$<*9/!$

=/831#(+$>1##/>?1#$01$-11@3$

162

More comparisons between the books will be made in the upcoming discussions

of Research Questions 3 and 4. To summarize, the themes of family and cultural

difference were prominent among the PT responses to In My Family. In addition to the

varying themes on immigration, which necessitate knowledge of the national

Conversation about undocumented immigration, respondents to Friends from the Other

Side focused on the themes of morality in helping others and standing up to bullies.

Finally, nearly half of the PTs were interested in the development of Tina’s relationship

with her grandfather in Abulelito Eats with His Fingers.

Research Question Three

What kinds of stances/subject-positions (Beach, 1997) do prospective teachers adopt

in considering the use of each book in their future classrooms?

The next section discusses the data that was collected from the PTs’ written

responses to the post-reading question: “Would you use this book (In My Family;

Friends from the Other Side; Abuelito Eats with His Fingers) in your future classroom?

Why or why not?” This question, as well as Research Question 4, requires the PTs to run

what Gee (2011) calls a prototypical simulation in their minds, in which they envision

themselves teaching in their future classrooms. Prototypical simulations provide a means

for us to think about and prepare for in-the-moment and future interactions in the world.

Using the example of a wedding, Gee (2011) suggests that the simulations we create in

our minds are not “neutral.” They are actually perspectives or worldviews about what

one construes to be a “typical” wedding, which differs from one social or cultural group

to the next. According to Gee (2011):

163

Since we take the prototype simulations to capture what is “typical,” we often use

these prototypes to judge features of our more special-purpose simulations [such

as a wedding between two men]. . . . Simulations are the way the mind handles

figured worlds. . . . In many cases, individuals do not know all the elements of a

figured world, but get parts of it from books, media, or other people as they need

to know more. (p. 81)

In asking the PTs whether they would use the books in the classroom, they might

have to run a more special-purpose simulation for using books that regard experiences

and social customs that may be unfamiliar to them or may relate to heated national

Conversations about immigration and/or the role of religion in public education as

examined in Research Question 4. Because the PTs may not know all of the elements of

a figured world for teaching with books like In My Family, Friends from the Other Side,

and Abuelito Eats with His Fingers, they might rely on what they can infer from other

people, media, and the social practices around them. PTs might especially rely on the

models of their former K–12 teachers by tapping into their personal educational histories

(Britzman, 1986) or apprenticeships of observation (Lortie, 1975) to construe a figured

world for using these books. When the sources of the PTs’ inferences share the same

social, cultural, and/or political views as the PT, they could reinforce the PTs’ pre-

existing perspectives rather than challenge or offer alternative lenses to their figured

worlds for what is “typical” or “normal.”

164

In My Family

The PTs were asked whether they would use the book, In My Family, in their

future classroom. The majority of respondents (74%) said that they would be willing to

use this book, 11 (13%) respondents answered negatively and 11 (13%) respondents said

that they would use the book under certain conditions (“I would be more willing to use

this if I have students from Mexico or who celebrate these traditions”). See Figure 9

below.

Figure 8. Respondents’ Willingness to Use Book In My Family in Their Future Classroom.

Arguments for using book in the classroom. As described above, 74% of the

PTs see themselves using In My Family in their simulations for future classroom

teaching. Below, Table 16 describes the respondents’ arguments. Among this group, the

most popular reasons for using In My Family would be to discuss family life, traditions,

relationships, and/or familial childhood experiences (48%); and to foster cultural

!"#$%&'$

()$*+'$

,)-./0)-12$*+'$

3)42.$5)4$4#"$67-$85$91:/256$/-$5)4;$<4=4;"$>21##;)):?$

165

awareness among their students (40%). For example, in terms of using the book to

discuss families, one PT writes, “I would use In My Family in my future classroom

because I think it provides readers with the importance of spending time with family.”

Another offers, “I would use this book in my classroom because I feel this book does a

great job of illustrating a close knit family and explaining the importance of family to

students.” In terms of using the book to foster cultural awareness, a respondents states “I

would [use In My Family], for several reasons. It is a great way to teach about Mexican

culture. The students would be able to relate well many of the main events that were

discussed in the story.” Another adds, “I think it would be a good book to talk about

different cultures of families such as Hispanic.” It is noteworthy that these two latter

responses, as examples of several other responses, seem to reflect a figured world in

which Carmen Lomas-Garza’s family members who are depicted in In My Family

represent Mexican and Hispanic culture but not Mexican-American culture.

166

Table 16. Respondents Arguments for Using the Book In My Family in Their Future Classroom.

I would use In My Family in the my future classroom: Respondents (Total 61)

To foster cultural awareness: 40 (66%) • General 24 (39%) • Mexican/Hispanic/Latino 15 (25%) • Mexican-American 1 (2%)

To discuss family life, traditions, relationships, childhood: 29 (48%) • General 25 (41%) • Mexican/Hispanic/Latino 3 (5%) • Mexican-American 1 (2%)

Because I like the style/format/content of book 10 (16%) Because book is relatable/interesting for the reader: 7 (12%)

• General 6 (10%) • Traditions/holidays 1 (2%)

To reinforce acceptance/respect for others 2 (3%) To teach Spanish language 2 (3%)

Arguments against using book in the classroom. The respondents who would

not use the book in their future classroom said that the book was outside the scope of

what they would like to teach (36%), that students might find it difficult to relate to such

a book (36%) or that they personally did not like the format/style of the book (36%). For

a full list of arguments, see Table 17.

Table 17. Respondents Arguments against Using the Book In My Family in Their Future Classroom.

I would not use In My Family in the my future classroom: Respondents (Total 11)

Students might not relate/be interested in story 4 (36%) Outside the scope of what I would like to teach 4 (36%) Because I dislike the style/format/content of book 4 (36%) Not exciting 3 (27%)

167

The PTs in this group would exclude In My Family from their future classrooms

because: (a) “I believe my class could lose interest in the text. The paintings are very well

done, but I feel as though the content itself lacks the excitement to keep my class

entertained;” (b) “I believe a teacher should be as excited about a book as they want their

students to be. . . . I just couldn't really get into this;” and finally because (c) “it only talks

about one place and one way families are; not all the different ways families can be. Also

this book makes you think this is how all the families in Texas are like this, which is not

true.” These future teachers seem to adopt stances of resistance (Beach, 1997), which

reflect the beliefs and attitudes these PTs apply to the text and may be influenced by their

membership in certain groups. In this case, it appears that the three PTs mentioned here

(two white women and one white man under age 23) share a common membership in the

dominant social group.

The first two responses (a & b) seem to reflect a simulated figured world in which

the PTs’ future students will also be members of their same social group. Thus, the

students will likewise find the book uninteresting. As discussed in Chapter 2, this type of

logic is sometimes employed by teachers to censor certain works of multicultural

literature from the classroom. Here, these two PTs seem to adopt a Curriculum First

stance. For them, it seems that the curriculum needs to be entertaining and personally

interesting. Consequently, books that do not meet this requirement may be excluded

from the classroom. In presuming that a book will not entertain their future students,

these PTs might also assume a Not in My Back Yard (NIMBY) stance. This stance,

discussed in Chapter 2, is founded on the beliefs that teachers know every aspect of their

168

students’ lives and that the use of certain types of multicultural literature is only

warranted when the students are able to “get into” and see their own reflections in the

texts. From the NIMBY stance, certain works of multicultural children’s literature are

subject to censorship because they serve as windows to unfamiliar territory rather than

entertaining mirrors of students’ lives (Sims Bishop, 1994).

Response “c,” which argues that In My Family “makes you think . . . all the

families in Texas are like this [Garza’s family], which is not true,” suggests that this PT

has a strong notion of who Texans are. In her figured world, “typical” or “normal” Texan

families do not seem to include Mexican-American families like Garza’s. It seems that

for this future teacher, books that present “atypical” perspectives on who lives in states

like Texas would be censored. The data does not indicate whether this respondent would

conditionally use In My Family in conjunction with other picture books that show

“typical” Texan families.

Conditions for using the book in the classroom. In the remaining group, 11

respondents said that they would use the book under certain conditions. See Table 18

below for the list of conditions and sample responses.

169

Table 18. Respondents’ Conditions for Using In My Family in Their Future Classroom.

Condition Rationale (Example) Number of respondents

Context of social sciences:

history/cultural studies

“If I were to use this book I would present this story with others that depict many different cultures as well.”

4

Grade level “Yes if the children are young because they would love the pictures. But the story may get sort of boring because each story goes the same on each page.”

4

If required or supportive of

curriculum/content standards

“I’m not really sure what unit I'd use this book with, but if I had some curriculum that it related to I would use it.”

2

Student population

(ESL/Spanish speakers/ Mexican)

“I would consider using In my Family in my classroom. I would be more willing to use this if I have students from Mexico or who celebrate these traditions.”

1

Among the respondents in this group, some would consider using In My Family if

they were: studying different cultures, teaching younger students, satisfying curriculum

/content standard requirements, or working with students of Mexican heritage.

Collectively, these conditions for use also serve as conditions for excluding books like In

My Family from the classroom. Inferring from the nature of the conditions, it seems that

the most common conditions regard the PTs’ figured worlds around how and why

teachers select materials for the classroom. Here, it appears that these PTs might be

prone to privilege books that enliven the content of their lessons by adopting what I will

call a “Curriculum First” stance. As discussed in Chapter 2, in their studies of preservice

teachers’ literature selections, Jipson and Paley (1991) and Luke, Cooke, and Luke

(1986) observed similar patterns. The participants in their studies were also concerned

with meeting teaching goals. Hence, they were more likely to select books that reflected

170

their passive ideologies (Hollindale, 1988), i.e. figured worlds to most efficiently

facilitate their objectives. Selecting books that present alternative perspectives on the

world was not a priority.

The last condition in this group, by which the PT might only select In My Family

if she had students “from Mexico,” suggests that this PT might also adopt the NIMBY

stance. It seems that for her, if a member of her classroom community is Mexican, then

she would be more apt to select literature that provides a mirror for that child.

Alternately, she might be less inclined to select books for her future students that provide

windows to worldviews and experiences that may be atypical of her figured world.


The PTs were asked whether they would use the book Friends From The Other

Side in their future classroom. Out of 83 respondents the majority (70%) responded

positively, 10 (12%) respondents said that they would use the book under certain

conditions, 7 (8%) were not sure about using this particular book and 8 (10%)

respondents answered negatively. See Figure 9 below.

171

Figure 9. Respondents’ Willingness to Use Friends from the Other Side in Their Future Classroom.

Arguments for using book in the classroom. As described above, 70% of the

PTs are willing to use Friends from the Other Side in their future classrooms. When

asked to explain rationale for using the book in their future classroom, nearly one third of

respondents (29%) said that they would use it to reinforce the importance of accepting

and respecting others. (See Table 19 below.) Their responses included statements such as:

“I think it [the book] would be a good way to show children that they can be friends with

people who are different than themselves. It also shows them that you must treat

everyone with respect;” and “It’s a good lesson to children that not everyone is the same

but everyone deserves respect and help.”

!"#$%&'$

()*+,-)*./$01'$

2)$0&'$

3.45"$6'$

7)8/+$4)8$8#"$9:;,"*+#$<;)=$>?"$@>?";$A,+"9$,*$4)8;$<8>8;"$B/.##;))=C$

172

Table 19. Arguments for Using the Book Friends from the Other Side in the Future Classroom.

I would use Friends from the Other Side: Respondents (Total 58)

To reinforce acceptance/respect for others 17 (29%) To talk about immigration: 16 (28%)

• General 6 (10%) • Hardship/struggle in life (Mexican immigrant) 5 (9%) • Alternative perspective 4 (7%) • Historical issue 4 (7%) • Causes 4 (7%) • To talk about immigration (border patrol) 2 (3%) • To talk about Mexican immigration 1 (2%)

To promote moral development: standing-up to bullying/being brave 15 (26%) To foster cultural awareness: 15 (26%)


To talk about friendship: 15 (26%) • General 9 (12%) • With people who are different 3 (5%) • Friends help/support each other 3 (5%)

Because students should know about national/regional issues 10 (17%) To talk about helping and/or treating people who are different/in need with kindness 8 (14%)

To reveal racism/discrimination 3 (5%) To talk about hardship/struggle in life (Mexican) 2 (3%) Book is suitable for ESL/Mexican/Spanish-speaking readers 1 (2%) Because I like the style/format/content of book 1 (2%) To talk about overcoming challenges 1 (2%)

Arguments against using book in the classroom. The eight respondents who

said they would not use Friends from the Other Side in their future classrooms, provided

a variety of arguments to support their exclusion of the book. (See Table 20 below.)

173

Table 20. Arguments against Using Friends From the Other Side in the Future Classroom. I would not use Friends from the Other Side: Respondents (8)

Risky/controversial topic (immigration) 3 (38%)

Outside the scope of what I would like to teach 2 (25%)

Questionable content: unlawful character behavior 2 (25%)

Topic is not for kids (immigration) 2 (25%)

Because I dislike style/format/content of book 2 (25%)

Parent/community disapproval 1 (13%)

Students might not relate/be interested in story 1 (13%)

As described in the table and reflected in the following responses, a few were

concerned that the topic of immigration would be too controversial and/or too mature for

children: “I think this book would be tough to use in a classroom because there is such a

debate on illegal immigrants already, and I’m not sure how to talk about it in a simple

way for children to understand;” and “I think that it is a good book, but I think that I

would have to explain a lot of different elements in it to the kids. It would be a challenge

to talk about these things in a politically correct way.” These PTs’ rationales for

censoring Friends from the Other Side from their future classrooms could suggest that in

their simulations for teaching, they might not have any models for construing how a

teacher might address political issues with children. Thus, their figured worlds may be

incomplete. As discussed in Chapter 2, inexperience and incomplete knowledge about

how to read and discuss multicultural literature with children lead to avoidance

(Escamilla & Nathenson-Meja, 2003; Ketter & Lewis, 2001; Montero & Robertson,

2006; Smith, 2002).

174

Moreover, their concern with being “politically correct,” could, as described in

Chapter 2, reflect their awareness that as members of the dominant social group it is not

“normal” to draw attention to the fact that social inequities have and continue to exist

between the dominant and subordinate cultural groups in the U.S. As Gee (2008) points

out criticism of the dominant Discourse might ultimately render a person who takes an

alternative perspective as being deviant. Hence, it is easiest to avoid books like Friends

from the Other Side, which offer an alternative perspective that challenges the dominant

Discourse. As discussed in Chapter 2, it is not uncommon for teachers to avoid books

that could cause controversy and alarm parents (Ketter & Lewis, 2001; Schmidt,

Armstrong, & Everett, 2007; Smith, 2002).

In alignment with the PTs who are concerned about political correctness, the two

PTs who would censor Friends from the Other Side due to questionable content appear to

share similar attitudes toward challenging the dominant Discourse. They argue: “I would

be hesitant to use this book in the classroom for the one reason that Prietita and the herb

women helped to hide illegal immigrants from border patrol. . . . It could also be

considered illegal what Prietita and the herb women did, which could upset parents and

make the students think it is okay to break the law in certain situations;” and “[T]hey are

doing wrong by hiding these people [Joaquin and his mother] from the police. I want my

classroom to know that lying is bad, so I won't bring this into the classroom.” These

respondents adopt the Law Abiding Citizen stance, previously introduced in Chapter 2.

Just like the preservice teachers in Escamilla and Nathenson-Mejia’s (2003) study who

also took a Law Abiding Citizen stance in response to Friends from the Other Side, the

175

PTs in this study reject Anzaldúa’s book because Prietita’s and the Herb Woman’s

behaviors are atypical among members of the dominant social group. These characters

are thereby construed as being “deviant” and exposure to them could be unacceptable. In

taking this stance of resistance, censorship undermines the objectives for using

multicultural literature to help students understand multiple perspectives.

Arguments of undecided prospective teachers. Seven respondents stated that

they were unsure about using Friends from the Other Side in their future classroom. (See

Table 21.) Like other respondents, these PTs see the potential for using this book with

their students to examine the topics of immigration, helping others, and developing moral

fiber. These respondents, however, are also concerned that immigration is a controversial

topic and they may not have the background knowledge to discuss it. As discussed in the

preceding section, by excluding books like Friends from the Other Side from the

classroom, teachers avoid discomfort and controversy.

Table 21. Rationale of Undecided Respondents. I am not sure if I would use Friends from the Other Side. If I

did I might use the book: Respondents

(Total 7) To talk about immigration: 3 (43%)

• General 1 (14%) • Undocumented/illegal 1 (14%) • Negative social discourse 1 (14%)

To talk about helping and/or treating people who are different/in need with kindness

2 (29%)

To promote moral development: standing-up to bullying/being brave

2 (29%)

To reinforce acceptance/respect for others 1 (14%) Because I like the style/format/content of book 1 (14%) Rationale for uncertainty (when provided): Outside the scope of what I would like to teach 2 (29%) Risky/controversial topic (immigration) 2 (29%) I do not have enough background knowledge (about immigration) 1 (14%)

176

In terms of limited background knowledge, the PT who submits, “I am not sure

that I would use this book in a classroom. I personally do not feel educated enough on the

topic of immigration to be able to answer any questions that may arise,” is not alone.

Mentioned previously, Botelho and Rudman (2009) report that several scholars discuss

the ways some teachers sidestep multicultural children’s literature due to limited

background knowledge. Apol, Sakuma, Reyonlds, and Rop (2003) and Smith (2002)

found that the teachers stray away from unfamiliar content in multicultural children’s

literature. Similarly, Escamilla and Nathenson-Meja (2003) observed that the preservice

teachers in their study felt unqualified to discuss the cultural aspects of the Latino

children’s literature. This connection between teachers’ knowledge and comfort in

leading discussions is consistent with Shulman’s (1987) and Grossman’s (1990) findings

that the level of teachers’ subject matter knowledge informs the content teachers will

teach, as well as the process and/or pedagogy by which they will teach, as discussed in

Chapter 2. In this scenario, the PT’s lack of knowledge influences her rejection of the

book for classroom use.

Conditions for discussing book in the classroom. Finally, nine respondents said

that they would use the Friends from the Other Side under certain conditions. See Table

22.

177

Table 22. Respondents’ Conditions for Discussing Friends from the Other Side in Their Future Classroom.


Grade level

“I would use the story with younger students and focus on the fact that a girl helped and saved her friend. I would not use the book with older students because I wouldn't want the topic to get too ‘political’ and spark a volatile debate.”

6

If required or supportive of curr/content standards

“I think I would use it if it would fit into my lesson the right way.” 2

Student population

(ESL/Spanish speakers/Mexican)

“I would use this book in my class if I had bilingual students to help them see… the English and the Spanish.”

1

It is interesting to note that 60% of the PTs who would use this book under certain

conditions are concerned with age and grade level of their students. On one hand, some

PTs could see themselves using the book specifically with younger students to focus on

“the fact that a girl helped and saved her friend,” and “the message the book sends about

helping others.” On the other hand, some PTs would only use the book with older

students who: “would be mature enough to comprehend the topic at hand;” “would have a

better understanding of the story;” “could see that yes, bullying is wrong no matter what,

but no, traveling somewhere illegally is not necessarily right;” or who “would be able to

understand the political and social aspects of it.” Implicit in these responses are the PTs’

assumptions (figured worlds) about the capacity of younger students to engage in

discussions about immigration. Those who plan to work with younger students would

only discuss the themes of friendship and helping others. Those who would discuss

immigration would only do so with older students. It appears that the PTs have adopted a

178

Protector of Children stance of resistance that underpins their assumptions about age-

appropriate content. By adopting this stance, in the teachers’ figured worlds, school is a

haven from reality. In this haven, certain works of multicultural children’s literature are

avoided to protect children’s innocence (Schmidt, Armstrong, & Everett, 2007) and/or to

prevent children from becoming corrupted by worldly topics (Wollman-Bonilla, 1998).

One of the dangers in adopting the Protector of Children stance lies in the

assumption that teachers know everything there is to know about their students to

determine whether or not a book like Friends from the Other Side might tarnish the

children’s innocence or provide context for the real world issues that surround them from

a young age. An incongruence is manifested via this stance in that adults who wish to

protect children from real world issues may also be inclined to diagnose the very same

children with disorders such as individual prejudice.


Survey respondents were asked whether they would use Abuelito Eats With His

Fingers in their future classroom. The majority (80%) said yes, 10 (12%) respondents

answered negatively, 4 (5%) respondents said they might use the book under certain

conditions, 2 were undecided, and one respondent did not answer the question. See

Figure 10 below.

179

Figure 10. Respondents’ Willingness to Use Abuelito Eats with His Fingers in Their Future Classroom.

Arguments for using book in the classroom. Sixty-six of the PTs (80%) said they

would use Abuelito Eats with His Fingers in their future classrooms. (See Table 23). Of

this group, nearly one third (32%) of the respondents suggested that they would use the

book to reinforce the importance of accepting and respecting others. Their responses

included comments such as, I would use the book because: “I would teach my students to

get to know someone before making assumptions or pass judgment of someone who are

different from them;” and “It's a great way to help kids realize that sometimes they need

to get to know someone before making judgments about them;” and “it shows how just

because someone is different and does things differently than you, that doesn't mean they

are weird. It shows how a person can change their opinion of a person after spending a

little time with them.”

!"#$%&'$()$

*+'$

,)-./0)-12$3'$

4156"$+'$

()-78"#9)-#"$*'$

:);2.$5);$;#"$<=6;"2/>)$?1>#$@/>A$B/#$C/-D"E#<$/-$5);E$F;>;E"$G21##E))HI$

180

Table 23. Respondents’ Arguments for Using Abuelito Eats with His Fingers in Their Future Classroom.

I would use Abuelito Eats with His Fingers: Respondents (Total 66)

To reinforce acceptance/respect for others 21 (32%) To teach appreciation/importance of family 15 (23%) Because book is relatable/interesting for the reader 14 (21%)

• General 8 (12%) • Grandparents 5 (8%) • Feelings/experiences 1 (2%)

To foster cultural awareness: 12 (18%) • General 11 (17%) • Mexican/Hispanic/Latino 1 (2%)

To show that elders are source of knowledge/should be respected 8 (12%) To discuss family life, traditions, relationships, childhood (general) 8 (12%) To talk about communication/language 6 (9%) Because I like the style/format/content of book 4 (6%) Book has/promotes a good message/lesson 3 (5%) Book is not risky 2 (3%) Personal connection 2 (3%) To talk about generations 2 (3%) Book has curriculum/standards connections 1 (2%) To talk about hardship/struggle in life (Mexican immigrant) 1 (2%) To teach Spanish language 1 (2%)

Nearly a quarter (23%) of respondents would use the book to talk about family,

family traditions, relationships, and childhood. Their responses included comments such

as, the book: “shows the importance of spending time with family;” shows how

“everyone has a different family and that all members are fun and important;” and

reminds readers “to be thankful for . . . [the family] you have.” Approximately 21%

found the content of the story to be interesting and relatable while 12% of the PTs said

that they would use the book to foster students’ cultural awareness. Respondents

submitted that they would use the book because: “it has the ability to introduce readers to

181

a culture and tradition outside of their own comfort zone;” and “It would be good to use

in a lesson where you teach about different cultures. It would help the students

understand that all cultures are different, but more importantly special!”

Arguments against using book in the classroom. Among the 10 respondents

who stated that they would not use Abuelito Eats with His Fingers, 20% did not

recognize any possible connections to their primary (K–2) level curriculum. (See Table

24, below.) “Other than it being a touching story about a Granddaughter and her

grandfather, I don’t believe I would use this book in class. I don’t feel like it adds any

value to a discussion. . . . [S]ince I want to teach first grade, I don’t believe that they [first

graders] would grasp the information as well as older grades would,” reports one

prospective primary grade teacher. In the words of another, “I don't think I would really

use this book in my classroom. It wouldn't really cover anything that needs to be taught

in the classroom, at least not the age I want to teach.” It seems that in the figured worlds

of these two PTs, a book like Abuelito Eats with His Fingers meshes neither with their

notions of a K – 2 curriculum nor with their assumptions about young children’s

capacities for understanding characters’ real-world feelings in a story.

Table 24. Respondents’ Arguments against Using Abuelito Eats with His Fingers in Their Future Classroom.

I would not use Abuelito Eats with His Fingers: Respondents (Total 10)

I dislike style/format/content of book 3 (30%)

Outside the scope of what I would like to teach 3 (30%)

No connection to curriculum/standards 2 (20%)


I would not discuss religion 1 (10%)

182

Like the PTs who would not use In My Family, these two future teachers also

seem to adopt a stance that selection of children’s literature for the classroom rests on its

efficacy for attaining curricular objectives. Literature that provides alternative

perspectives, which could result in “off-topic” discussion, might not be as desirable as

literature that is consistent with the dominant social group’s perspectives and taken-for-

granted assumptions about what is “normal.” Although real and relatable, Tina’s

relationship with her grandfather is atypical. Hence the use of Abuelito Eats with His

Fingers could be more distracting than the use of a book that does not deviate from the

norms.

Aligned with their cohorts who do not see a place for this book in the primary

grade curriculum, 20% of those who would not use Abulelito Eats with His Fingers also

suggest that the book is not relatable to students. For example, a respondent writes, “No

[I wouldn’t use the book] because I don't think it would catch the attention of many

students.” It is interesting to note that both of the PTs who think the book would be

unrelatable to students also plan to become primary grade teachers. Collectively, 40% of

the PTs who would exclude Abulelito Eats with His Fingers from their classroom argue

that the book does not correspond with the needs or interests of young children.

Arguments of undecided prospective teachers. Two respondents stated that

they were not sure about using the book in their classroom. The first is not sure how to

connect the book to his middle school curriculum. The second is concerned that the book

featured a topic that might be difficult to discuss in a classroom, that is, Abuelito’s

religious statues and candles. This future teacher writes, “I don't know if I would use this

183

point because it has so many religious things going on it. I think that you would have to

do a lot of explaining to children about things.” For him, the prospect of addressing the

presence of Abuelito’s statues and candles could be daunting.

Conditions for using book in the classroom. Four respondents said that they

would use the book under certain conditions. (See Table 25.) Two of the four

respondents would use the book in the context of studying cultures. The other two would

use the book if, in their figured worlds for teaching, their student populations are

inclusive of Spanish speakers or are comprised of older children who might be able to

relate to Tina’s perspective.

Table 25. Respondents’ Conditions for Using Abuelito Eats with His Fingers in Their Future Classroom.


Context of cultural studies (Mexican)

“If I was doing a Mexico theme then I would say that I would use it.” 2

Student population (ESL/Spanish

speakers/Mexican)

“I would be likely to use this book if I had students who spoke different languages.” 1

Grade level “Yes I would use this in an older classroom when children start to not like to hang out with their families.”

1

Cross Analysis

Common arguments across the books. The PTs’ arguments for using each

book, as illustrated in Table 26 below, are specific to the content of each book. The

theme of family was prominent to the responses for In My Family and Abuelito Eats with

His Fingers. The theme of cultural awareness was relevant to the responses for In My

Family and Friends from the Other Side, while the theme of accepting and respecting

others was common to Friends from the Other Side and Abuelito Eats with His Fingers.

184

Table 26. Most Popular Arguments for Using the Books in Respondents’ Future Classroom.

In My Family: %

To foster cultural awareness 66%

To discuss family life, traditions, relationships, childhood 48%

I like style/format/content of book 16% Friends from the Other Side:

To reinforce acceptance/respect for others 29%

To talk about immigration 28% To promote moral development: stand-up to bullying/being brave 26%

To foster cultural awareness 26% To talk about friendship 26%

Abuelito Eats with His Fingers:

To reinforce acceptance/respect for others 32% To teach appreciation/importance of family 23%

The book is relatable/interesting for the reader 21%

Common arguments against using book in the classroom. As illustrated in

Table 27 below, there were similarities to the PTs’ rationales for avoiding the use of the

books in the classroom. Aside from being outside of the scope of some prospective

middle school and high school teachers’ subject areas, the only common rationale that the

PTs provided across the books was a personal dislike for the content, style, or format of

the texts. Those who would not use In My Family generally disliked the photo album

quality of the picture book. Those who would not use Friends from the Other Side were

turned off by the ending of the story, which they felt was incomplete. Those who would

not use Abuelito Eats with His Fingers either disliked the message of the text (i.e. “Tina

only obeys and starts to like Abuelito when he gives her something big like a pearl

necklace”) or felt that a different book would better support their objectives (i.e. “I would

185

try and look for a different book that showed the relationships between grandparents and

grandchildren”).

Table 27. Most Popular Arguments against Using the Books in the Future Classroom.

In My Family: %

Students might not relate/be interested in story 36% I dislike style/format/content of book 36% Outside the scope of what I would like to teach 36% Friends from the Other Side:

Risky/controversial topic (immigration) 38% Outside the scope of what I would like to teach 25% Questionable content: unlawful character behavior 25% Topic is not for kids (immigration) 25% I dislike style/format/content of book 25% Abuelito Eats with His Fingers:

I dislike style/format/content of book 40% Outside the scope of what I would like to teach 30% No curriculum/standards connections 20% Students might not relate/be interested in story 20%

Although the PTs other rationales for censorship vary from book to book, the

nature of some of the PTs’ arguments originate from mutually held theories or figured

worlds about who their future students are or what their future curriculum and content

will be. For example, the PTs who argue that their future students might not enjoy or

relate to In My Family or Abuelito Eats with His Fingers seem to base their assertions on

taken-for-grated assumptions that their students will, like the PTs, also be members of the

dominant cultural group and might not make any connections to these books.

Congruently, the PTs who speculate that the content of Friends from the Other Side

might not be appropriate for children or that the content of Abuelito Eats with His

Fingers might not fit with the curriculum for primary grades also seem to found their

186

speculations on figured worlds that exclude texts that deviate from the norms of the

dominant social group.

Common conditions for use of the books. The conditions that some PTs apply

to their prospective use of the books are consistent across the books. (See Table 28,

below.)

Table 28. Most Popular Conditions for Using the Books in the Future Classroom.

In My Family (11 respondents)

CON: Grade level CON: Context of social sciences: history/cultural studies CON: If required or supportive of curriculum/content standards CON: Student population (ESL/Spanish speakers/Mexican) CON: Surface level information Friends from the Other Side (10 respondents) CON: Grade level CON: If required or supportive of curriculum/content standards CON: Student population (ESL/Spanish speakers/Mexican) Abuelito Eats with His Fingers (4 respondents)

CON: Context of cultural studies (Mexican) CON: Grade level CON: Student population (ESL/Spanish speakers/Mexican)

For each title there were respondents who were concerned about the age-

appropriateness of the story content. Some PTs adopted a Protector of Children stance to

establish conditions around the types of discussions they would have with their future

students if they were to use the books. While some PTs might, for example, focus only

on the themes of friendship and helping others in using Friends from the Other Side with

younger students, other PTs might only use Abuelito Eats with His Fingers with older

students who might appreciate Tina’s reticence to going to her grandfather’s house.

187

Across the books, some respondents were also prone to set parameters around

context of under which they would use the books. First, in some PTs’ figured worlds of

their future classrooms, the books must facilitate curriculum objectives. Second, the

composition of the student population must merit the use of the books. If the student

populations do not include Latinos or Spanish speakers, or if other books can enliven the

class lessons without engaging in messy discussions about characters’ perspectives, then

books like In My Family, Friends from the Other Side, and Abuelito Eats with His

Fingers may well be excluded from the classroom. For an analysis of this data by grate

level, see Appendix M.

Research Question Four

What is the likelihood that prospective teachers would discuss with their future

students the religious content of the books in this study?

The data that was collected for this research question, “What is the likelihood that

PTs would discuss with their future students the religious content of each of the books in

this study?” was drawn from two sources. First, it was drawn from the PTs’ responses to

an introductory course survey during Week 1 in which the PTs were asked: “How likely

would you select for your class lesson a children’s book that presents worldviews or

spiritual ideas that differ from mainstream American culture?” Second, data was drawn

from the PTs’ written responses to the following queries about the specific picture books:

(a) “If you were to use In My Family with your future students, how likely would you

discuss the religious significance of the water tank painting, “The Miracle”? Please

explain your rationale;” (b) “If you were to use Friends from the Other Side with your

future students, how comfortable would you feel in discussing the religious significance

188

of some of the paintings and artifacts in the herb woman’s bedroom? Please explain your

rationale;” and (c) If you were to use Abuelito Eats with His Fingers with your future

students, how likely would you initiate a discussion about the meaning of the candles and

statues in Abuelito’s house? Please explain your rationale.”

Alternative Worldviews/Spiritual Ideas

As part of an introductory survey, during Week 1 of children’s literature course,

the PTs were asked how likely they would be to select a children’s book featuring

worldviews or spiritual ideas different from mainstream American culture. See Appendix

I for the complete Week 1 survey. Three out of four (76%) respondents said that they

would be very likely (25%) or somewhat likely (51%) to select such a book. Eighteen

percent of all respondents would be somewhat unlikely (16%) or very unlikely (2%) to

select such a book. Five respondents did not answer this question. See Figure 11.

Figure 11. Likelihood of Selecting a Book Featuring Worldviews and Spiritual Ideas Different from the Mainstream American.

!"#$

"%#$

%&#$

!#$&#$

'#$

%'#$

!'#$

('#$

)'#$

"'#$

&'#$

!"#$%&'(")$% *+,"-./0%&'(")$%

*+,"-./0%12)'(")$%

!"#$%12)'(")$% 3+245"67+26"%

&'(")'.++8%+9%8'6:;66'2<%/%=++(%9"/0;#'2<%/)0"#2/>?"%-+#)8?'"-6@67'#'0;/)%'8"/6%

189

In My Family

Respondents were asked how likely they would be to discuss the religious

significance of the water tank painting “The Miracle.” Most of the survey participants

said that they would be very likely (7%) or somewhat likely (54%) to do that. Thirty-nine

percent of all respondents would be very unlikely (10%) or somewhat unlikely (29%) to

discuss the religious significance of the painting. See Figure 12 below.

Figure 12. Likelihood of Discussing Religious Significance of the Water Tank Painting “The Miracle” from In My Family.

Arguments for discussing the significance of “The Miracle” from In My

Family. When asked to explain their rationale for discussing religious significance of

“The Miracle,” about one quarter (24%) of respondents said that they would do it to

encourage students’ religious awareness (“I would likely discuss it because it would help

children learn that there are other religions out there and not just the ones that they know

!"#

$%"#

&'"#

()"#

)"#

()"#

&)"#

*)"#

%)"#

$)"#

+)"#

!"#$%&'(")$% *+,"-./0%&'(")$% *+,"-./0%12)'(")$% !"#$%12)'(")$%

3+-%)'(")$%-+4)5%$+4%5'67466%89."%:'#/7)"8;%%

190

and to help them not downgrade or look down upon that religion just because it isn't the

same”), nearly one fifth (18%) of respondents would discuss “The Miracle” in order to

foster students’ cultural awareness (“Everyone comes from a different background and

everyone should be able to know that not everyone’s the same”). For a full list of

arguments, see Table 29.

Table 29. Arguments for Discussing Religious Significance of “The Miracle” from In My Family.

I would discuss religious significance of “The Miracle”: Respondents (Total 83)

To encourage religious awareness 20 (24%) To foster cultural awareness: 15 (18%)


It is important to acknowledge religious significance 10 (12%) To reinforce acceptance/respect for others 5 (6%) Religion has a place in the curriculum 4 (5%) Religion/religious artifacts – part of culture 4 (5%) To accommodate students’ religious belief 2 (2%) Because I like the style/format/content of book 1 (1%)

Arguments against discussing the significance of “The Miracle” from In My

Family. With respect to arguments against discussing the religious significance of the

painting, 14% of all respondents thought that religion is not allowed in public schools,

6% said that religious content was not critical/important for the story, that religion is a

risky/controversial topic and that other students’ beliefs should be respected. For a full

list of responses, see Table 30.

191

Table 30. Arguments against Discussing Religious Significance of “The Miracle” from In My Family.

I would not discuss religious significance of “The Miracle”: Respondents (Total 83)

Little/no religion permitted in public schools 12 (14%) Religious content (visual/textual) is not important to story 5 (6%) Risky/controversial topic (religion) 5 (6%) Respect students' beliefs 5 (6%) I would not discuss religion 4 (5%) I do not have enough background knowledge (about religious significance)

4 (5%)

Parents teach religion 4 (5%) Religious significance is not a topic for kids 4 (5%) Parent/community disapproval 4 (5%) Observe separation of Church and State 3 (4%) Religion does not belong in school 2 (2%) Outside the scope of what I would like to teach 2 (2%) Discussing religion makes me uncomfortable/confused 1 (1%) Family/community beliefs are irrational 1 (1%) Topic difficult to discuss (religion) 1 (1%) Unfamiliar beliefs are not important to address 1 (1%) I don't share same beliefs and don't want to diminish other culture 1 (1%) I am concerned about students’ reaction 1 (1%)

Conditions for discussing the significance of “The Miracle” from In My

Family. More than half of all respondents (59%) mentioned conditions under which they

would discuss religious significance of the painting “The Miracle.” For a full list of

conditions, see Table 31.

192

Table 31. Conditions for Discussing Religious Significance of “The Miracle” from In My Family.

Conditions: Respondents (Total 49)

Context restrictions:

Context of multiple religions 7

Context of studying pareidolia 5

Context of story/characters/setting 4

Context of social sciences: history/cultural studies 2

Context cultural studies (Mexican) 1

Other conditions:

Surface-level information 11

No proselytizing: teach about religion only 8

Factual/objective presentation of religion 6

Student questions/comments 6

Grade level 4

Parent/school/ community approval 2

If required or supportive of curriculum/content standards 2


Respondents were asked whether they would be comfortable to discuss the

religious significance of some of the paintings and artifacts in the herb woman’s

bedroom. Survey results show that the respondents were somewhat evenly divided

between being comfortable and uncomfortable: 52% would be very or somewhat

comfortable, while 48% would be very or somewhat uncomfortable doing that. See

Figure 13.

193

Figure 13. Respondents’ Comfort Level of Discussing Paintings and Artifacts in the Herb Woman’s Bedroom from Friends from the Other Side.

Arguments for discussing the herb woman’s bedroom from Friends from the

Other Side. When respondents were asked to explain their rationale for discussing

religious significance of the paintings and artifacts in the herb woman’s bedroom, 14% of

all respondents said they would do it to encourage religious awareness, 8%—to foster

students’ cultural awareness (“Students may not share the herb woman's beliefs, but they

should be informed about cultures different from their own”). Six percent thought that

discussion was necessary because religion is a part of the culture depicted in the book.

For a full list of arguments, see Table 32.

!"#

$%"#

%$"#

&$"#

'"#

&'"#

('"#

%'"#

$'"#

)'"#

!"#$%&'()'#*+,-"% .'("/0+*%&'()'#*+,-"%

.'("/0+*%123'()'#*+,-"%

!"#$%123'()'#*+,-"%

&'()'#*%-"4"-%')%5673877629%:+62;297<+#;)+3*7%62%0"#,%/'(+2=7%,"5#''(>%

194

Table 32. Arguments for Discussing Religious Significance of Paintings/Artifacts in the Herb Woman’s Bedroom from Friends from the Other Side.

I would discuss religious significance of paintings and artifacts: Respondents (Total 83)

To encourage religious awareness 12 (14%) It is important to acknowledge religious significance 10 (12%) To foster cultural awareness (general) 7 (8%) Religion/religious artifacts: part of culture 5 (6%) To reinforce acceptance/respect for others 3 (4%) Consistent with teacher’s beliefs/notion of faith 2 (2%) Lack of accurate knowledge should not inhibit discussion 1 (1%)

Arguments against discussing the herb woman’s bedroom. With respect to

arguments against discussing religious significance of paintings/artifacts in the herb

woman’s bedroom, about one fifth (19%) of respondents said that they were not familiar

with the religious significance of paintings/artifacts in the herb woman’s bedroom (“I am

not totally comfortable using this as a discussion because I don't know how to interpret

the pictures in the woman's room”), 12% thought that religious significance was not

critical to the story (“I believe that the focus of this book is on the issue of immigration. I

feel it is unnecessary and irrelevant to bring in the religious pictures in this background

story”), 7%—that religion is a controversial topic. For a full list of responses, see Table

33.

195

Table 33. Arguments against Discussing Religious Significance of Paintings/Artifacts in the Herb Woman’s Bedroom from Friends from the Other Side.

I would not discuss religious significance of paintings and artifacts:

Respondents (Total 83)

I do not have enough background knowledge (about religious significance) 16 (19%)

Religious content (visual/textual) is not important to the story 10 (12%) Risky/controversial topic (religion) 6 (7%) Respect students' beliefs 5 (6%) Observe separation of Church and State 5 (6%) Little/no religion permitted in public schools 4 (5%) Parent/community disapproval 3 (4%) Students might not relate/be interested in story 2 (2%) Discussing religion makes me uncomfortable/confused 2 (2%) Religion does not belong in school 1 (1%) I would not discuss religion 1 (1%) I would not discuss religions that contradict my beliefs 1 (1%) Topic is not for kids (religious significance) 1 (1%) Religion is not exclusive to culture 1 (1%)

Conditions for discussing the herb woman’s bedroom. Thirty-two respondents

(40%) mentioned conditions for discussing religious significance of paintings and

artifacts in the herb woman’s bedroom. See Table 34.

196

Table 34. Conditions for Discussing Religious Significance of Paintings/Artifacts in the Herb Woman’s Bedroom from Friends from the Other Side.



Context of multiple religions 4 Context of social sciences: history/cultural studies 2 Context of story/characters/setting 1 Other conditions:

If I did more research 8 Student questions/comments 7 Surface-level information 7 No proselytizing: teach about religion only 5 Factual/objective presentation of religion 2 If required or supportive of curriculum/content standards 1 Parent/school/community approval 1


Survey respondents were asked how likely they would be to discuss religious

significance of candles and statues in Abuelito’s house. Survey findings indicate that

nearly half (49%) of all respondents would be very likely (8%) or somewhat likely (41%)

to discuss religious significance of candles and statues, a little more than half (51%)

would be very unlikely (17%) and somewhat unlikely (34%) to engage in such a

discussion. See Figure 14 below.

197

Figure 14. Likelihood of Discussing Religious Significance of Candles and Statues from Abuelito Eats with His Fingers.

Arguments for discussing the candles and statues. When asked to explain their

rationale for discussing candles and statues, 17% of respondents thought religion was an

important part of culture and thus should be addressed, 12% said this would help to foster

students’ cultural awareness (“The candles and statues would be used to explain different

religions and cultures”), 8%—to foster awareness about Mexican culture (“The meaning

of the candles and statues is a huge part of Mexican culture and if you are going to have

books like this you need to talk to your students about the meaning of it”). For the full list

of positive arguments, see Table 35 below.

!"#

$%"#

&$"#

%'"#

("#

%("#

)("#

&("#

$("#

*("#

!"#$%&'(")$% *+,"-./0%&'(")$% *+,"-./0%12)'(")$% !"#$%12)'(")$%

3+-%)'(")$%0+%4'56755%#")'8'+75%5'82'96/26"%+:%6/24)"5%/24%50/07"5;%

198

Table 35: Arguments for Discussing Religious Significance of Candles and Statues in Abuelito’s House.

I would discuss religious significance of candles and statues: Respondents

(Total 83)

To foster cultural awareness: 17 (21%)

• General 10 (12%)

• Mexican/Hispanic/Latino 7 (8%)

Religion/religious artifacts: part of culture 14 (17%)

It is important to acknowledge religious significance 13 (16%)

To encourage religious awareness 4 (5%)

To reinforce acceptance/respect for others 4 (5%)

Because candles are less controversial than other artifacts 2 (2%)

Because Catholicism is a major U.S. religion 1 (1%)

Arguments against discussing the candles and statues. With respect to

arguments against discussing religious significance of candles and statues in Abuelito’s

house, 17% of all respondents thought religious significance was not critical to the story

(“I'm not sure I would teach that specific aspect of the book just because I feel like there

are a lot of other more significant aspects of the book to focus on”). One in ten

respondents (11%) said religion was a risky/controversial topic to discuss, and 7% were

not familiar with the religious significance of statues and candles (“I am not quite sure

what the candles and statues have to do in the story or what they symbolize”). For a full

list of negative arguments, see Table 36.

199

Table 36. Arguments against Discussing Religious Significance of Candles and Statues in Abuelito’s House.

I would not discuss religious significance of candles and statues: Respondents (Total 83)

Religious content (visual/textual) is not important to the story 14 (17%) Risky/controversial topic (religion) 9 (11%) I do not have enough background knowledge (about religious significance) 6 (7%)

Little/no religion permitted in public schools 5 (6%) Observe separation of Church and State 5 (6%) Parental/community disapproval 4 (5%)


Topic is not for kids (religious significance) 3 (4%) I would not discuss religion 2 (2%) Religions does not belong in school 2 (2%) Parents discuss/teach religion 2 (2%) Respect students' beliefs 2 (2%) Discussing religion makes me uncomfortable/confused 1 (1%) I would not discuss religions that contradict my beliefs 1 (1%) Outside the scope of what I would like to teach 1 (1%) Religion is not exclusive to culture 1 (1%) Topic difficult to discuss (religion) 1 (1%)

Conditions for discussing the candles and statues. Thirty-four (41%) of all

respondents mentioned conditions under which they would be willing to discuss religious

significance of candles and statues in Abuelito’s house. See Table 37.

200

Table 37. Conditions for Discussing Religious Significance of Candles and Statues in Abuelito’s House.



Context of multiple religions 4 Context of cultural studies (Mexican) 2 Context of social sciences: history/cultural studies 1 Other conditions:

Student questions/comments 11 Surface level information 10 If I did more research 6 No proselytizing: teach about religion only 2 Grade level 1 Parent/school/community approval 1

Cross Analysis

This section begins with a comparative analysis of the PTs’ likelihood of

discussing the significance of the religious content in each book. It will continue with a

comparative analysis of the arguments the PTs present and the conditions the PTs

establish in favor of or against discussing the significance of the religious content in In

My Family, Friends from the Other Side, and Abuelito Eats with His Fingers. As a point

of comparison, this discussion will also regard the PTs’ responses to a Week 1 survey

question, “How likely would you select and discuss with your future students a children’s

book featuring worldviews or spiritual ideas different from mainstream American

culture?”

Likelihood of discussing significance of religious content. Figure 15, below

shows a comparison between the PTs’ responses to the Week 1 survey question and to

201

the aforementioned Week 8 questions about discussing the religious significance of the

visual content of In My Family, Friends from the Other Side, and Abuelito Eats with His

Fingers.

Figure 15: Likelihood of Discussing Alternative Worldviews/Spiritual Ideas in Comparison with Religious Significance of the Books.

While one fourth (25%) of respondents said they would be very likely to use a

book featuring alternative worldviews/spiritual ideas (in response to the Week 1 question:

“How likely would you select for your class a children’s book that presents worldviews

or spiritual ideas that differ from mainstream America?”), the respective percentages for

the books in the study were about three times lower (7% for In My Family and 8% for

Friends from the Other Side and Abuelito Eats with his Fingers). While only 16% of

respondents thought they would be somewhat unlikely to discuss alternative

views/spiritual ideas, the number was twofold for Friends from the Other Side and

!"#$"#

%!"#%$"#&!"#&$"#'!"#'$"#(!"#($"#$!"#$$"#)!"#

!"#$%&'(")$% *+,"-./0%&'(")$% *+,"-./0%12)'(")$% !"#$%12)'(")$% 3+245"67+26"%

&'(")'.++8%+9%8'6:;66'2<%/)0"#2/=>"%-+#)8>'"-6?#")'<'+;6%6'<2'@:/2:"%

*+,-./012-#34.+526-78# 9:;-#<6.0=+-9# 9>-.?#34@0/A8#B-5.44@9# 9C0/5+-8#0/5#D,0,E-89#

202

Abuelito Eats with His Fingers. With respect to very unlikely responses, only 2% said that

they would select this option for non-mainstream American worldviews/spiritual ideas.

When asked about particular books, the number increased to as high as 17% for Abuelito

Eats with his Fingers. The numbers among the respondents in the somewhat likely group

did not vary as much.

One of the primary differences between the Week 1 and the Week 8 questions

relates to varying levels of abstraction or proximity of the PTs in relation to the religious

content of the books. Hypothetically posed, the first questions ask PTs to mentally

simulate a scenario of a discussion of a children’s book that presents a perspective that

might differ from mainstream spiritual worldviews. Without any specific information,

the PTs have ample space in their figured worlds to conjure a book that accommodates

this scenario. Given the nature of the question, many PTs could be very likely to include

books in their future classrooms that reflect alternative perspectives. This could account

for the PTs’ greater likelihood of discussing an alternative viewpoint in concept than in

the context of any of the books.

Among the three books, there are differing levels of abstraction that could limit

readers’ proximity to the religious content. Take for example, “The Miracle,” a painting

from In My Family that depicts a childhood experience of the author Carmen Lomas

Garza. See Appendix A. In the painting, Garza accompanies her mother and brother to a

ranch in Texas where several Tejanos (Texans of Mexican heritage) are gathered before a

wooden water tank. In the grain of the wood there appears to be a miraculous image of

La Virgen de Guadalupe. In the caption for this painting, Garza tells her readers that one

203

day, “my mother heard that an image of the Virgin of Guadalupe had appeared. . . . We

got in the truck and drove out to see. There was a constant stream of people making

pilgrimages to the site, bringing flowers and offerings” (Garza, 1996, p. 21). This scene

is presented as a one-time event from Garza’s past. As a historical story, there is a

separation of time and space that distances readers from the actual experience. Hence,

there is room for PTs to figure a teaching scenario in which many of them are somewhat

likely to discuss the religious significance of this event.

In Abuelito Eats with His Fingers, on the other hand, the religious content is not

confined to a distinct time and place. In this story, readers are positioned close to the

young narrator Tina who provides an in-the-moment first person description of her

experience with Abuelito. “Abuelito lights candles and keeps little statues in every

room,” (p. 4) Tina explains to readers as they enter Abuelito’s home. Later in the story

Tina attempts to cheer a distressed Abuelito with a drawing. Abuelito stands the drawing

on his table of statues. Tina narrates: “Los santos, he [Abuelito] says and introduces

each saint with a little bow. Abuelito lights a candle. He closes his eyes and moves his

lips. . . . I whisper a prayer. . . . When I open my eyes, the statues are in different places.

Abuelito winks” (p. 18). In being positioned this close, the reader meets Abuelito’s saints

when Tina does. The readers, like Tina, are expected to appreciate that the statues and

candles are important to Abuelito’s prayer life and religious practices. Given readers’

proximity to Tina, author Janice Levy allows limited space for negotiating a more

distanced perspective. This phenomenon could help explain why a greater number of

204

PTs would be very unlikely to discuss the significance of religious content in Abuelito

Eats with His Fingers than any of the other books as described in Figure 15.

Common arguments for and against discussing the religious content. Unlike

the data sets for Research Questions 2 and 3, in which there was a connection between

the PTs’ responses (i.e. “I would/wouldn’t use this book) and their rationales, such

connections are not explicit in the data sets for Research Question 4. This is due to the

nature of the questions to which the PTs were asked to respond (i.e. “How likely would

you . . .). Since the majority of the respondents stated that they were either somewhat

likely or somewhat unlikely to discuss the significance of certain religious content as

illustrated in the figures above, the rationales for their responses include arguments both

for and against the discussion. As a result, the responses in this section are not

categorized according to likelihood (i.e. very likely, somewhat likely, somewhat unlikely,

very unlikely) because the variance in rationales is so broad. In short, the percentages that

are discussed throughout this section regard all 83 PTs’ rationales rather than single

categories of response. See Table 38.

Common arguments for discussing the religious content. Below, Tables 38 A

and B show the five most popular arguments for discussing the significance of the

religious content in each book.

205

Table 38: Most Popular Arguments for Discussing Religious Significance.

Most Popular Arguments for Discussing Religious Content (Total 83 Respondents)

Family %

Friends %

Abuelito %

To encourage religious awareness 24% 14% 5%

To foster cultural awareness 18% 8% 21%

It is important to acknowledge religious significance 12% 12% 16%

Religion/religious artifacts are a part of culture 5% 6% 17%

To reinforce acceptance/respect for others 6% 4% 5%

Table 38B. Totals: Most Popular Arguments for Discussing Religious Significance

Totals: Arguments for discussing religious content Respondents (Total 83)

Encourage religious awareness 29 (35%) Foster cultural awareness 28 (34%) Acknowledging religious significance is important 21 (25%) Religion/religious artifacts: part of culture 19 (23%) To reinforce acceptance/respect for others 8 (10%)

As Table 38A illustrates, it is noteworthy that the same arguments are common to

all of the books. It is also interesting that nearly a quarter of the respondents would

discuss the significance of “The Miracle” from In My Family to encourage religious

awareness. In the words of one PT, “I think anytime you can learn about a different type

of religious experience it is important to share. Children need to know what all is out

there, they do not need to be sheltered. I want to teach my kids to be open and out going.

I want them to try to learn new things no matter if it is about religion or anything else of

that nature.”

206

In contrast, only 5% of the PTs would discuss the significance of Abuelito’s

candles and statues as a means to encourage religious awareness while more than one-

fifth would lead a discussion to foster cultural awareness. Although speculative, this

difference in teaching objectives might also be attributed to the way “The Miracle” is

presented as a discrete event that regards La Virgen de Guadalupe as a religious icon and

the ways Abuelito’s reverence and prayer with the candles and statues are actual

interactions in the story, which could be regarded as more cultural in nature. A

respondent argues: “I think I would be most likely to initiate a discussion about the

religious significance of the statues for this book as opposed to In My Family or Friends

From the Other Side because the statues are explicitly mentioned at least twice in the

story. I don’t think it’s acceptable to just ignore them when they are mentioned; . . . the

discussion doesn’t need to be very religious, but more about why Abuelito lights the

candles and what they mean to him.” As this respondent notes, it is difficult to simply

ignore the statues and candles because they are so much a part of the story and Abuelito’s

life experience. This stance is also reflected in the higher percentage of PTs (17%) who

recognize religion and religious artifact as cultural phenomena in Abuelito Eats with His

Fingers versus In My Family (5%) or Friends from the Other Side (6%).

Across the three books, there are generally equal numbers of respondents whose

objectives would be to acknowledge that the religious content in the illustrations and text

is significant in the context of the stories (12%–16%) or to reinforce respect for people

with different belief systems (4%–6%).

207

As described in Table 38B, perhaps the most positive statistics from this data set

are that over one-third of the respondents are interested in encouraging religious

awareness (35%) and/or fostering cultural awareness (34%). One-quarter of the PTs

(25%) see that acknowledging the significance of the religious content in important and

23% find that religion and/or religious artifacts are part of culture. These data suggest

that some of these PTs might be open to cultivating religious literacy as part of a

multicultural education agenda.

Common arguments against discussing religious content. This next section

regards the PTs’ arguments against discussing the significance of the religious content in

the book. Tables 39 A and B below provides an overview of the common arguments that

appeared within the top 10 arguments for each book.

Table 39. Most Popular Arguments Against Discussing Religious Significance. Popular Arguments against Discussing Religious Content (83 Respondents)

Family %

Friends %

Abuelito %

The religious content is not important to the story 6% 12% 17%

I do not have enough background knowledge 5% 19% 7%

Little/no religion is permitted in public schools 14% 5% 6%

Religion is a risky/controversial topic 6% 7% 11%

Parent/community disapproval 5% 4% 5%

Observe separation of Church and State 3% 6% 6%

Respect students’ beliefs 6% 6% 2%

208

Table 39B. Totals: Most Popular Arguments Against Discussing Religious Significance.

Arguments against discussing religious content Respondents (Total 83)

Religious content (visual/textual) is not important to the story 24 (29%) I do not have enough background knowledge 19 (23%) Little/no religion permitted in public schools 18 (22%) Risky/controversial topic (religion) 16 (19%) Observe separation of Church and State 9 (11%) Respect students' beliefs 9 (11%) Parental/community disapproval 7 (8%)

Religious content is not important. Among the top two arguments that PTs gave

for censoring the discussion of religious content in each of the books is the judgment that

the religious content is not important to the story. As suggested by the data in Table 39B,

in the figured worlds of 29% of the respondents, understanding the significance of

religious content such as the apparition of La Virgin de Guadalupe (Guadalupe) in “The

Miracle” in In My Family, the images of Guadalupe and other religious figures in the

herb woman’s bedroom in Friends from the Other Side, and/or the candles and the statues

of Guadalupe and fellow saints in Abulelito Eats with His Fingers is not necessary to

following the storyline.

For example, in consideration of the religious content of In My Family, a

respondent argues that “The Miracle” “goes along with the superstitions of this

family…this book is more about the family traditions and the differences in families or

what makes this family special as opposed to the religious undertones.” In referencing

superstitions, it appears that this PT judges the “The Miracle” as revealing the

irrationality of the family’s religion. It seems that in her figured world of teaching, the

209

“undertones” of religion are not significant to the primary curricular purpose of the book,

which is to teach about the differences among families and family traditions.

In response to the religious images that adorn the herb woman’s bedroom in

Friends from the Other Side, PTs argued: “I wouldn't discuss the painting and artifacts

while reading this book just because the book isn't based on those things. The book was

about how a young girl was brave in helping a boy not about what the meaning of

artifacts and paintings were;” and “While I believe it is important to discuss various

religious backgrounds I do not believe that this is a primary aspect to this story. I believe

that the focus of this book is on the issue of immigration. I feel it is unnecessary and

irrelevant to bring in the religious pictures in this background story.” In these two

arguments, each of the PTs has a different notion of what the story is about—helping

others or immigration—yet it seems that neither sees value in understanding the

relevance of religious images to the herb woman, and perhaps by extension, to Joaquin

and his mother who have some of the very same images in their cabin. It seems that in

these PTs’ figured worlds, religious beliefs are trivial if not superfluous to understanding

the experiences of persons of Mexican heritage.

Congruently, some PTs argue that discussing the significance of Abuelito’s

candles and statues is also unrelated to the story. Their responses include arguments such

as: “I would feel like it [discussing the significance] is kind of pointless and not

necessary. I do not believe it would be interesting to the students as well,” and “I am

hoping to concentrate on the changed relationship between Abuelito and Cristina and not

a minor detail such as Abuelito's religion.” Given the language of their comments, these

210

PTs seem to dismiss the ubiquitous nature of religion in Abuelito’s life and in the lives of

many people of Mexican heritage. Their responses, like the previous two responses,

suggest that these PTs might lack the religious and cultural awareness that is needed to

consider why some Latino picture books include visual and textual religious content in

the first place.

I do not have enough background knowledge. Nearly one-quarter (23%) of the

PTs report that they do not have adequate background knowledge to address the

significance of the religious content of the books. Their written responses include

comments such as: “I am not very familiar with Hispanic religious practices and therefore

do not feel comfortable discussing them with my students” and “I would be afraid to

mess the information up and giving them the wrong idea on who they are and what they

do.” These arguments are valid and indicative of a broader phenomenon discussed in

Chapter 2: Many prospective, preservice and practicing teachers possess neither broad-

based liberal arts background knowledge, nor the preparation that is needed to

successfully discuss religious content in the classroom (Black, 2003; Haynes, 1992;

Douglas, 2000; Noddings, 1993; Nord, 2010; Rosenblith & Baily, 2007).

Little or no religion is permitted in public schools. Twenty-two percent (22%) of

the participants in this study presume that little or no discussion about religion is

permitted in public schools. For this reason, they would not discuss the relevance of the

religious content in the picture books. As one respondent puts it, “I do not plan to work

in a Christian parochial school so I would not be allowed to discuss the religious

significance. Plus it makes me uncomfortable.” In the words of another, “The only

211

reason I would be partly uncomfortable [in discussing the images in the herb woman’s

bedroom] is because religion can not be taught in school. It would be very hard to explain

something like religious pictures without going into religion.” It seems that these PTs

accept the myth in dominant Discourse that learning about religion (Church) does not

correspond with public education (State). Like many teachers, they seem to believe that

it is unlawful to discuss religious worldviews in the classroom (Bishop & Nash, 2007;

Escamilla & Nathenson-Meija, 2003). Congruently, 11% of the PTs specifically identify

Separation of Church and State as a reason against discussing the significance of

religious content. See Chapter 2 for a deconstruction of the Separation of Church and

State myth.

Religion is a risky and controversial topic. Nearly one-fifth (19%) of the PTs

would avoid discussing the religious content in the picture books because in their figured

worlds of future teaching, the discussion of religious content is not “normal” or consistent

with the expectations of the dominant social group. Rather, the discussion of religion is

not only different, it is often considered “deviant” by members of the dominant social

group and by some Multiculturalists (Nord, 2010). PTs’ comments allude to the deviance

of discussing religion in the classroom particularly as religion and public education

constitutes an ongoing national Conversation. “I think that bringing up the religious

items in this book [In My Family] wouldn't really be the best idea. I think this because

there have been so many issues with religion in the last couple of years,” argues one of

the PTs. In response to the religious images in the herb woman’s bedroom of Friends

from the Other Side, another respondent writes, “I think it would be very risky to discuss

212

the herb woman's room. She is extremely religious and the use of religion in classrooms

is completely frowned upon.” Someone else shares, “I’m just unlikely to share this book

[Abuelito Eats with His Fingers] in my classroom regardless. Religion is a touchy

subject in today's classrooms as it is.” These comments are representative of the PTs’

concerns about the perceived deviance in discussing religion in school.

Parent/community disapproval. Consistent with the preceding arguments, eight

percent of the PTs worry about parental and community disapproval. “Parents may be

concerned about a lesson on religion because its typically not okay to teach religion in

schools and parents might not like that we are teaching something other than their own

religion” writes one PT in response to In My Family. Another PT argues, “some parents

might be offended if they find out about what their children are learning. They may not

want their kids hearing about other cultures’ religious ideas so may get mad at me as the

teacher for using the book in class. Also, they might get mad at me for not asking them

about their feeling before assigning the book.” These rationales for avoiding the religious

content in the picture books illustrate some of the respondents’ fears about upsetting

parents and suffering consequences for their book selections.

Respect students’ beliefs. Finally, 11% of the future teachers in this study would

avoid the discussion of religions content in the picture books because they want to

“respect” the beliefs of their students. That is to say, they do not want to present

perspective that might be inconsistent with students’ belief systems. For example, in

considering the images in the herb woman’s bedroom, a respondent states, “She [the herb

woman] has family paintings and then a painting of the Lady of Guadalupe. I would feel

213

uncomfortable explaining this to children because it might be against their beliefs from

home.” Someone else argues, “I don't see the significance to teach the religious

importance to a child because it may not relate to them at all. Parents may not want their

child to know what it means or want them to know anything but their religion.” These

PTs’ concerns about disrespecting students’ beliefs establish the groundwork for a

dangerous bias toward privileging the religious heritage of the dominant cultural group in

the school community. Such bias, albeit in an attempt to “respect” students, is

inconsistent with the First Amendment to the Bill of Rights, which prohibits

proselytizing, even if it is silent (Hayne & Thomas, 2007).

Common conditions for discussing religious content. Although many of the

PTs’ responses included arguments for and against discussing the significance of

religious content, many PTs also provided a range of conditions under which they might

talk about the content. Tables 40 A and B outline the four most popular conditions across

the three books. Table 40A provides sample comments from the PTs’ responses.

214

Table 40. Most Popular Conditions for Discussing Religious Significance.

Conditions Family (Total 83)

Friends (Total 83)

Abuelito (Total 83)

Surface level information 11 (13%) 7 (8%) 10 (12%) “I would explain ‘The Miracle’ by just stating the facts.”

“The paintings and artifacts were all religion based. I may briefly say something about them but not too much.”

“I think it would be safe having a quick, light discussion about what the students see and what they know about these religious artifacts.”

Student questions/comments 6 (7%) 7 (8%) 11 (13%) “I do not think I would really get into the religious significance of the water tank painting. If a

student asked specifically, then I would answer their question and explain some things.” “There are many images of saints and candles. I think I would explain this part of the book if the children asked about it but that is not a huge component of the books message so I don't think its very important.”

“I don't think it would be necessary to discuss in the classroom unless a student had a question about it.”

If I did more research on the subject 8 (10%) 8 (10%) 6 (7%) “I do not know very much about ‘The Miracle.’ I would need to do more research on the

subject before I decided if it was something I would teach my class about.”

“I would feel somewhat comfortable but I would have to do more research on the subject so that I could provide correct material to go along with the religious significance.”

“I do not know much about the meaning of the candles and statues but I would be willing to learn about them to teach the kids because these things are important to understand about this culture and their beliefs as a religion.”

No proselytizing: teach about religion only 8 (10%) 5 (5%) 2 (2%) “I think the problem comes when teachers only talk about one religion and then press the

ideals upon their students.” “I think if you use it in a way that isn't pushing the religion and saying its not the only one then you can use it and have great discussions and debates about it.”

“I would explain what the meaning of the candles and statues means to the grandfather and in his religion, but I would not force my students to believe in the meaning of the candles and statues.”

215

Table 40B. Totals: Most Popular Conditions for Discussing Religious Significance.

Conditions for discussing religious content Respondents (Total 83)

Surface level information 23 (28%) Student questions/comments 17 (20%) If I did more research on the subject 15 (18%) No proselytizing. Teach about religion only 11 (13%)

The aforementioned conditions for discussing the significance of religious content

that are established by some of the respondents are reflective of the arguments some PTs

use to avoid the discussion altogether. As indicated in Table 40B for 28% of the PTs,

providing only surface-level information appears to be consistent with what they know to

be “normal” or “accepted” in their figured worlds for school. For one-fifth (20%) of the

PTs, providing enough information to answer students’ questions/comments might also

be aligned with what they believe to appropriate for the classroom. Thirteen percent see

that they could avoid proselytizing and maintain separation of Church and State by

explaining that the religious beliefs that are reflected in the story are those of the

characters’ and not of all people and/or by talking about multiple religions. Last, 18%

the PTs also recognize that they could learn more about the religious traditions that are

presented in the stories and could be better equipped to address them.

With this last condition, it is noteworthy that while 18% foresee that doing some

research could be an option to discussing the significance of the religious content 23%

argued that due to their lack of background information, they would avoid the discussion

altogether. Although slight, this variance could be suggestive of a difference in

perspective among some of the respondents. In the figured worlds of some PTs there

216

might not be any impetus to learn about the religious traditions of persons who are not

members of the dominant cultural groups.

Research Question Five

How does applying a critical lens to a re-reading of a book of one’s choice (In My

Family; Friends from the Other Side; or Abuelito Eats with His Fingers) influence the

prospective teachers’ interpretations of that book?

This next section examines the data that were collected after the PTs learned

about the historical and cultural significance of La Virgen de Guadalupe as an icon of

Mexican religious and national identity and after the PTs critically re-read In My Family,

Friends from the Other Side, and Abuelito Eats with His Fingers. The data set was

collected by asking the PTs to describe anything that they noticed or learned as a result of

critically re-reading the books and to describe the kinds of connections (text-to-self; text-

to-text; or text-to-world) they made while reading with a critical lens. The PTs

completed their reflections at the end of the Week 8 class sessions. Because they were

seated together in small groups to critically re-read and discuss the books of their choice,

some of the PTs also talked with each other as they completed their reflections. For this

reason, some of the PTs comments were similar to their cohorts in the same book groups.

Table 32 describe the PTs’ responses.

Choice of Books

Out of 83 respondents 68 (82%) participated in the post-reading survey. Fifteen

respondents were absent. The respondents were allowed to choose a book for discussion:

half of the respondents (33) selected Abuelito Eats with His Fingers, about two out of

217

five (28) chose In My Family, and only one in 10 respondents (7 respondents or 10%)

selected the book Friends from the Other Side. See Figure 16.

Figure 16. Respondents’ Choice of Books for Post-Reading Analysis.

Reflection on Critical Reading

After learning about Guadalupe’s historical and cultural significance in class and

after critically re-reading the books, respondents were asked what they noticed/learned

after the critical reading of the books. At least 45% of the respondents said that they

learned that religion and/or the Virgin of Guadalupe play a significant role in

Mexican/Hispanic/Latino in the lives of the characters depicted in the story and by

extension, many people of Mexican/Hispanic/Latino heritage. See Table 41.

!"#$%&'()*+,(-*.'(/*0'-*1'23%4-!*567*

!82*9:*1,;'&:!*5<7*

!14'%2=-*>4);*(/%*?(/%4*@'=%!*

<A7*

B)-(CD%,='23*@$4E%:F*D%-G)2=%2(-H*I/)'J%*)>*K))L-*

218

Table 41. Respondents Reflection after Critical Reading of Books.

During critical reading of the books I learned about/noticed: Respondents (Total 68)

Guadalupe and religious traditions are important to story characters or Mexican/Hispanic/Latino families 31

Aspects of Mexican/Latino/Hispanic culture and traditions 12

A general, increased understanding/appreciation of the story 9

Non-Response 8

Appreciation of family 5

Moral messages: Accept, befriend, and/or help others 4

Did not notice/learn anything 3

Being an outsider to your own culture (Abuelito: Tina’s perspective) 3

Spanish words could be difficult for kids (Abuelito: No glossary/translation) 3

Language barriers can be overcome 1

Some of the respondents were more general in describing an increased awareness

of family, culture, religion, and diversity as outlined above. In the words of one PT, “I

noticed that I did not know much about this religion and taking a critical reading lens

shifted my interpretation of the book somewhat since I could relate it to the information

we learned in class.” More philosophically, another PT reflects, “I noticed that

sometimes we are scared but when we looking at things more in depth you start to

understand them. Religion is key important to many people and they take it seriously.”

These responses suggest that for at least two of the PTs adopting a critical reading

increased their meta-knowledge in thinking about their responses to the books.

Though only 68 respondents (15 fewer than those who responded to the literature

response questions for each book) completed written reflections after critically re-reading

the books, data suggest that many experienced a modest increase in understanding the

219

contexts of the books they read as depicted in Table 32. Respondents’ figured worlds of

“normal” or “acceptable” did not necessarily shift. With regard to what she noticed in

critically re-reading In My Family, one PT writes, “There are many important aspects of

this culture presented from an insider [author]. These things are likely to be acceptable.”

In this statement, the PT seems to judge the content of the book based on her figured

worlds for what is “acceptable” or “un-acceptable” content. Three other PTs use the

critical reading lens to judge Abuelito Eats with His Fingers. These respondents suggest

that the author Levy “didn’t do a good job” because “some of the words in the book are

not even explained” and “a younger child may not pick up on the language.” It appears

that in the figured worlds construed by these PTs, children’s books are intended for

English-speaking readers. These readers are the “implied readers” as discussed in Chapter

2. Thus, an author only does a “good job” when she accommodates English-speaking

readers with in-text translations of Spanish words rather than contextual clues or

inferences. Bilingual or Spanish-speaking children who might appreciate the few

Spanish words seem to be outsiders to the target audience in this figured world. In short,

while an increase in subject-matter knowledge prior to re-reading the picturebooks was

both appreciated by and helpful to many of the PTs, the increase does not appear to

immediately influence the PTs’ figured worlds.

Returning to the subject of Abuelito Eats with His Fingers, it is also interesting to

note that nearly half of the PTs elected to re-read this picturebook, while approximately

40% re-read In My Family, and 10% re-read Friends from the Other Side. (See Figure

25.) Although speculative, one reason that more people might have elected to critically

220

re-read Abuelito Eats with His Fingers, could be associated with the notion that Tina, the

protagonist, is an outsider to her culture. Three respondents mentioned this as indicated

in the code “Being an outsider to your own culture.” During the Week 8 class discussion

with the Tuesday evening group, PTs who re-read Abuelito Eats with His Fingers, also

suggested that since Tina was an outsider to her Mexican culture, she was an ideal guide

for readers who are cultural outsiders like themselves.

Connections to Stories

The respondents were asked to describe the connections they made while reading

the books. More than half (59%) of respondents described their connection as “text to

self” (connection to their grandparents, family, religion etc.). About one fifth (19%)

described their connection as “text to world,” making references to knowledge about

other cultures/religions or Mexican/Hispanic/Latino culture. Only five respondents (7%)

referred to “text to text” connection. These connections were specific to the picture

books, Talking Eagle and the Lady of Roses (Córdova, 2011) and The Lady of Guadalupe

(dePaola, 1980) that were used in the Week 8 class session to demonstrate and practice

the reading process prior to re-reading In My Family, Friends from the Other Side, and

Abuelito Eats with His Fingers. See Figure 17 below.

221

Figure 17. Respondents’ Connections to Stories.

The text-to-self connections that the PTs described in response to their critical re-

readings of the books are consistent with the personal connections many PTs made in

writing their general responses to the books. (See Research Question 2.) Initially,

approximately 45% of respondents made personal connections to In My Family and 39%

of respondents connected to Abuelito Eats with His Fingers. Given these initial data

points, the connections the PTs made after critically re-reading are repetitive, showing

little variation.

In summary, prior to critically re-reading the picture books in the Week 8 class

session, the PTs learned about the historical and cultural significance of Guadalupe who

is depicted in the religious content across all three books. They also learned about critical

literacy principles and practiced applying a critical reading lens before revisiting the three

picture books for this study. As a result of this process, many of the PTs reported some

increased awareness of the significance of culture, family, and religion to the context of

!"#$

%&#$'"#$

(#$

)#$

%)#$

&)#$

*)#$

+)#$

!"#$%$&%'"()% *&+,-"./&+."% !"#$%$&%0&1(2% !"#$%$&%!"#$%

-34536!78*9%6&++":;&+.%<=2">%

222

the stories. Some of the PTs’ responses suggest, however, that increased awareness does

not necessarily influence one’s figured worlds. Overall, the PTs did not report any

significant variations in their connections to the stories. Since the PTs comments

primarily regarded their personal reading experiences, it is difficult to infer from this data

set whether the critical reading process shifted the PTs’ motives for or against using In

My Family, Friends from the Other Side, and Abuelito Eats with His Fingers in their

future classrooms.

Research Question Six

What kinds of Discourses and figured worlds (Gee, 2011) do prospective teachers

construe about Latinos around works of Latino children’s literature that includes

visual religious content?

The data for this final research question, “What kinds of figured worlds (Gee,

2011) do PTs construe around Latinos in response to works of Latino children’s literature

that includes visual religious content?” was collected by analyzing the data via the

questions: (a) What Discourse or Discourses are involved?; (b) What Conversations are

relevant to understanding the language?; and (c) What figured worlds, if any, are relevant

and/or being used to make value judgments about oneself or others? In analyzing the

data set, a thematic network emerged. See Figure 18.

223

Figure 18. Prospective Teachers’ Figured World: “Typical” Persons of Mexican Heritage.

This final question looks at the data set through Gee’s (2011) lens of Discourses

and figured worlds. In thinking about this question, it may be helpful to recall that the

participants in this study were primarily white women in their early twenties with limited

background experience or knowledge about Latino cultures. These prospective teachers

(PTs) are primarily members of the dominant social class. Their figured worlds about

U.S.-born Americans and immigrants of Latino heritage may thus be informed by the

dominant Discourse about Latinos, which, as described earlier, includes the Latino Threat

Narrative (LTN) (Chavez, 2008) and the Anglo-American Narrative (AAN) (Santa Ana,

2002).

Key considerations for the results of this data inquiry are that: (a) the figured

worlds that are revealed in the analysis are relative to the PTs’ response to three works of

224

critical fiction and (b) the PTs’ responses to the books were constructed in the context of

a “homework assignment” for one of their courses. Therefore, many of the responses

could have been couched in a manner that is consistent with the Discourse of school and

thus composed for a specific audience, namely the instructor.

With the global theme of the analysis being PTs’ notion of what is “normal” or

“typical” of persons of Latino heritage (i.e. “Persons of Mexican heritage may be like us,

but they are not us”), the organizing themes for this discussion include: “Family

Composition,” “Ordinariness,” “Profile,’ and “Milieu.” Each of these organizing

categories represents a set of specific, basic themes that will be discussed here. Much of

this discussion regards the PTs’ responses to In My Family, which describes artist-author

Carmen Lomas Garza’s childhood experiences with her family in and around the

community of Kingsville, TX.

Family Composition

In response to In My Family, several PTs commented on the composition of

Carmen Lomas Garza’s family as being representative of a “typical” family of Mexican

heritage and/or immigrant background. “What stuck out the most about the story was

how family oriented the Mexican people are,” writes one respondent. “When I think of

immigrant families living in Texas, large family atmospheres come to mind,” offers

another. These respondents’ comments seem to generalize the qualities of Garza’s family

to many families of Mexican heritage. The personal connections to In My Family that

some PTs described in their responses are suggestive of the kinds of taken-for-granted

assumptions that the respondents might also have about families of Mexican heritage. For

225

example, a number of the responses included lines such as: “I too have a very large

family” or “Her [Garza’s] family is close knit and loving similar to mine.” Inferring

from responses like these, it appears that in the PTs’ figured worlds, typical families of

Mexican heritage are close knit, large, and loving.

Ordinariness

Normal family life. Maintaining the family theme, some PTs also generalized

that “typical” families of Mexican heritage are “ordinary” or “normal,” and thus, “like

us.” For example, one respondent suggests that the characters in In My Family “were easy

to relate to as they were just a normal family” (emphasis added). This respondent’s use

of the word “normal” to describe Garza’ family references a socially and culturally

constructed theory (figured world) about the characteristics of a “typical” family in the

dominant Discourse (Gee, 2011). Thus, as a “normal” family, Garza’s family shares the

same characteristics of a typical, bonded, happy family in the dominant white, middle-

class social group. Embracing this same figured world, another respondent suggests, “all

of the family [members] look happy and talented. They look like they come from a

middle class background.” Going further, someone else posits, “The paintings [of In My

Family] seemed to try to depict how 'Americanized' the family was. The brother had a

baseball mitt and gloves, the family celebrated the same holidays as most Americans, and

the father was even in WWII.” This respondent sees that Carmen Lomas Garza’s family

paintings match his “picture” (figured world) of a typical American family. His response

suggests that Garza’s family was acculturated in embracing “American” patriotism,

pastimes, and holidays. Hence, her family is like “normal” American families.

226

Inferring from the responses collectively (Krippendorff, 2004), it seem that for

some PTs, the typical family of the dominant Discourse is the standard by which to

compare families who reside outside of the dominant social group. This standard appears

to be applied in this final remark, which was submitted by a PT in her discussion about

the characters’ families in Anzaldúa’s Friends from the Other Side: “the bonds between

family are the same no matter if you are an illegal or not.” For this respondent, the

quality of a bonded family that is valued in the dominant social group is also valued by

families of “illegal” immigrants, who are in a subordinate group. (The PTs’ use of the

term “illegal” was discussed earlier.) To summarize, for some of the PTs the Mexican

and Mexican-American families presented in the books match their figured worlds of a

“typical” family. As a result, they found the families to be “ordinary” or “just like us.”

Ordinary celebrations of holidays and milestones. Just as some PTs see that

Hispanic/Latino/Mexican families are “normal” like their family, they also see that the

ways Hispanic/Latino/Mexican families celebrate holidays and milestones are like the

ways they celebrate, too. For example, in thinking about her standards (figured world)

of a “normal” birthday party, one respondent offers, “The family BBQ part [of In My

Family] was close to being as accurate as could be, besides having a piñata.” In other

words, the way Garza’s family celebrated birthdays is consistent with the ways a typical

birthday party is celebrated by members of the dominant social group—except for the

non-conforming piñata.

This same sentiment was reflect by several PTs whose common figured worlds

for typical Easter holiday traditions were generally satisfied by Garza’s description of her

227

family’s Easter traditions. “I also gather around with my family on Easter Sunday for a

big meal, and then work together to paint Easter eggs,” writes one respondent. “They, as

well, dye eggs and celebrate with family,” observes another. With regard to the way

Garza’s family also fills their dyed Easter eggs with confetti, a respondent shares, “I am

used to the Easter Egg painting/hunt tradition but the confetti filling is something new to

me.” In considering the whole book, another respondent suggests that Garza “showed

interesting variations to mainstream culture. For example, the way the characters in the

story fill their Easter eggs with confetti rather than candy.” Here, the PT accounts for

what is “normal” in the dominant cultural group and suggests that the tradition of using

confetti is a variation on the norm.

With regard to family activities such as preparing food together, another PT

writes, “This is one of my first experiences learning about the Mexican culture. We have

quite of few similarities just with different things (pies instead of empanadas).” This

respondent, who notes that she has limited background knowledge, generalizes that with

the simple exchange of food items, things in “Mexican culture” are similar to things in

the dominant (“we”) cultural group. Finally, in the context of acknowledging similarities

in the celebration of holidays and milestones, some PTs not only make generalizations,

but draw a clear line of separation between social groups. For example, as an activity a

respondent suggests that her future students might “talk [about] the similarities and

differences about how they—Americans—celebrate Easter and Weddings compared to

how the Mexican's celebrate it.” Here, in the PT’s figured world of her future classroom,

her students are “American.” Garza’s Mexican-American family is not.

228

Cultural Profile

The preceding section described how some PTs found that the way Garza’s

Mexican-American family celebrated holidays and milestones generally matches their

figured worlds for how such events normally unfold. This next section examines how

some PTs also believe that Garza’s family “just was simply different from the traditional

American family,” in the words of one respondent. Generalizing, in the words of another

respondent, there are “differences between our culture and Mexican culture. I realized

that there were a great deal of differences.”

Allegiance to culture of “old country.” Consistent with the Anglo-American

Narrative (AAN), which suggests that Latinos might only demonstrate their loyalty to

American culture by denouncing the cultures of their homelands (Santa Ana, 2002), some

respondents likewise argue that Garza’s family members are allegiant to Mexican social

customs even if they are American citizens. In addition to regarding Garza’s family as

“Mexican” rather than Mexican American, for example, one respondent suggests that

Garza’s family members were “able to uphold their traditions and culture even when they

weren’t in their own country.” Similarly, another PT writes, “the biggest thing that

surprised me was the fact of how much of Hispanic tradition was still part of her life even

though they lived in the states.” Last, a PT, reflecting on the way Garza’s family

members grow and harvest food from their gardens, reflects, “I did think that it was

strange that they relied so heavily on food that they harvested because they are in

America. . . . They still rely on the customs of their Mexican culture.” Like the previous

respondents, in this PT’s figured world, Garza’s family chooses to maintain the “old

229

ways.” In this instance, the PT seems to assume that typical Americans do not grow food

for themselves. Collectively, logic of such responses suggests that atypical practices are

therefore un-American and reflective of a different country.

Collective immigrant experience. Hand in hand with the notion that Mexican

American families like Garza’s sustain the customs of a different country is the

underlying premise that persons of Mexican heritage must share a common immigrant

experience. In this figured world, there is no accommodation for families who have lived

in the Southwest for generations and/or might have been Tejanos prior to the Mexican-

American War and the Treaty of Hidalgo in 1848. Rather, it is assumed that persons of

Mexican heritage are historically recent arrivals to the U.S. The opening discussion

about families, for example, references a respondent who assumed that Garza’s family

was a large immigrant family. Congruently, other PTs report that In My Family “does a

good job depicting the lives of Latino immigrants as they carry on with their day” and

reflects the notion that “Texas was having a lot of Mexicans coming up to live” at the

time the story was set (1950s – 1970s). Reflecting on the story, one PT even writes, “I

was surprised at how easily life seemed for this . . . Mexican family. Texas isn't exactly

the best place to be especially when it comes to border control, but the family seemed to

be living carefree.” For this respondent, the fact that Garza’s family appears

unconcerned by the presence of border police in the region seems to imply that in this

PT’s figured world, families of Mexican heritage are, in fact, undocumented immigrants

who would normally be anxious and fearful of deportation. In short, these responses are

illustrative of the narrative in the dominant Discourse that positions all persons of

230

Mexican heritage as undocumented if not documented immigrants. None are recognized

as Tejanos who have been U.S. citizens for generations.

Subject to hardship. Following up on the immigrant status that some PTs

assigned to Garza’s family, this next section addresses another common assumption:

people of Mexican heritage are subject to hardship. It might be for this reason that some

PTs expressed surprise in response to In My Family. In the words of one respondent, “I

was shocked that this aspect [of hardship] was not mentioned.” According to another, “I

was surprised the story didn't focus more on the hardships that the Mexicans faced—

especially when living so close to the border.” Like the previous respondent, it appears

that in this respondent’s figured world, life in a border town would produce difficulties

for persons of Mexican heritage presumably because they could be at risk for deportation.

This next response is similar: “I actually thought that it was surprising that this family

lived a pretty normal, happy life in Texas even though they are of a different culture. I

thought they would have harder times back then.” In this response, the PT finds it

unusual that Garza’s family leads the kind of life that is nearly “normal” as defined by the

dominant Discourse because in her figured world, Garza’s family would have suffered

harder times.

In response to Anzaldúa’s Friends from the Other Side (Friends), which regards

the experience of the boy Joaquin who has crossed the border with his mother, one PT

suggests that the book “would be a great educational resources to use in the classroom to

educate empathy toward Hispanics.” It appears that this PT has good intentions for using

Friends as a tool for teaching social justice. However, underpinning her comment seems

231

to be the generalized assumption that all Hispanics suffer and thereby deserve empathy

from the dominant social group. Aligned with this response to Friends, another PT

imagines the emotional as well as the physical hardships that immigrants might

experience. She writes, “I could not relate very well with . . . [the characters in Friends]

because I have never experienced hunger or need of work. I have never known what it

was like to be a hated immigrant” (emphasis added). This is an extraordinary statement.

Here, the PT voices the dominant Discourse that defines immigrants as hated beings (as

part of the Latino Threat Narrative) as she defines the hardships she observes of Joaquin

and his mother in Friends. To summarize, across both stories, some PTs adhere to a

figured world in which persons of Hispanic/Mexican heritage are not only immigrants,

but also victims of hardship as defined by the dominant social group.

Spanish speakers. This next section addresses another taken-for-granted notion.

In the figured worlds of some PTs, all persons of Hispanic/Latino heritage are Spanish

speakers. Thus, some PTs wondered why the grandchild Tina in Abuelito Eats with His

Fingers (Abuelito) did not speak Spanish. Some also wondered why Tina was not closer

to Abuelito because in their figured worlds, families of Hispanic/Latino heritage are

typically close knit. “I was surprised that the grandfather spoke Spanish and the

granddaughter only spoke English,” writes one respondent. “I was surprised that she

[Tina] did not know Spanish and also that she was not initially close with her

grandfather,” says another. With regard to using Abuelito in the classroom, a PT also

suggests it would be “worth noting [considering] what would be the reason why the

young girl was not bilingual,” as she did not offer a rationale in her response. In short, as

232

a monolingual English speaker who is not naturally close with her grandfather, Tina’s

story in Abuelito did not correspond with how children of Hispanic/Latino heritage

behave in the figured worlds of some PTs. These PTs’ responses could be exemplars of

the way members of the dominant social groups assume that persons of Hispanic/Latino

heritage are monolingual Spanish speakers as explained by Santa Ana (2002) in the

Anglo-American Narrative (AAN), described by Chavez (2008) in the Latino Threat

Narrative (LTN), and discussed by Ada (2003) and Chomsky (2007).

Milieu

This next section considers the geographic parameters that PTs place around

themselves as members of the dominant social class and around persons of

Hispanic/Latino heritage as members of a subordinate, outsider group. Like previous

sections, most of this discussion regards the PTs responses to In My Family and Friends.

Live in enclaves. In the figured worlds of some of the PTs, persons of

Hispanic/Latino heritage live in enclaves. For example, in response to Friends, a

respondent notes that living near the border, “Mexicans were separated from wealthy and

poor [communities]” presumably of the dominant white cultural group. In response to In

My Family, a respondent suggests that Garza’s family resided in what he presumed to be

“a very heavily Mexican-American populated part of the country” where Mexican

traditions were honored. Consistent with this response, another PT states that the

“pictures and descriptions [of In My Family] are very helpful for trying to understand the

culture in Kingsville Texas and other Mexican neighborhoods” (emphasis added). In

contrast, another respondent who has family in Kingsville, Texas argues, “I have been

233

there before. Kingsville is not as small and remote as it is made out to be. There is a

university and developed downtown. The depictions are of the rural outskirts.” In this

response, the PT seems to imply that Mexican American families like Garza’s live in

communities that are outside of the mainstream area where universities are located and

members of the dominant social group reside.

Live outside of America. This last section regards the way in which several PTs

assume that people of Mexican heritage do not live in Texas or America proper. In their

figured worlds, which may be informed by and reflective of the dominant Discourse and

national Conversations about the Hispanic/Latino population in the U.S., there is a clear

distinction of what is and is not America. The responses in this section primarily regard

In My Family, which, as mentioned above, is set in Kingsville, Texas. To provide

context for the PTs responses, on the first page of In My Family, Garza includes a note to

her readers that the story is set in her hometown of Kingsville. In addition, two of the

literature response questions reinforce that In My Family is set in Texas (i.e., “Was there

anything that surprised you about Carmen Lomas Garza’s depiction (textual or visual) of

life in Kingsville Texas from the late 1950s through the 1970s? If so, what?” and “Both

In My Family and Friends are based on the authors’ lived experiences in the South Texas

region. Describe any commonalities that you might have noticed between these two

picture books.”)

“In My Family was a good representation of family life in Mexico. It was full of

traditions of the Mexican people.” In this response, the PT assumes that Garza’s family

resides in Mexico despite the markers that the story is set in Texas. Perhaps in her

234

figured world, families like Garza’s do not live in the U.S. Another respondent likewise

infers that the story is set outside of America as she reports, “Obviously, being from the

Americas, I don't really know much of Hispanic culture, so I found this to be a very fun

and informational picture book.” As an inhabitant of the “Americas” this respondent

does not have knowledge of Hispanics/Latinos because they do not reside in her country.

The respondents in this next section acknowledge that In My Family is set in

Texas but their comments suggest otherwise. For example, some respondents report:

“The book seemed as though it was based in Mexico rather than Texas. Everything

reminded me of Mexico” and “It did not seem as if they were living in Texas. It seemed

like they were living in Mexico with all her family close by.” This latter response

suggests that in this PT’s figured world, large families of Mexican heritage primarily

exist in Mexico. Because in their figured worlds of Texas persons of Hispanic/Latino

heritage as seemingly excluded, the next two respondents were initially convinced that

the story was set in Mexico. One respondent writes, “I forgot that the setting was in

Texas because the pictures were made so much to reflect the Mexican culture.” The

other reflects, “When I was reading I forgot this was set in Texas. It felt like it was set in

Mexico because of all the Spanish traditions.” Collectively, four out of the six responses

presented here specifically state that because Garza’s family culture appears to be so

Hispanic/Mexican/Spanish in the paintings of In My Family, the PTs assumed the story

was set outside of the U.S. This taken-for-granted notion reflects a figured world in

which persons of Hispanic/Latino heritage who do not meet the norms for being

American, which mandate the rejection of all things foreign (Chavez, 2008; Santa Ana;

235

2002), are not recognized as residents or citizens of the United States by the dominant

social class.

Aliens among Americans. Going one step further, it appears that in the

subconscious figured worlds of a few PTs, persons of Hispanic/Latino heritage are, in

fact, outsiders to the human species. This stance is revealed in the way that these PTs

respond to In My Family. As if clarification is necessary, one respondent suggests that

Garza’s family members are “shown to be human just like the rest of us despite the

cultural barrier.” Congruently, two other PTs are surprised that the children in Garza’s

family “have brothers and sisters;” and “can get hurt by a fire ant” just like humans. As

discussed in Chapter 2, binaries such as citizen/foreigner and native/invader are common

to the Latino Threat Narrative (LTN), (Chavez, 2008) and used by politicians on public

radio airways (National Hispanic Media Coalition, 2012). The binary of human/non-

human is another metaphor in the anti-Latino discourse (Santa Ana, 2002). On the

national stage, dehumanization has served to exclude Latinos from public policies that

regard the distribution of social goods and services including access to education and

medical care.

Summary

A complex web of figured worlds about who Americans are and who persons of

Hispanic/Latino heritage are is revealed in the PTs’ responses to the picture books In My

Family, Friends from the Other Side, and Abuelito Eats with His Fingers. For many of

the PTs, the constructs of Garza’s Mexican-American family and Mexican-American

ways of celebrating holidays and milestones generally match the norms set by the

236

dominant group—with the exception of birthday party piñatas, confetti-filled Easter eggs,

and family-made empanadas. In conjunction with the Universalist stance that everyone is

nearly alike is an array of figured worlds that excludes persons of Hispanic/Latino

heritage from American citizenry through the lens of the dominant social group. In such

figured worlds, persons of Hispanic/Latino heritage are Spanish speakers who are

allegiant to the cultures of their home countries and figuratively positioned outside of

“America” by the dominant social group.

237

CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

This conclusion presents a recapitulation of the research findings and a discussion

of the conclusions and implications of this study.

Recapitulation of the Research

Problem. While Hispanics/Latinos represent the largest minority population in

the United State (US Census Bureau, 2010), Latinos and persons who follow alternative

religious traditions are often absent from curricular materials. Tucson Unified School

District’s elimination of such materials has been a part of the national Conversation on

censorship in public education. Locally, some teachers exercise bias in selecting works

of multicultural children’s literature for the classroom. In some instances, the education

and self-esteem of Latino children suffer.

Scholars who have grappled with teachers’ selection and use of multicultural

children’s literature in the classroom argue that critical literacy practices, which include

assessing one’s own bias and accessing the background knowledge needed to critically

engage with a book, are key to promoting and modeling multiculturalism. What they

have not yet identified is the centrality of engagement with religion to cultural literacy in

America and the function of current teacher approaches to religion in maintaining

prejudicial Discourse. This examination of PTs’ approaches to religious content in

classroom materials begins to bridge that gap and offers a scaffold from which to

238

reconsider the actual impact of current teacher training in education toward

multiculturalism.

Objectives. The objectives for this research were to address multiple interrelated

concerns in contemporary multicultural children’s literature and teacher education. This

study set forth to (a) describe the cultural and religious awareness of young prospective

teachers (PTs) who are themselves products of the K-12 and post-secondary multicultural

education movement of the last decade; (b) reveal the social Discourses that future

teachers apply to Latinos as a minority group; (c) expose PTs to accurate, affirmative

works of Latino children’s literature and to concrete information about the historical

interconnectedness of religion and culture in Mexico and the Mexican Diaspora; and to

(d) raise questions about the ways teacher education programs prepare new teachers to

meet the needs of a highly diverse populations of which Hispanics/Latinos are the largest

minority group and to foster cultural and religious awareness as part of the multicultural

education agenda.

Theoretical framework. Grounded in socio-cultural theory, this study was

framed by Gee’s (2011) concept of figured worlds, which are personal theories, notions,

or assumptions about what is “normal” or “typical” of people and the world around them.

As taken-for-granted assumptions, in the collective figured world of the dominant social

group, persons of Latino heritage are construed to be Catholic, monolingual Spanish

speakers who live in their own communities, marry fellow Latinos, resist the influence of

and integration into larger society or culture, and are outside of the real if citizenry

(Chavez, 2008). Assumptions like these comprise what Chavez (2008) regards as the

239

Latino Threat Narrative (LTN) and what Santa Ana (2002) describes as the Anglo-

American Narrative (AAN). These narratives illustrate how groups’ simplified

assumptions of “normal” on which their figured worlds are based “can do harm by

implanting in thought and action unfair, dismissive or derogatory assumptions about

other people” (Gee, 2011, p. 77). These kinds of assumptions could be sustained from

one generation to the next. Within the institution of public education, for example, the

cyclical nature by which some teachers rely on their personal histories or apprenticeships

of observation (Britzman, 1986; Lortie, 1975) to construe their figured worlds of teaching

could inadvertently reify or perpetuate the Discourse of the dominant cultural group over

other cultural groups. In conceiving of Discourse as subject matter knowledge, which

informs the content teachers will teach (Grossman, 1990; Shulman, 1987), teachers might

cyclically privilege certain content and curriculum materials, as well.

This study was also framed by Beach’s (1997) reader response theory of subject

positioning, which considers the connections between readers’ ideological orientations

and their acceptance or rejection of multicultural literature. Consistent with Gee’s

concept of figured worlds, Beach (1997) argues that readers, including teachers, are

socialized to assume reading stances that validate their membership or status in certain

groups. These stances are construed and influenced by the ideological discourse of the

group. They reinforce the group’s concept of “normal” and could lead teachers to avoid

or exclude from the classroom certain works of multicultural children’s literature.

Literature reviews. The scholarly literature that underpins this research project

illustrates the ways that teachers adopt stances toward the use of multicultural children’s

240

literature in the classroom that enable them to focus on diversity while at the same time

allowing them to avoid discussions about power structures and struggles. In taking a

Universalist stance, teachers could, for example, focus on how families and family

celebrations are similar across cultural groups with a few variations, like a birthday

piñata. In taking a Protector of Children, NIMBY, Curriculum First, or Law Abiding

Citizen stance, teachers could justify the censorship of texts or passing over thorny topics

of conversation such as institutional prejudice and/or alternative belief systems.

The literature has also described the state of religious awareness in public

education and public Discourse. Hilary Clinton’s faux pas at the Basilica of La Virgen de

Guadalupe in Mexico City is, perhaps, representative of the norm in dominant Discourse

that literacy in religious traditions other than one’s own is not expected. Some religious

groups even prohibit it. Thus, despite the objectives of the multicultural education

agenda, the national Conversation on religion and public education is not usually directed

at fostering a culturally religiously pluralistic society through education. As a result,

teachers have little preparation to discuss the relevance of religion in society and my

study reveals how teachers adopt varying stances to avoid the subject and how their

efforts toward multiculturalism are undermined by this avoidance. Moreover, the

scholarship on using multicultural children’s literature to foster religious awareness in

public education is limited; my results on the impact of avoidance of religion and other

stances that perpetuate Discourse suggest these will continue to operate in teacher

training in the absence of increased scrutiny.

241

Finally, the literature that was reviewed for this research provided critical literacy

pedagogy for examining multicultural children’s literature in university and professional

development courses. Collectively, the literature outlined a comprehensive set of

recommendations for critical literacy educators and thus informed the pedagogy for this

inquiry. An important part of the pedagogy is recognizing reader bias and ensuring that

adequate background information is provided to support teachers’ application of a critical

reading lens. My study indicates that current pedagogies to facilitate recognition of

reader bias and exposure to background information may not be sufficient to induce the

critical self-reflection necessary to ameliorate current PT practices and choices.

Methodology. Data were collected from 83 prospective teachers’ (PTs’)

responses to three Latino picturebooks that contain religious visual content: In My

Family, Friends from the Other Side, and Abuelito Eats with His Fingers. Gee’s (2011)

concept of figured worlds served as an inquiry tool in the content analysis methodology,

which included Attride-Stirlings’ (2001) thematic network organization.

Conclusions

Informed by the aforementioned considerations, my work described the kinds of

figured worlds the PTs conjured about Latinos in response to the literature. It also

assayed the extent to which prospective teachers had or developed the capacity to

critically consider one of the most problematic and least practiced elements of

multicultural education: religion.

Knowledge and relationship to cultures. The story of this research began in

considering how teachers describe their knowledge of and relationships to the Latino

242

cultures depicted in the picturebooks. The data set that was analyzed for Research

Question One illustrates that aside from the information that was presented in class about

the historical interconnectedness of La Virgen de Guadalupe, religion, and Mexican and

Mexican American culture, many of the PTs did not have other sources of background

knowledge to support their reading of the picturebooks. Those who did have background

knowledge noted a variety of sources for their information including other university

courses, Catholicism, Mexican food, travel, and friends. These findings could be

considered alongside of the findings about the PTs’ likelihood of discussing the

significance of the picturebooks’ religious content in the classroom. Twenty three

percent of the PTs reported that they did not have the background knowledge needed to

discuss the religious content. Given that the PTs were not asked to describe their

background knowledge yet volunteered this information, it is remarkable that these future

teachers noted a knowledge gap. Collectively, these findings lead me to conclude that

many of the future teachers in this study had limited background knowledge to inform

their figured worlds about individuals and families of Mexican heritage.

General impressions of Latino picturebooks with religious content. Knowing

that many of the PTs have limited background knowledge about Mexican and Mexican

American heritage, the patterns in PTs open-ended, general responses to the picturebooks

for Research Question Two are noteworthy. First, and perhaps foremost to the objectives

of this study, none of the respondents commented on the visual religious content of the

picturebooks in their general responses.

243

This lack of acknowledgment suggests that some PTs might not have recognized

the religious content. Alternately, they might have (consciously or unconsciously)

sidestepped the religious content. Second, the way some PTs cast Joaquin and his mother

as “Illegals” in their general responses to Friends from the Other Side confirms the

influence of the Latino Threat Narrative (LTN) in dominant Discourse such that PTs

employ elements of the narrative in their school Discourse. Third, the general response

data reveal at least two ideological stances that the PTs adopt: the Universalist and the

individual prejudice stance. As Universalist, 45% of the PTs made personal connections

to In My Family while 39% connected with Abuelito Eats with His Fingers. Based on

their concepts of “normal,” the PTs identified universal types of family experiences,

traditions, relationships, and/or feelings in the stories, that led some respondents to

conclude that the characters in the stories are “just like us.” These findings are consistent

with the findings of Ketter and Lewis (2001) and Shannon (1994) that were discussed in

Chapter Two.

In adopting the individual prejudice stance, some PTs judged Tina’s initial

rejection of Abuelito in Abuelito Eats with His Fingers as being “unacceptable” based on

the norms of the dominant Discourse – the same Discourse that expects persons of

Mexican heritage to reject all cultural connections to Mexico. Their responses reveal that

assumptions could diminish the possibilities for reading critically and asking questions

such as: “Why does Tina initially reject Abuelito?” and “How might social institutions

influence Tina’s feelings toward Abuelito?”

244

Selection or rejection of books. While 45% or more of the PTs adopted a

Universalist stance in their general response to the picturebooks, it is interesting that

several PTs conversely adopted stances of resistance to censor or establish conditions for

their future use of the picturebooks in response to Research Question Three. These

stances of resistance (Protect the Children, NIMBY, Curriculum First, and Law Abiding

Citizen) originate from the PTs’ speculations or figured worlds about who their future

students are and what their future curriculum and course content will be. These findings

are consistent with the findings of Beach (1997), Escamilla and Nathenson-Meja (2007),

Schmidt, Armstrong, and Everett (2007), and Wollman-Bonilla (1998). Implicit to these

stances is the taken-for-granted assumption that the PTs’ future students will be members

of the dominant cultural groups and will therefore share the same sensibilities and

theories as the PTs about what is socially and culturally “normal.” These stances may

also be influenced by the PTs’ apprenticeships of observation as students themselves. As

the data set for Question Three suggests, in adopting any of these stances of resistance,

the chances for exploring alternative perspectives through multicultural children’s

literature are reduced.

In contrast to the PTs who would resist the use of the books in their future

classrooms, the majority of the future teachers (at least 70%) would select In My Family,

Friends from the Other Side, and/or Abuelito Eats with His Fingers to advance certain

teaching objectives. At least 66% of the PTs would use one or more of the books to

foster cultural awareness; at least 32% to reinforce acceptance and respect for others, and

at least 48% to discuss the significance of family. Collectively, these top teaching

245

objectives could reflect these future teachers’ interest in cultivating students’ awareness

and appreciation for diversity. One caveat to these objectives is in the way some PTs

generalize that the characters in the story are representative of the “typical” person or

family of Mexican heritage. Such generalizations essentialize persons of Mexican

heritage as being one and the same and inadvertently reinforce a basic tenet of anti-Latino

Discourse.

Last, consistent with the fact that nobody mentioned religion in their general

responses to the book, just one person mentioned religion with regard to using the books

in the classroom. This respondent reported that she would not use Abuelito Eats with His

Fingers with her future student due to the religious content. This finding reinforces the

possibility that some PTs either sidestepped or did not recognize the religious content of

the picturebooks.

Acknowledging religious content. Having explored the PTs’ personal responses

to the books and having established that at least 70% of respondents would use one or

more of the books in the classrooms, it is remarkable that the PTs’ likelihood of

discussing the relevance of the religious content in the books is significantly less than

their likelihood of using the books in the classroom. As few as 49% or more of the

respondents would be likely to discuss one or more of the following versions of religious

content: “The Miracle,” the images in the herb woman’s bedroom, or Abuelito’s candles

and statues.

Across the three books, PTs were less apt to discuss the significance of Abuelito’s

statues and candles (49%) than they were the significance of “The Miracle” (61%) or the

246

images in the herb woman’s bedroom (51%). Meanwhile, only 5% of the PTs would

discuss Abuelito’s candles and statues as a means to encourage religious awareness,

while 21% of respondents would to foster cultural awareness. These findings suggest

that some respondents might not see a connection between religion and culture.

Although some PTs would use one or more of the books to cultivate an appreciation for

diversity, their enthusiasm waned with the prospect of addressing the religious

perspectives of a culture. As described in Chapter Four, 29% of the PTs argued that the

religious content was not important to one or more of the stories, some employing

dismissive language in their responses. Hence, it is possible that some of these future

teachers may not have been cognizant of the possibility that religion is inseparable from

culture for many people in the world. They might not have the awareness to critically

consider why religious content is included in some works of multicultural children’s

literature. This appreciation is irrespective of the political reasons why some PTs would

avoid discussing the relevance of religious content in the classroom (i.e. myth that

religion does not have a place in the curriculum; fear of parental disapproval; fear of

“disrespecting” the dominant religious beliefs in the classroom, etc.) At the core of such

appreciation is the recognition that “millions of Americans find the most profound

sources of meaning in their lives in their religious traditions and define themselves less in

terms of ethnicity, gender, or nationality than in terms of religion” (Nord, 2010, p. 143).

Consistent with the literature on religion and teacher preparation, this data

confirm that (a) religion is a taboo topic for prospective teachers as much as it is for

practicing teachers, (Fraser, 1999; Green and Oldendorf, 2005; Hayne & Thomas, 2007;

247

Rosenblith & Baily, 2007); (b) prospective teachers lack the background knowledge and

preparation to discuss religion (Black, 2003; Douglas, 2000; Noddings, 1993); and (c)

believe the myth that Separation of Church and State inhibits any and all discussion of

religion in public schools (Bishop & Nash, 2007; Escamilla & Nathenson-Meija, 2003).

Deploying critical literacy pedagogy. Recognizing the limited extent to which

the PTs would discuss with their future students the relevance of the religious content in

Friends from the Other Side, In My Family, and Abuelito Eats with His Fingers, a critical

reading intervention was deployed during the Week 8 class session to provide the PTs

background information, to model critical literacy practices, and to challenge the PTs to

read critically. The analysis of the PTs post-critical reading reflections served to

document the PTs advances toward developing meta-knowledge of their own reading

although the data for the written reflections was not as abundant as the other exercises. It

revealed that while adopting a critical reading lens increased the PTs’ appreciation for the

stories, the PTs’ Universalist stance was still in operation. The PTs’ post critical reading

text-to-self connections were redundant of their initial personal connections and subject

positioning. Via this intervention, PTs might have been able to critically distance

themselves from the story enough to consider alternate perspectives of the works of

Latino critical fiction. Only a few respondents, as described in Chapter Four, indicated a

shift in perspective as a result of their critical reading. The results of the critical literacy

intervention and reading reflection activity demonstrate that one intervention is not

enough for some PTs to develop the meta-knowledge necessary to recognize or

reconsider their figured worlds around who or what is normal. These findings are

248

consistent with the finding of Apol, Sakuma, Reynolds, & Rop (2003) and point to a

fundamental and longitudinal approach to influence different outcomes.

Figured Worlds. Increasing prospective teachers’ subject-matter knowledge and

awareness of critical reading practices did not articulate a noticeable shift in the PTs’

Discourse regarding persons of Hispanic/Latino/Mexican heritage. Informed by the

preceding research questions and findings, this sequence of study culminated in applying

Gee’s (2011) concept of figured worlds as a tool of inquiry to reveal the PTs’ notions and

taken-for-granted assumptions about persons of Mexican heritage. The results of this

analysis identified a pervasive narrative (global theme). In the worlds figured by many of

the PTs, persons of Mexican heritage are construed as being like “us” Americans but they

are not “us” Americans.

Uncritical, unconscious, and unreflective, this “like us but not us” theory reflects

the anti-Latino narrative in the dominant Discourse and was reinforced by multiple PTs

in this study. Since Discourses are “resistant to internal criticism and self-scrutiny, [and]

since uttering viewpoints that seriously undermine them defines one as being outside

them” (Gee, 2008, pp. 161-162) perhaps this explains why some PTs did not deviate from

the Universalist “like us, but not us” theory in their post-critical reading reflections. Such

behavior could be interpreted as deviant.

Implications and Future Research

Gee (2008) argues that when it comes to pervasive theories such as the “like us,

but not us” theory that emerged through this analysis, each of us:

has a moral obligation to reflect consciously on these theories – to come to have a

249

meta-knowledge of them – when there is a reason to believe that a Discourse of

which we are a member advantages us or our group over other people or other

groups. Such meta-knowledge is the core ability that schools ought to instill… (p.

221)

The research in this dissertation indicates and confirms that the absence of self-

reflection, meta-knowledge, and critical literacy practices that foster meta-knowledge

could inhibit the advancement of the multicultural education agenda and sustain the types

of biases/subject positions that rationalize censorship. Without meta-knowledge it is

neither possible to reconsider nor reconstrue one’s figured worlds.

Move beyond diversity. This study expands upon Cai’s (2009) observation that

“in either the implementation of multicultural education or the reading of multicultural

literature, we may focus on diversity only and do not talk about power structures and

struggles” (p. 281). It shows that young prospective teachers are, indeed, likely to focus

primarily on diversity. It shows that they are also likely to avoid conversations about

religious beliefs and worldviews in addition to conversations about power structures and

struggles. Their comfort in recognizing the possibilities for using picturebooks to

promote appreciation for diversity could be a reflection of their own K-12 experiences of

multicultural education. Future research could investigate this hypothesis.

The results of this study imply that in order to shift away from the focus on

diversity and toward an expanded, robust multicultural education agenda, a commitment

to fostering religious awareness is needed. Such a commitment could help teachers and

students transcend the Universalist stance and move to a deeper level of understanding

250

for how religion and culture are often entwined. By embracing religious literacy as an

objective of multicultural education it may be possible to facilitate the aims of the

Religious Freedom Act (2010), which establishes that children “be brought up in a spirit

of understanding, tolerance, friendship among peoples, peace and universal brotherhood,

[and] respect for freedom of religion or belief of others” (Appendix C, Article 5).

Use multicultural children’s literature to foster religious awareness. The

results of this study also imply that picturebooks such as In My Family, Friends from the

Other Side, and Abuelito Eats with His Fingers, which illustrate the seamlessness of

religion and culture for some families of Mexican heritage, could be used as a

springboard for raising religious awareness. As for including multicultural books with

religious content in the curriculum, Nord (2010) reminds:

Several decades ago, most teachers were woefully unprepared to deal with

women's and minority history and literature (also areas of some sensitivity and

controversy). Educators did not say “Well, we better not teach that stuff.” (OK,

some did say that.) Rather we started preparing teachers to deal with

multiculturalism. So we should prepare them to deal with religion. (187)

Although the processes for deconstructing the myth of Separation of Church and

State and for preparing teachers and teacher educators to foster religious awareness about

part of the multicultural education agenda will pose challenges initially, the alternative is

that we may never actualize a pluralistic society based on mutual understanding and

respect. This is important because as an increasingly diverse nation, religious literacy is

251

crucial to understanding the worldviews of the many different members of our global

community.

Disrupt harmful narratives. Many prospective teachers want to make a

difference in the world and hope to foster cultural awareness and appreciation for

difference. Many are also members of the dominant social/cultural group. For this

reason they, like millions of other Americans, may be inherently socialized to sustain the

Discourse of the dominant group. The results of this study imply that pervasive anti-

Latino narratives, which construe persons of Mexican heritage as non-American

outsiders, influence some of the PTs’ language. Unchecked and unchallenged, these

narratives could be reinforced by future teachers through their statements and comment

as much as through their curricular choices for materials, content, and pedagogy.

It is crucial that the education community address this phenomenon. This study

demonstrates the way some PTs’ Discourse subordinates Latinos and nourishes the

Latino Threat Narrative. Some PTs’ Discourse might also, for example, subordinate

Muslims and sustain the “Muslim Threat Narrative,” by which Muslims are suspected of

being terrorists and/or having connections to terrorism. In truth, the dominant Discourse

is steeped in narratives that cast persons of other religious, social, or cultural groups as

outsiders and ultimately causes some children’s educations to suffer. Thus teacher

education programs cannot be complicit with the status quo.

This research indicates that without curricula targeting the development of the

capacity for meta-knowledge, teacher preparation that aims at fluency with different

252

cultures may not be sufficient to move teachers and their students from an appreciation of

diverse cultures to successful citizenship in a pluralistic society.

Future Research

This study suggests that applying a critical lens to multicultural children’s

literature may not be sufficient to disrupt the narratives of dominant Discourse and to

develop the meta-knowledge that is necessary to fostering a multicultural education

agenda. This thesis justifies and suggests the following research questions:

1. How do other populations of prospective teachers respond to works of

Latino children’s literature that contains religious content?

2. Are cultural insiders more capable of critically reading Latino literature for

children?

3. Do cultural insiders who have different subject positions also have a greater

capacity for meta-knowledge?

4. What kinds of Discourses and figured worlds would prospective,

preservice, and/or practicing teachers enact in response to inquiries with

picturebooks that depict Muslim or Hindu families or families of other

religious or cultural groups?

5. How do prospective, preservice, and/or practicing teachers regard

transcripts, recordings, or written texts of/by future educators that reveal

anti-Latino or other subordinating narratives? What are the outcomes of

analyzing these Discourses?

253

6. What degree and kind of preparation is needed to foster teachers with meta-

knowledge?

These questions aim first at confirming my findings thus far, generalizing their

applicability, and refining future studies of the efficacy of curricula to cultivate meta-

knowledge with an eye to devising effective teacher training.

254

References

Aaronsohn, E. (2000). Controversial literacy: A conversation with Sonia Nieto. The

Dragon Lode, 18(2), 1-7.

Ada, A. (2002). A magical encounter: Latino children's literature in the classroom, 2nd

edition. Columbus, OH: Allyn & Bacon.

Aldama, F. L. (2009). A user’s guide to postcolonial and Latino borderland fiction.

Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.

Anaya, R. (1992). The censorship of neglect. English Journal, 81(5), 18-20.

Anzaldua, G. (1996). Coatlaopeuh: She who had dominion over serpents. In A. Castillo

(Ed.) Goddess of the Americas, pp. 52-55. New York: Riverhead Books.

Apol, L. (1998). “But what does this have to do with kids?” Literary theory and

children’s literature in the teacher education classroom. Journal of Children’s

Literature, 24(2), 32 – 46.

Apol, L., Sakuma, A., Reynolds, T.M., & Rop, S.K. (2003). “When can we make paper

cranes?”: Examining pre-service teachers’ resistance to critical readings of

historical fiction. Journal of Literacy Research, 34, 429-464.

Applegate, A., & Applegate, M. (2004). The Peter Effect: Reading habits and attitudes of

preservice teachers. The Reading Teacher, 57, 554-563.

255

Arizpe, E. (2009). Sharing visual experiences of a new culture: Immigrant children’s

responses to Picturebooks and other visual texts. In J. Evans (Ed). Talking beyond

the page (pp. 134-151). London: Routledge.

Asselin, M. (2000). Confronting assumptions: preservice teachers' beliefs about reading

and literature. Reading Psychology, 21(1), 31-55.

Attride-Stirling, J. (2001). Thematic networks: an analytic tool for qualitative research.

Qualitative Research, 1(3), 385-405.

Ayers, S. J., & Reid, S. (2005). Teaching about Religion in Elementary School: The

Experience of One Texas District. Social Studies, 96(1), 14-17.

Badillo, D. (2006). Latinos and the new immigrant church. Washington D. C.: The Johns

Hopkins University Press.

Banks, J. & Banks, C. (2010). Multicultural education: Issues and perspectives, 7th Ed.

Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Barrera, R., Garza de Cortes (1997). Mexican American Children’s Literature in the

1990’s: Toward Authenticity. In V. Harris (Ed.), Using multiethnic literature in

grades K – 8 (pp. 129-153). Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon.

Barrera, R. (1992). The cultural gap in literature-based literacy instruction. Education

and Urban Society, 24(2), pp. 227-243.

Barrera, R., Liguori, O., and Salas, L. (1992). Ideas a literature can grow on: Key insights

for enriching and expanding children’s literature about the Mexican American

experience. In V. Harris (Ed.), Teaching multicultural literature in grades K – 8

(pp. 205-241). Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon Publishers, Inc.

256

Barton, D. & Hamilton, M. (1998). Local literacies: reading and writing in one

community. New York: Routledge.

Baskwill, J. (2008). Exploring teacher attitudes toward multicultural literature through

the Arts. In G. Taylor, K Hinton, & L. Moore (Eds.), Teaching multicultural

literature to help children understand ethnic diversity. Lewiston: The Edwin

Mellen Press.

Batalova, J. & Fix, M. (2011). Up for grabs: The gains and prospects of first- and

second- generation young adults. Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute.

Baumann, J.F. & Duffy-Hester, A.M. (2002). Making sense of classroom worlds:

Methodology in teacher research. In M.L. Kamil, P.B. Mosenthal, P.D. Pearson &

R. Barr (Eds.), Methods of literacy research: The methodology chapters from the

handbook of reading research, Volume III (pp. 1-22). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Beach, R. (1993). Teachers’ introduction to reader-response theories. Urbana, IL:

National Council of Teachers of English.

Beach, R. (1997). Student’s resistance to engagement with multicultural literature. In T.

Rogers & A. Soter (Eds.), Reading across cultures (pp. 13-41). New York, NY:

Teachers College Press.

Beach, R. (1998). Constructing real and text worlds in responding to literature. Theory

into Practice, 37(3), 176-185.

Beers, K. (1996). Part I. “No time! No interest! No way!” The three voices of aliteracy.

School Library Journal, 42(2), 30-33.

257

Beers, K. (1996). Part II. “No time! No interest! No way!” The three voices of aliteracy.


Bercaw, L. & Collins, A. (2007). The discussion filter: Culturally relevant children’s

literature in the teacher education classroom. Teaching & Learning, 22(1), 22-33.

Bishop, P. A., & Nash, R. J. (2007). Teaching for Religious Literacy in Public Middle

Schools. Middle School Journal, 38(5), 20-31.

Bishop, R. (1994). Kaleidoscope: A multicultural booklist for grades K – 8. National

Council of Teachers of English: Urbana, IL.

Black, S. (2003). Teaching about religion. American School Board Journal, 190 (4), 50-

53.

Blackburn, M., & Clark, C. (2011). Analyzing talk in a long-term literature discussion

group: Ways of operating within LGBT-inclusive and queer discourses. Reading

Research Quarterly, 46(3), 222-248.

Bloom, P. (2007). Religion is natural. Developmental Science, 10 (1), 147-151.

Botelho, M. & Rudman, M. (2009). Critical multicultural analysis of children's

literature: Mirrors, windows, and doors. New York: Routledge.

Britzman, D. (1986). Cultural myths in the making of a teacher: Biography and social

structure in teacher education. Harvard Educational Review, 56(4), 442-456.

Britzman, D. (2003). Practice makes practice: a critical study of learning to teach, 2nd

Edition. Albany, NY: State University of New York.

Cai, M., & Bishop, R. S. (1994). Multicultural literature for children: Toward a

clarification of the concept. In A. H. Dyson & C. Genishi (Eds.), The need for

258

story: Cultural diversity in classroom and community (pp. 57-71). Urbana, IL:


Cai, M. (2002). Multicultural literature for children and young adults. Westport, CT:

Greewood Press.

Cai, M. (2003). Can we fly across cultural gaps on the wings of imagination? Ethnicity,

experience, and cultural authenticity. In D. Fox & K. Short (Eds.), Stories Matter:

The Complexity of Cultural Authenticity in Children’s Literature (pp. 167-181).

National Council of Teachers of English: Urbana, Il.

Cai, M. (2008). Transactional theory and the study of multicultural literature. Language

Arts, 85(3), 212-220.

Cai, M. (2009). Further dialogue with Mingshui Cai, Patrick Shannon, and Junko Yokota.

In M.J. Bothelho & M.K. Rudman Critical Multicultural Analysis of Children’s

Literature. (pp. 277-292). New York, NY: Routlege.

Calderhead, J. (1996). Teachers: Beliefs and practices. In D. Berliner & R. Calfee (Eds.),

Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 709-725). New York: Macmillian

Library Reference.

Candelaria, C., Aldama, A., Garcia, P., & Alvarez-Smith, A. (2004). Latino popular

culture. New York: Greenwood.

Carmichael, E. & Sayer, C. (1991). Skeleton at the feast: The Day of the Dead in Mexico.

Austin, TX: University of Texas.

259

Carr. A. (1992). On Feminist Spirituality. In J. Conn & W. Conn (Eds.), Horizons on

Catholic feminist theology (pp. 135-142). Washington, DC: Georgetown

University Press.

Castro, R. (2000). Chicano folklore: A guide to the folktales, traditions, rituals, and

religious practices of Mexican Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.

Catholic US Conference of Catholic Bishops (2010). Retrieved from

http://www.usccb.org/

Chandler, R. (2012, March 7). Racist cheer? High school forced to apologize for ‘USA!’

chant at basketball game. Retrieved on March 10, 2012 from

http://offthebench.nbcsports.com/2012/03/07/racist-cheer-high-school-forced-to-

apologize-for-usa-chant-at-basketball-game/

Chavez, L. (2008). The Latino threat: Constructing immigrants, citizens, and the nation.

Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Chomsky, A. (2007). “They take our jobs!”: and 20 other myths about immigration.

Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

Clark, C., & Foster, A. (2005). Children’s and young people’s reading habits and

references: The who, what, why, where, and when. National Literacy Trust.

Comber, B. (2001). Negotiating critical literacies. School Talk, 6(3), 1-2.

Commeyras, M., Bisplinghoff, B.S., & Olson, J. (2003). Teachers as readers:

Perspectives on the importance of reading in teachers’ classrooms and lives.

Newark: International Reading Association.

260

Cooperative Children’s Book Center (2011). Retrieved from

http://www.education.wisc.edu/ccbc/

Corbin, J. and Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded Theory Research: Procedures, Canons and

Evaluative Criteria, Qualitative Sociology, 13, 3-21.

Creighton, D. (1997). Critical literacy in the elementary classroom. Language Arts, 74(6),

438-445.

Cremin, T., Mottram, M., Bearne, E., & Goodwin, P. (2008). Exploring teachers'

knowledge of children's literature. Cambridge Journal of Education, 38(4), 449-

464.

Cremin, T., Mottram, M., Collins, F., Powell, S., & Safford, K. (2009). Teachers as

readers: building communities of readers. Literacy, 43(1), 11-19.

Dahl, K. & Freppon, P. (1995). A comparison of innercity children’s interpretations of

reading and writing instruction in the early grades in skilled-based and whole

language classrooms. Reading Research Quarterly, 30(1), 50-74.

Davila, D. (2010). Leading a discussion of a literary text: Pre-service teachers

conceptions of literature. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National

Council of Teachers of English, Orlando, FL.

Decker,B. C. (1986). Aliteracy: What teachers can do to keep Johnny reading. Journal of

Teacher. Education, 37, 55-58.

Dillingofski, M. S. (1993). Turning teachers into readers: The teachers as readers project.


261

Douglass, S. (2000). Teaching about religion in national and state social studies

standards. Fountain Valley, CA: Council on Islamic Education; Nashville, TN:

First Amendment Center.

Draper, M. C., Barksdale-Ladd, M. A., & Radencich, M. C. (2000). Reading and writing

habits of preservice teachers. Reading Horizons, 40, 185-203.

Dreher, M. J. (2002/3). Motivating teachers to read. The Reading Teacher, 56(4), 338-

340.

Dudley-Marling, K. (2003). “I’m not from Pakistan”: Multicultural literature and the

problem of representation. In D. Fox & K. Short (Eds.), Stories matter: The

complexity of cultural authenticity in children’s literature (pp. 304-318).

National Council of Teachers of English: Urbana, IL.

Duke, N. & Martin, N. (2011). 10 things every literacy educator should know about

research. Reading Teacher, 65(1), 9-22.

Edmiston, B., & Enciso, P.E. (2002). Reflections and refractions of meaning: Dialogic

approaches to classroom drama and reading. In Flood, J., Lapp, D., Squire, J. &

Jenson, J. (Eds.), The Handbook of research on teaching and the English

language arts (pp. 868-880). New York: Simon & Schuster MacMillan.

Eggers-Piérola, C. (2005). Connections and commitments: Reflecting Latino values in

early childhood program. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Ellsworth, E. (1997). Teaching positions: Difference, pedagogy, and the power of

address. New York: Teachers College Press.

262

Enciso, P. (1997). Negotiating the meaning of difference: Talking back to multicultural

literature. In T. Rogers & A. Soter (Eds.), Reading across cultures (pp. 13-41).

New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Enciso, P. (1994). Cultural identity and response to literature: Running lessons from

Maniac Magee. Language Arts. 71, 524-533.

Enciso, P. (2001). Mediating multicultural children’s literature. In J. E. Many (Ed.),

Handbook of instructional practices for literacy teacher-educators (pp. 135-148).

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M.C. Wittrock (Ed.),

Handbook of research on teaching, 3rd edition. (119-161). New York, NY:

MacMillan Publishing Company, Inc.

Escamilla, K. & Nathenson-Mejia, S. (2003). Preparing Culturally Responsive Teachers:

Using Latino Children’s Literature in Teacher Education. Equity & Excellence,

36, 238-248.

Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language.

Harlow, England: Longman.

Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Cambridge, MA.: Polity Press.

Fairclough, N. (1999). Global capitalism and critical awareness of language. Language

Awareness, 8(2), 71-83.

Fang, Z., Fu, D. & Lamme, L. (2003). The trivialization and misuse of multicultural

literature: Issues of representation and communication. In D. Fox & K. Short

263

(Eds.), Stories matter: the complexity of cultural authenticity in children’s

literature (pp. 284-303). National Council of Teachers of English: Urbana, IL.

Fisher, C. Fox, D. & Paille, E. (1996). Teacher education research in the English

Language Arts and reading. In J. Sikula, T. Buttery, & E. Guyton (Eds.),

Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 410-441). New York:

Macmillian Library Reference.

Fox, D. & Short, K. (2003). Stories matter: the complexity of cultural authenticity in

children’s literature. National Council of Teachers of English: Urbana, IL.

Fraser, J. (1999). Between church and state: Religion and public education in a

multicultural America. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Freebody, P., Luke, A., & Gilbert, P. (1991). Reading positions and practices in the

classroom. Curriculum Inquiry, 21(4), 435-457.

Friere, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed.

Freire, P. & Macedo, D. (1996). A dialogue: Culture, language, and race. In P. Leistyna,

A. Woodrum, & S. Sherblom (Eds.), Breaking free: The transformative power of

critical pedagogy (pp. 199 – 228). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Educational Review.

Furumoto. R. (2008). Future teachers and families explore humanization through

Chicana/o Latina/o children’s literature. In V. Lea & E.J. Sims (Eds.), Undoing

whiteness in the classroom: Critical educultural teaching approaches for social

justice activism (pp. 79-95). New York, NY: Peter Lang.

Galda, L. & Beach, R. (2001). Response to literature as a cultural activity. Theory into

Practice, 36 (1), 64-73.

264

Gándara, P. (2008). The crisis in the education of Latino students. NEA Research

Visiting Scholars Series, 1a. Retrieved on February 28, 2012 from

http://www.nea.org/home/17404.htm

Garza, C.L. (2012). Artist statement. Retrieved on April 15, 2012 from

http://www.carmenlomasgarza.com/artiststatement.html.

Gee, J. (1999/2011). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method, 3rd Ed.

New York, NY: Routledge.

Gee, J. (1989). Literacy Discourse, and Linguistics: Introduction. Journal of Education.

171 (1). 5-19.

Gee, J. (1998). What is Literacy. In Zamel, V. & Spack, R. (Eds.), Negotiating academic

literacies: Teaching and learning across languages and culture (pp. 51-60). NY:

Lawrence Erlbaum.

Gee, J. (2000). Teenagers in new times: A new literacy studies perspective. Journal of

Adolescent & Adult Literacy. 43 (5) 412-420.

Gee, J. (1996/2008). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses, 3rd Ed. New

York: Routledge.

Gee, J. (2007). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy, 2nd Ed.

New York: Palgrave MacMillan.

Gerstein, M. (2003). The man who walked between the towers. New York: Roaring

Brook Press.

Gilton, D. (2007). Multicultural and ethnic children’s literature in the United States.

Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.

265

Giroux, H. & McLaren, P. (1996). Teacher education and the politics of engagement: The

case for democratic schooling. In P. Leistyna, A. Woodrum, & S. Sherblom

(Eds.), Breaking free: The transformative power of critical pedagogy (pp. 301-

331). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Educational Review.

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for

qualitative research. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.

Glesne, C. (1999). Becoming a qualitative researcher, 2nd edition. New York: Addison

Wesley Logman.

Gomez. K. (2005). Teachers of literacy, love of reading, and the literate self: A response

to Ann Powell-Brown. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 49, 92-96.

Gomez, K. (2009). “Living the literate live”: How teachers make connections between

the personal and professional literate selves. Reading Psychology, 30, 20-50.

Graff, J. (2010). Countering narratives: Teachers’ discourse about immigrants and their

experiences within the realm of children’s and young adult literature. English

Teaching: Practice and Critique, 9(3), 106-131.

Green, C. & Oldendorf, S. (2005). Teaching religious diversity through children’s

literature. Childhood Education, 81(4), 209-218.

Grisham, D. (2000). Connecting theoretical conceptions of reading to practice:

Longitudinal study of elementary school teachers. Reading Psychology, 21, 145-

170.

266

Grossman, P. (1987). A passion for language: A case study of Colleen, a beginning

English teacher. Knowledge growth in a profession publication series. Stanford,

CA: Stanford University, School of Education.

Grossman, P. L. (1990). The making of a teacher: Teacher knowledge and teacher

education. New York: Teachers’ College Press.

Grossman, P., Wilson, S., & Shulman, L. S. (1989). Teachers of substance: Subject

matter knowledge for teaching. In M. Reynolds (Ed.), Knowledge base for the

beginning teacher (pp. 23-36). New York: Pergamon Press.

Guevera, S. (2003). Authentic enough: Am I? Are you? Interpreting culture for children’s

literature. In D. Fox & K. Short (Eds.), Stories matter: the complexity of cultural

authenticity in children’s literature (pp. 50-60). National Council of Teachers of

English: Urbana, IL.

Gutiérrez, K. & Rogoff, B. (2003). Cultural ways of learning: Individual traits or

repertories of practice. Educational Researcher, 32(5), 19-25.

Hade, D. (1997). Reading Multiculturally. In V. Harris (Ed.), Using multiethnic

literature in the K-8 classroom (pp. 233-256). Urbana, IL: National Council of

Teachers of English.

Hale, D. (2002). Storyselling: Are publishers changing the way children read? Horn Book

Magazine, 78, 509–517.

Hamilton, V. (1988/2010). Boston Globe-Horn Book award acceptance speech. In A,

Adorr, & K. Cook (Eds.), Virginia Hamilton: Speeches, essays, & conversation.

New York: Blue Sky Press.

267

Harris, V. (1994). Review of against borders: Promoting books for a multicultural world.

Journal of Reading Behavior, 26(1), 117-120.

Harris, V. (1997). Using multiethnic literature in the K-8 classroom. New York:

Christopher-Gordon Publishers

Hayne, C. (1992). Living with our deepest differences: Religious diversity in the

classroom. In D. Byrnes, & G. Kieger (Eds.), Commonbonds: Anti-bias teaching

in a diverse society. Weaton, MD: Association for Childhood Education

International.

Hayne, C. & Thomas, O. (2007). Finding common ground. Nashville: First Amendment

Center.

Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life, and work in communities and

classroom. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Heathington,B. S.,& Alexander, J. E. (1984). Do classroom teachers emphasize attitudes

towards reading? The Reading Teacher, 37, 484-488.

Herman-Wilmarth, J. (2010). More than book talks: Preservice teacher dialogue after

reading gay and lesbian children’s literature. Language Arts, 87(3), 187-198.

Hoffman, D. (1996). Culture and self in multicultural education: Reflections on

discourse, text, and practice. American Educational Research Journal, 33(3), 545-

569.

Holbrook, H. (1983). Motivating reluctant readers: A gentle push. In J. Thomas & R.

Loring (Eds.), Motivating children and young adults to read-2 (pp. 29-31).

Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press.

268

Hollindale, P. (1988). Ideology and the children’s book. Signal, 55 (1), 3-22.

Holt-Reynolds (1992). Personal history-based beliefs as relevant prior knowledge in

course work. American Educational Journal, 29(2), pp. 325-349.

Howrey, S., & Whelan-Kim, K. (2009). Building Cultural Responsiveness in Rural,

Preservice Teachers Using a Multicultural Children's Literature Project. Journal

of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 30(2), 123-137.

Iser, W. (1978). The act of reading. London: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Jipson, J. & Paley, N. (1991). The selective traditions in teachers’ choices of children’s

literature: Does it exist in the elementary classroom. English Education, 23(3).

148-159.

Ketter, J., & Lewis, C. (2001). Already reading texts and contexts: Multicultural literature

in a predominantly white rural community. Theory into Practice, 40, 175-183.

Kibler, J. (1996). Latino voices in children’s literature: Instructional approaches for

developing cultural understanding in the classroom. In J. LeBlanc Flores (Ed.),

Children of La Frontera: Binational efforts to serve Mexican migrant and

immigrant students (pp. 239–268). ???

Kiefer, B. (2010). Charlotte Huck’s children’s literature. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.

Kipling, J. (2008). Using children’s literature to teach about religion in America. Social

Science Docket, Summer – Fall, 61-62.

Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology, 2nd Ed.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

269

Krashen, S. (1993/2011). The Power of Reading. Englewood, Col.: Libraries Unlimited,

Inc.

Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American

Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465-491.

Ladson-Billings, G. (2001). Crossing over to Canaan: The journey of new teachers in

divers classrooms. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Lankshear, C. & Knobel, M. (2004). A handbook for teacher research: from design to

implementation. New York, NY: Open University Press.

Lasky, K. (2003). To Stingo with love: An author’s perspective on writing outside one’s

culture. In D. Fox & K. Short (Eds.), Stories matter: The complexity of cultural

authenticity in children’s literature (pp. 84-92). National Council of Teachers of

English: Urbana, IL.

Lehman, B. (2007). Children’s literature and learning: Literacy study across the

curriculum. New York: Teachers College Press.

Lehman, B. (2005). Religious representation in children’s literature: Disclosure through

character, perspective, and authority. In D. Henderson & J. May (Eds.), Exploring

culturally diverse literature for children and adolescents (pp. 11-21). Boston:

Pearson Education.

Lehman, B.A., Freeman, E.B., & Allen, V.G. (1994). Children’s literature and literary

instruction: “Literature-based” elementary teachers beliefs and practices. Reading

Horizons, 35(1), 3-29.

270

Lehman, B.A., Freeman, E.B., & Scharer, P.L. (2010). Reading globally, K-8:

Connecting students to the world through literature. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications.

Lewis, C. (1999). Teaching literature to adolescents. Reading Research Quarterly. 34(1),

114-128.

Lewison, M., Flint, A., and Van Sluys, K. (2002). Taking on critical literacy: The journey

of newcomers and novices. Language Arts, 75(5), 382-392.

Lewison, M., Leland, C., Flint, A. S., & Möller, K. J. (2002). Dangerous discourses:

Using controversial books to support engagement, diversity, and democracy. The

New Advocate, 15, 215-226.

Lopez, T. and Serrato, P. (2001). A new mestiza primer: Borderlands philosophy in the

children’s books of Gloria Anzaldua. In T. Edwards and E. De Wolfe (Eds.), Such

news of the land: U.S. women nature writers (pp. 204 – 216). Hanover, NH:

University Press of New England.

Lortie, D. (1975/2002). Schoolteacher. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Lowery, R., & Sabis-Burns, D. (2007). From borders to bridges: Making cross-cultural

connections through multicultural literature. Multicultural Education, 14(4), 50-

54.

Luke, A. & Freebody, P. (1997). Shaping the social practices of reading. In S. Muspratt,

A. Luke, & P. Freebody (Eds.), Constructing critical literacies: Teaching and

learning textual practice (pp. 185-225). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

271

Luke, A., Cooke, J. & Luke, C. (1986). The selective tradition in action: Gender bias in

student teachers’ selection of children’s literature. English Education, 18(4), 209-

218.

Manna, A. L., & Misheff, S. (1987). What teachers say about their own reading

development. Journal of Reading, 31(2), 160-168.

Mariani, P. (Ed.). (1991). Critical fictions: The politics of imaginative writing.

Washington: Bay Press.

Mathis, J. (2001). Respond to stories with stories: Teachers discuss multicultural

children’s literature. The Social Studies, 92(4), 155-160.

McCallum, R. & Stephens, J. (2011). Ideology and Children’s Books. In S. Wolf, K.

Coats, P. Enciso, & C. Jenkins (Eds.), Handbook of research on children’s and

young adult literature. (pp. 359-371). New York, NY: Routledge.

Mckool, S., & Gespass, S. (2009). Does Johnny's reading teacher love to read? How

teachers' personal reading habits affect instructional practices. Literacy Research

& Instruction, 48(3), 264-276.

McLaughlin, M., & DeVoogd, G. L. (2004). Critical literacy: Enhancing students’

comprehension of text. New York, NY: Scholastic.

McNair, J. C. (2003). “But The Five Chinese Brothers is one of my favorite books!”:

Conducting sociopolitical critiques of children’s literature with preservice

teachers. Journal of Children’s Literature, 29(1), 46–53.

272

Medina, C. & Enciso, P. (2001). “Some words are messengers/Hay palabras mensajares”:

Interpreting sociopolitical themes in Latino/a literature for children. The New

Advocate, 15,1, 35-48.

Medina, C. (2006). Interpreting Latino/a literature as critical fictions. The ALAN Review,

Winter, 71-77.

Menard, V. (2004). The Latino Holiday Book, 2nd Edition. New York, NY: Marlowe &

Company.

Moffitt, J. (2006). Our Lady of Guadalupe: The paintings, the legend, and the reality.

London: McFarland & Co.

Moll, L., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching:

Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory into

Practice, 31, 132-141.

Montero, K. & Robertson, J. (2006). “Teachers can’t teach what they don’t know”:

Teaching about international and global children’s literature to facilitate culturally

responsive pedagogy. Journal of Children’s Literature, 32(2), 27 – 35.

Moore, R. & Ritter, S. (2008). “Oh yea, I’m Mexican. What type are you?” Changing

the way preservice teachers interpret and respond to literature identities of

children. Early Childhood Education Journal, 35, 505-514.

Moore, D. (2007). Overcoming religious illiteracy: A cultural studies approach to the

study of religion in secondary education. New York, NY: Palgrave/Macmillan.

273

Morrison,T. G., Jacobs, J. S., & Swinyard,W. R. (1999). Do teachers who read personally

use recommended literacy practices in their classrooms? Reading Research and

Instruction, 38(2), 81-100.

Morrison, T. (1992). Playing in the dark: Whiteness and the literary imagination.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Mour,S. I. (1977). Do teachers read? The Reading Teacher, 30, 397-401.

Muchmore, J. (2001). The story of “Anna”: A life history study of the literacy beliefs and

teaching practices of an urban high school English teacher. Teacher Education

Quarterly, 28(3), 89-110.

Mueller, D. L. (1973). Teacher attitudes toward reading. Journal of Reading, 17, 202-

205.

Naidoo, J. (2010). Celebrating cuentos: Promoting Latino children's literature and literacy

in classrooms and libraries. Santa Barbara, CA: Libraries Unlimited.

Nathanson, S. Pruslow, J., Levitt. (2008). The Reading Habits and Literacy Attitudes of

Inservice and Prospective Teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 59, 313-321.

Nathenson-Mejia, S. & Escamilla, K. (2003). Connecting with Latino children: Bridging

cultural gaps with children’s literature. Bilingual Research Journal. 27(1). 101-

116.

National Council for the Social Studies. (1998). Study about religions in the social

studies curriculum: A position statement of the National Council for the Social

Studies. Silver Springs, MD: NCSS. Retrieved on May 27, 2011 from

http://www.socialstudies.org/positions/religion

274

National Council for the Social Studies. (2012, January 30). Joint statement in opposition

to book censorship in the Tucson Unified School District. Retrieved on February

28, 2012 from

http://www.ncss.org/news_and_advocacy/joint_statement_tuscon_book_censorship

National Education Association. (2002, October 7). NEA’s Read Across America

Releases Hispanic Book List. Hispanic Business. Retrieved on February 28, 2012

from

http://www.hispanicbusiness.com/2002/10/4/neas_read_across_america_releases_hispanic.htm

National Hispanic Media Coalition. (2012). AMERICAN HATE RADIO. How A

Powerful Outlet For Democratic Discourse Has Deteriorated Into Hate, Racism

And Extremism A report by the National Hispanic Media Coalition January 2012

Neusner, J. (2009). World religions in America, 4th edition. Louisville, KY: Westminster

John Knox Press.

Nieto, S. & Bode, P. (2008). Affirming diversity: The sociopolitical context of

multicultural education (5th edition). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Nieto, S. (2002). Language, culture, and teaching: Critical perspectives for a new century.

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Nieto, S. (2007). Testing the Limits.

Journal of Curriculum & Pedagogy, 4(1), 23-26

Noddings, N. (1993). Educating for intelligent belief or unbelief. New York: Teachers

College Press.

Nodelman, P. (2008). The hidden adult. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

275

Nord, W. & Haynes, C. (1998). Taking Religion Seriously Across the Curriculum.

Nashville, TN: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development and

First Amendment Center.

Nord, W. (2010) Does God Make a Difference? New York, NY: Oxford University

Press.

Nord, W. (2000). Multiculturalism and religion. In C. Ovando & P. McLaren (Eds.),

Multicultalism and bilingual education (pp. 62-81). New York, NY: McGraw

Hill.

Pace, B. (2001). Getting to the "knowing how" of reading literature. Contemporary

Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 1, (4) 472-479.

Pajares, F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy

construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307-332.

Perry, T. (2010). Family law, feminist legal theory, and the problem of racial hierarchy.

In M. Fineman (Ed). Transcending the boundaries of law: generations of

feminism and legal theory (pp. 243-257). London: Routledge.

Peyton, M. (2008). A list of picture books to promote religious understanding. Early

Childhood Education Journal. 35, 387-389.

Peyton, M., & Jalongo, M. (2008). Make me an instrument of your peace: Honoring

religious diversity and modeling respect for faiths through children’s literature.

Early Childhood Education Journal, 35, 301-303.

276

Pew Hispanic Center & Kaiser Family Foundation (2004). National survey of Latinos:

Education, summary & chartpack, publication #3031. Menlo Park, CA: The

Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation.

Phelps. S. (2011). Critical literacy: Using nonfiction to learn about Islam. Journal of

Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 54(3), 190-198.

Pierce, K. M. (2006). Recognizing and resisting change: A teacher’s professional

journey. Language Arts, 83(5), 427-436.

Poole, S. (1997). Our Lady of Guadalupe: The origins and sources of a Mexican national

symbol. Tucson: The University of Arizona Press.

Powell-Brown, A. (2003/2004). Can you be a teacher of literacy if you don’t love to

read? Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 47, 284-288.

Prothero, S. (2007). Religious literacy: What every American needs to know… and

doesn’t. San Francisco, CA: Harper.

Rasinski, T. and DeFord, D. (1988). First Graders' Conceptions if Literacy: A Matter of

Schooling. Theory Into Practice, 27(1), 53.

Rasinski, T., and Padak, N. D. (1990). Multicultural learning through children’s

literature. Language Arts, 67(6), 576-580.

Rea, M. L., and Parker, A. R. (2005). Designing and Conducting Survey Research. San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Ream, K. and Vasquez, L. (2010). Overview of Latino children and U.S. public

education. In J.C. Naidoo (Ed.), Celebrating Cuentos: Promoting Latino

277

children's literature and literacy in classrooms and libraries (pp. 3-18). Santa

Barbara, CA: Libraries Unlimited.

Reutzel, D. R., & Sabey, B. (1996). Teacher beliefs and children’s concepts about

reading: Are they related? Reading Research and Instruction, 35, 323-342.

Rice, P. (2005). It “ain’t” always so: Sixth graders’ interpretation of Hispanic-American

stories with universal themes. Children’s Literature in Education, 36(4), 343-362.

Richardson, V. (1996). The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach. In J. Sikula,

T. Buttery, & E. Guyton (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Teacher Education

(pp. 102 – 119). New York, NY: Macmillian Library Reference.

Richardson, V., Anders, P., Tidwell, D., & Lloyd, C. (1991). The relationship between

teachers’ beliefs and reading comprehension instruction. American Educational

Research Journal, 28(3), 559-586.

Rochman, H. (1993). And yet… Beyond political correctness. In B. Hearne & R. Sutton

(Eds.), Evaluating children’s books: A critical look (pp. 133 – 148). Urbana-

Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Graduate School of Library and Information

Science.

Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. New York, NY: Oxford

University Press.

Rosenblatt, L. M. (1978/1994). The reader the text the poem: The transactional theory of

the literary work. Paperback ed. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

278

Rosenblith, S., & Bailey, B. (2007). Comprehensive Religious Studies in Public

Education: Educating for a Religiously Literate Society. Educational Studies,

42(2), 93-111.

Rummel, M.K., & Quintero, P. (1997). Teachers’ reading/teachers’ lives. Albany, NY:

State University of New York Press.

Sanders, J., Foyil, K., & Graff, J. (2010). Conveying a stance of religious pluralism in

children’s literature. Children’s Literature in Education. 41, 168-188.

Santa Ana, O. (2002). Brown tide rising: Metaphors of Latinos in contemporary

American public discourse. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.

Scharer, P. (1992). Teachers in transition: An exploration of changes in teachers and

classrooms during implementation of literature-based reading instruction.

Research in the teaching of English, 26(4), 408-445.

Schmidt, R. Armstrong, L. & Everett. T. (2007). Teacher resistance to critical

conversation: Exploring why teachers avoid difficult topics in their classrooms.

The NERA Journal, 43(2), 49-55.

Schultz, M. (2011, Jan. 3). Upcoming NewSouth “Huck Finn” eliminates the “N” word.

Publishers Weekly, 258(1), 6-8.

Scott, J. E. (1996). Self-efficacy: A key to literacy learning. Reading Horizons, 36, 195-

213.

Seidl, B. (2007). Working with communities to explore and personalize culturally

relevant pedagogies: Push, double images, and race talk. Journal of Teacher

Education, 20(10), 1-16.

279

Shannon, P. (1994). I am the canon. Journal of Children’s Literature, 20(1), 1-5.

Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of a new reform. Harvard

Educational Review, 57(1), 1-22.

Simpson, A. (1996). Critical questions: Whose questions? The Reading Teacher, 50(2),

118-127.

Sims Bishop, R. (1997). Selecting Literature for a Multicultural Curriculum. In V. Harris

(Ed.), Using multiethnic literature in the K-8 classroom (pp. 1-19). Urbana, IL:


Singer, J., & Smith, S. (2003). The potential of multicultural literature: Changing

understanding of self and others. Multicultural Perspectives, 5(2), 17-23.

Smith, M. C. (1989). Reading attitudes of pre-service education majors. Reading

Horizons, 29, 230-234.

Smith, K. P. (1993). The multicultural ethic and connections to literature for children and

young adults. Library Trends, 41(30), 340-353.

Smith, S. (2002). "Would I use this book?" White, female education students examine

their beliefs about teaching. New Advocate, 15 (1) 57-66.

Stephens, J. (1992). Language and ideology in children’s fiction. New York, NY:

Longman.

Stood-Hill, B. & Amspaugh-Corson, L. (2008). Children’s literature: Discovery for a

lifetime, 4th Ed., New York: Prentice Hall.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, C. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and

procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

280

Street, B. (1997). Cross-cultural approaches to literacy (pp. 1-12). New York:

Cambridge University Press.

Street, B. (2000). Literacy events and literacy practices: Theory and practice in the new

literacy studies. In Martin-Jones, M. & Jones, K. Multilingual literacies: Reading

and writing different worlds (pp. 18-29). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamin

Publishing Co.

Taxel, J. (1992). The politics of children’s literature: Reflections on multiculturalism,

political correctness, and Christopher Columbus. In V. Harris (Ed.), Teaching

multicultural literature in graces K – 8. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon

Publishers, Inc.

Taxel, J. (1994). Political correctness, cultural politics, and writing for young people. The

New Advocate, 7(2), 93-108.

Trotta, L. (1998). Jude: A pilgrimage to the saint of last resort. New York, NY: Harper

Collins.

Trousdale, A. (2005). Intersections of spirituality, religion and gender in children’s

literature. International Journal of Children’s Spirituality, 19(1), 61-79.

US Department of Education. (2008) Schools and Staffing Survey. Retrieved on June 1,

2011 from: http://nces.ed.gov/

US Department of State Office, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (2010).

International Religions Freedom Report.

Van Dijk, T. (2006). Ideological discourse analysis. Journal of Political Ideologies,

11(2), 115-140.

281

Vatican II Council (1963). Retrieved on June 1, 2011 from:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/.

Villegas, A. M., & Lucas, T. (2002). Preparing culturally responsive teachers: Rethinking

the curriculum. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(1), 20–33.

Wainer, A. (2004). The new Latino South and the challenge to public education:

Strategies for educators and policymakers in emerging immigrant communities.

Los Angeles, CA: Tomás Rivera Policy Institute.

Weinstein, C. (1990). Prospective elementary teachers’ beliefs about teaching:

Implications for teacher education. Teaching & Teacher Education, 6(3), 279-

290.

Whitaker, C., Salend, S. & Elhoweris, H. (2009). Religious diversity in schools:

Addressing the issues. Intervention in School and Clinic. 44 (5), 314-319.

Wiley (1997). Religious affiliation as a source of variation in childrearing values and

parental regulation of young children. Mind, Culture, and Activity. 4(2), 86-107.

Willis, A. & Harris, V. (1997). Preparing preservice teachers to teach multicultural

literature. In J. Flood, S. Brice Heath, & D. Lapp (Eds), Handbook of research on

teaching literacy through the communicative and visual arts (pp. 460-469).

New York, NY: Macmillan Library Reference USA.

Wollman-Bonilla, J. (1998). Outrageous viewpoints: Teachers’ criteria for rejecting

works of children’s literature. Language Arts, 75 (4), 287-295.

282

Woodson, J. (2003). Who can tell my story? In D. Fox & K. Short (Eds.), Stories Matter:

The Complexity of Cultural Authenticity in Children’s Literature, (pp. 41-45).

National Council of Teachers of English: Urbana, IL.

Yoder, D. (1974). Toward a definition of folk religion. Western Folklore, 33(1), 2-15.

Zancanella, D. (1991). Teachers reading/readers teaching. Five teachers’ personal

approaches to literature and their teaching of literature. Research in the Teaching

of English, 25(1), 5–32.

Zarrillo, J. (1989). Teachers’ interpretations of literature-based reading. The Reading

Teacher, 43(1), 22-28.

Zeece, P. (1998). “Can God come here?”: Using religion-based literature in early

childhood settings. Early Childhood Education Journal, 25(4), 243-246.

Zeichner, K., Grant, C., Gay, G., Gillette, M., Valli, L., & Villegas, A. M. (1998). A

research informed vision of good practice in multicultural teacher education:

Design principles. Theory into Practice, 37(2), 163-211.

283

Appendix A: “The Miracle”

285

Appendix B: Herb Woman’s Bedroom

287

Appendix C: Abuelito’s Statues and Candles

289

Appendix D: Literature Response Questions

In My Family

•Describe your general response to the book.

• Was there anything that surprised you about Carmen Lomas Garza’s depiction (textual or

visual) of life in Kingsville Texas from the late 1950s through the 1970s? If so, what?

• Would you use this book in a classroom? Why or why not? Please be specific.

• If you were to use this book with your future students, how likely would you discuss the

religious significance of the water tank painting, “The Miracle”? Please explain your rationale.


• Describe your general response to the book.

• Both In My Family and Friends from the Other Side are based on the authors’ lived

experiences in the south Texas region. Describe anything you might have noticed between these

two picturebooks.


• If you were to use this book with your future students, how comfortable would you feel in

discussing the paintings that are depicted on the walls of the herb woman’s bedroom? Please

explain your rationale.


•Describe your general response to the book.


• If you were to use this book with your future students, how likely would you initiate a discussion

about the meaning of the candles and statues in Abuelito’s house? Please explain your rationale.

290

Appendix E: Week 8 Discussion Prompts

“Children’s social location, age, historical knowledge, and prior experience with the cultural

themes and genre of the text shape how the children make sense of the story”

(Botelho & Rudman, 2009, p. 11).

“Children ‘read’ the social context in which they interpret literature and produce readings

according to what they believe their teacher wants in that particular situation”

(Hade, 1997, p. 238).

A teacher’s approach to instruction “must accommodate learning how to read race, class, and

gender.” Students need to have the opportunity to think about their “assumptions about race,

class, and gender, about the assumptions the texts seem to suggest, and how they use these

assumptions to interpret text”

(Hade, 1997, p. 238).

As readers, we “do not always need to read with an author; we can also read against an author,

questioning and even refusing to become the kind of sympathetic readers of their stories

that authors ask us to become”

(Hade, 1997, p. 252).

Readers can use their “background knowledge to understand relationships

between their ideas and the ideas presented by the author of the text”

(McLaughlin & DeVoogd, 2004, p. 53).

By taking a critical lens while reading, readers can “raise questions about whose voices are

represented, whose voices are missing, and who gains and who looses by the reading of a text”

(McLaughlin & DeVoogd, 2004, p. 53).

291

Appendix F: Week 8 Critical Reading Instructional Framework

CRITICAL READING AS COMPREHENSION: EXPANDING READER RESPONSE McLaughlin & DeVoogd (2004). Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 48(1), pp. 52-62). FIVE STEP INSTRUCTIONAL FRAMEWORK

1. Explain 2. Demonstrate 3. Guide 4. Practice 5. Reflect

Step 1: Explain What does it mean to be critically aware as a reader? Step 2: Demonstrate Read a book aloud. While reading, model how you think about the book aloud. General questions to consider prior to reading • What are my biases? • What is my relationship to the culture being depicted in the story? • What is my background knowledge? Is it adequate to critically read the text? • How does my background knowledge inform my interpretation of the text? General questions to consider during reading • Whose viewpoint is expressed in the text? (What perspective does the storyteller take?) • What does the writer/author or publisher want us to think? (How are readers positioned?) • Whose voices are missing, silenced, or discounted? (How is bias conveyed in the text?) • Does the text and/or peritext substantiate claims of accuracy? How? • Where are there gaps in the text and what do the gaps imply? [Some of the aforementioned questions are from McLaughlin & DeVoogd. Some are adapted from other sources.] Additional questions for a text set that includes religious themes • How much information about the religion is shared by the author and why? • What images are shown in the story? How do these contribute to (or distract from) the story? • What is the author’s relationship to the religion being depicted? [These questions are adapted from other sources.] Step 3: Guide Organize students into small groups or pairs. Lead students through a guided reading. Encourage students to offer critical responses during the guided practice. Step 4: Practice Invite students to independently practice critical reading. Step 5: Reflect Welcome students to reflect on what they learned through the critical lens. • What did I learn? • Did the critical reading lens lead me to shift my stance? If so, how? • What kind of connections did I make (text to self; text to text; text to world)? • What does my critical reading suggest about the author’s representation of culture in relationship to: 1. a reader who is lives within the culture; and 2. a reader who lives outside of the culture that is represented in the text? • How might I apply what I learned to other texts?

292

Appendix G: Week 8 Background Information

293

5/10/12

1

Background Knowledge: The Lady of Guadalupe

Historical Devotions to Guadalupe:

The Conquest of the Americas

Also see the children’s books: Spanish Missions and Miguel Hidalgo Y Costilla

New Spain

EXHIBIT Oakland Museum of California

Description: Art and the Spanish Conquest

The Spaniards used art to conquer the region. Many works of art were discovered in the collections of local churches and museums, preserved, and brought together for this unprecedented exhibition.

!"#$%&'())$**&+(,-,#".,&/01-23&4-,&51-,%.*%(3&6!&

/(78&9:;;<=!"#$%"&'()"*+",$'('-$./0"12/".'345467"82/"-/6/4(7"'4("82/"%/'-38)3&>?&@A?&&&&&

294

5/10/12

2

Mexican Independence from Spain 1810 Mexican Independence from Spain 1810

2010 Celebration Mexican Independence The Role of Guadalupe in Mexican American Culture (See handout: Goddess of the Americas)

!"#$%#&'()*$+,#-'()*$.),'/0$+/12,$$!"#$%&%'("#)#*(%+,-#.%%!/0&#

102#3%&45#678%&9#:;<=0&-<'"#>&0--#

$0?0+!0&#@AB#C<&D<;#%8#EF,9,/FG0#

H&<I%;,B#

J(<?,D%K#L/B##

295

5/10/12

3

!"#$%&'"()*+(,&

-./0.(&"1&2)$3$%)4+&5,$,)+&

6.(37"/8&9:."&

;"%$(3$&!<4+=>&&!"#$#%&$'"('$)*'+#,-$'%-'$)*'.&#/&0'"('12%3%425*>&&?@AB>&&&

C"%$(3"&3+&%$&C"7$>&&6%'.&#/*0'3*'12%3%425*'7"0'4%'8%#%'3*'9%#&4:0'9"0#"*>&?@BB&

9)/&!$3D&"1&E"(,/"F+/7D>&&G4/.%&HI??&

J.%%$/D&E%.(,"(&K&-./0.(&"1&2)$3$%)4+&

'+L.#"&E.,D&HII@>&&!"#$%&'()*+,%(*-.&

296

Appendix H: Pilot Survey

297

A Pilot Study Survey of Prospective Teachers’ Attitudes Toward Reading and Selected Topics in Children’s & Young Adult Literature Please answer the following questions based solely on your opinion and experience. Please avoid writing what you think others may want you to say. This questionnaire has NO bearing on your grade in any course. Your responses are anonymous, as your name is not linked to this document. Please provide the following background information. Do you intend to become a teacher?

What grade level do you hope to teach? Elementary School Middle School High School

Have you taken any children’s literature courses prior to Spring Quarter 2011?

What is your age?

What is your gender?

NO, not of Hispanic, Latino, or

Spanish origin

YES, Mexican, Mexican

American, Chicano

YES, Puerto Rican Are you of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin (2010 US Census)?

YES, Cuban YES, of another Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin:

White Chinese Filipino

Black, African American Japanese Native Hawaiian

Am Indian or Alaska Native Korean Guamanian or Chamorro

Asian Indian Vietnamese Samoan

What is your race (2010 US Census)? Mark one or more boxes.

Other Race: Other Asian: Other Pacific Island:

How do you define “reading for pleasure?” What kind of texts, genres, or mediums do you associate with this stance? How do you define “reading for curiosity?” What kind of texts, genres, or mediums do you associate with this stance? Can a teacher teach students to voluntarily read for pleasure or curiosity? Why or why not?

298

The term “reader” is sometimes used to describe a person. What does it mean to be a “reader?” Can a teacher who is not a “reader,” effectively foster a love of reading among his or her students? Why or why not? Did any of your teachers inspire you to read for pleasure or curiosity? If yes, how did the teacher(s) inspire you? Was there a book or text that first got you excited about reading? If yes, what was the name of the book or text? Why did this book / text excite you to read? In the past year, approximately how many books did you voluntarily read that featured a protagonist whose gender, ethnicity, culture, sexual orientation, or spiritual/religious beliefs differed from yours?

0 – 3 books 4 – 7 books 8 – 11 books 12 or more books Please check all that apply. The protagonist(s) differed from me in terms of:

Gender Ethnicity Culture Sexual Orientation Spiritual / religious beliefs

299

Please respond to the following statements. Please check only one box per statement.

Statement Strongly

DISAGREE

Somewhat

DISAGREE

NEITHER

Agree/Disagree

Somewhat

AGREE

Strongly

AGREE

I am confident in my reading abilities.

Outside of school/work, I habitually read for pleasure.

Outside of school/work, I habitually read for curiosity.

Outside of school/work, I usually read texts by the same author or in the same book series.

Outside of school/work, I usually read magazines.

Outside of school/work, I usually read Facebook, MySpace, or other social networking websites.

Outside of school/work, I usually read blogs, wikis, or other websites.

Outside of school/work, I often read books/texts intended for children or teen/young adult audiences.

I prefer to listen to audio versions of text when they are available.

I mostly read school/work materials.

I often share the texts I read for pleasure with my family, friends and/or colleagues.

I often share the texts I read for curiosity with my family, friends, and/or colleagues.

I would read more for pleasure, if I knew more about which sources, texts, or authors to choose.

I would read more for curiosity, if I knew more about which sources, texts, or authors to choose.

I think I will expand my personal reading habits as a future teacher.

I think a teacher who is not a “reader” could develop a love of reading in conjunction with her/his students.

I think teachers should know and be able to recommend children’s and/or young adult book titles to students.

Growing up, I saw the adults in my household read habitually for pleasure.

Growing up, I saw the adults in my household read habitually for curiosity.

Growing up, I saw the adults in my household read frequently for work and/or school.

Growing up, others in my household identified me as a “reader.”

300

For the next set of questions, imagine that you are a teacher at a public school. How likely would you read and discuss with your students a children’s or young adult book that examines death?

Very unlikely Somewhat unlikely Somewhat likely Very likely Please explain your rationale: How likely would you read and discuss with your students a children’s or young adult book, which presents a perspective held by some people that deceased individuals have spirits and these spirits can visit the living?

Very unlikely Somewhat unlikely Somewhat likely Very likely Please explain your rationale: How likely would you read and discuss with your students a children’s book that highlights the life and beliefs of: Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Very unlikely Somewhat unlikely Somewhat likely Very likely Please explain your rationale: The Dalai Lama.

Very unlikely Somewhat unlikely Somewhat likely Very likely Please explain your rationale: Mohandas Gandhi

Very unlikely Somewhat unlikely Somewhat likely Very likely Please explain your rationale: Cesar Chavez:

Very unlikely Somewhat unlikely Somewhat likely Very likely Please explain your rationale:

301

Provide a short description for this image. (1 – 2 lines max.) How likely would you select for your classroom library a children’s or young adult book that features this image?

Very unlikely Somewhat unlikely Somewhat likely Very likely

Explain your rationale: How likely would you lead a discussion about the meaning of this image as it might be depicted in the book?


Explain your rationale:






302











303











304










Rotate page to view image:


305

Appendix I: Week 1 Survey (Main Study)

306

Page 1

AU2011 TL467: Introduction to Children's Literature. Week 1AU2011 TL467: Introduction to Children's Literature. Week 1AU2011 TL467: Introduction to Children's Literature. Week 1AU2011 TL467: Introduction to Children's Literature. Week 1

307

Page 2

AU2011 TL467: Introduction to Children's Literature. Week 1AU2011 TL467: Introduction to Children's Literature. Week 1AU2011 TL467: Introduction to Children's Literature. Week 1AU2011 TL467: Introduction to Children's Literature. Week 1

308

Appendix J: Week 8 Survey (Main Study)

309

Page 1

TL467 TUES AM: Week 8 Responses DUE Nov. 15TL467 TUES AM: Week 8 Responses DUE Nov. 15TL467 TUES AM: Week 8 Responses DUE Nov. 15TL467 TUES AM: Week 8 Responses DUE Nov. 15

310

Page 2


311

Page 3


312

Page 4


313

Appendix K: Post-Reading Survey

Applying A Critical Reading Lens

Name: _______________________________________________________________

Name of Book: ________________________________________________________

Questions to ask prior to reading:

1. What is my relationship to the culture begin depicted in the story?

2. What is my background knowledge? Is it adequate to critically read the text?

Reflection questions to ask after reading critically:

1. What did I learn or notice from my critical reading of the book?

2. What kind of connections did I make in reading critically (text to self; text to text; text to world)?

314

Appendix L: Meta-Knowledge and Content Knowledge Figure

315

Appendix M: Grade Level Analysis for Research Question Three

“Would you use this book (In My Family, Friends from the Other Side, or Abuelito

Eats with His Fingers) in your future classroom?

Grade Level Responses

Survey findings show that PTs who would like to become primary grade teachers

are more willing to use “In My Family” than the other two books – 81% would use “In

My Family” compared to 67% for “Friends from the Other Side” and 76% for Abuelito

Eats with his Fingers. “In My Family” was not the preferred choice among the other

groups of PTs. Seventy six percent of the prospective elementary school teachers would

use the book in comparison to 88% who would use “Abuelito Eats with his Fingers.”

“Abuelito Eats with his Fingers” was approved for classroom use by 71% of prospective

junior high teachers (higher than the other two books).

With respect to conditions, primary grade teachers attached the largest number of

conditions to “Friends from the Other Side” (24% of all respondents who said that they

would like to teach primary grades). The number was four times higher than among the

elementary school teachers (6%) and almost two times than among junior high (13%).

Elementary and junior high teachers attached more conditions to “In My Family” than to

the other two books.

316

FIGURE 19: Respondents’ willingness to use “In My Family” in their future classroom (per preferred teaching grade level).

FIGURE 20: Respondents’ willingness to use “Friends from the Other Side” in their future classroom (per preferred teaching grade level).

!"#$

"%#$&#$

'(#$

(#$

"!#$

()#$

*"#$ "'#$

!"#

$!"#

%!"#

&!"#

'!"#

(!!"#

+,-./$-01$ +,-./$2,3$-01$ 4,2/56,27.$

82$9:$;7<5.:$

)*+,-*.## /01,123-*.## 452+6*#7+87##

!"#$

%#$

&'#$

%#$

"!#$

(#$ !#$ (#$

%'#$

&)#$)*#$ )*#$

!"#

$!"#

%!"#

&!"#

'!"#

+,-./$-01$ +,-./$2,3$-01$ 4,2/56,27.$ 859:3$-01$

;<512/0$=<,>$3:1$?3:1<$@5/1$

()*+,)-## ./0+012,)-## 341*5)#6*76##

317

FIGURE 21: Respondents’ willingness to use “Abuelito Eats with His Fingers” in their future classroom (per preferred teaching grade level)

!"#$

%&#$ %'#$'#$

((#$

"#$ "#$'#$

!%#$

%!#$

'#$(#$

!"#

$!"#

%!"#

&!"#

'!"#

(!!"#

)*+,-$+./$ )*+,-$0*1$+./$ 2*0-34*05,$ 63781$+./$

9:+/,31*$;51.$<318$=3.$>307/?.$

)*+,-*.## /01,123-*.## 452+6*#7+87##

318

TABLE 42: Most popular arguments for using the books in the future classroom (by respondents’ preferred teaching grade level).

Arguments for using the books Family Friends Abuelito PRIMARY Total 17 Total 14 Total 16 Foster cultural awareness 9 (53%) 6 (43%) 3 (19%) Family life, traditions, relationships, childhood 9 (53%) 0 (0%) 2 (13%) Reinforce acceptance/respect for others 0 (0%) 2 (14%) 5 (31%) Teach appreciation/importance of family 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 4 (25%) Promote moral development: standing-up to bullying/being brave 0 (0%) 7 (50%) 0 (0%)

Family Friends Abuelito ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Total 25 Total 25 Total 29 Foster cultural awareness 16 (64%) 3 (12%) 4 (14%) Family life, traditions, relationships, childhood 12 (48%) 0 (0%) 4 (14%) Reinforce acceptance/respect for others 2 (8%) 9 (36%) 9 (31%) Teach appreciation/importance of family 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 9 (31%) Promote moral development: standing-up to bullying/being brave 0 (0%) 1 (4%) 0 (0%)

Family Friends Abuelito JUNIOR HIGH Total 15 Total 13 Total 17 Foster cultural awareness 11 (73%) 2 (15%) 5 (29%) Family life, traditions, relationships, childhood 7 (47%) 0 (0%) 1 (6%) Reinforce acceptance/respect for others 0 (0%) 4 (31%) 6 (35%) Teach appreciation/importance of family 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (12%) Promote moral development: standing-up to bullying/being brave 0 (0%) 5 (38%) 0 (0%)

Survey findings indicate that all three groups of respondents (primary grades,

elementary school and junior high) associate “In My Family” with fostering cultural

awareness. With resect to “Friends from the Other Side”, half of the prospective primary

grade teachers and nearly 40% of junior high teachers would use it to promote moral

development: standing-up to bullying and being brave (only one respondent from the

elementary school would use it for this purpose). All three groups thought that “Abuelito

319

Eats with His Fingers” could be used to reinforce acceptance/respect for others (primary

grades and elementary school - 31%, junior high – 35%).

320

Appendix N: Code List1

Accommodate students’ religious belief

Book has/promotes a good message/lesson

Book is suitable for ESL/Mexican/Spanish-speaking readers

Comments about Abuelito

Comments about how Tina's relationship with Abuelito evolves with time

Comments about Tina's negative feelings towards Abuelito

Comments about Tina's relationship with Abuelito

Communication/language

Comparing yourself to others

Condition: Context of cultural studies (Mexican)

1 Although the majority of codes were applied across the three books, some are specific to certain books or questions. The codes in this Appendix were applied to the following questions: a) general response (applicable to In My Family, Friends from the Other Side, Abuelito Eats with his Fingers); b) rationale for using/not using the book in the future classroom (“Would you use the book in your future classroom? Why or why not?”) (applicable to In My Family, Friends from the Other Side, Abuelito Eats with his Fingers); c) rationale for discussing/not discussing religious aspects of books (In My Family: “How likely would you discuss the religious significance of the water tank painting “The Miracle”? Please explain your rationale. Friends from the Other Side: How comfortable would you feel in discussing religious significance of some of the paintings and artifacts in the herb woman’s bedroom? Please explain your rationale. Abuelito Eats with his Fingers: How likely would you initiate a discussion about the meaning of the candles and statues in Abuelito’s house? Please explain your rationale).

321

Condition: Context of multiple religions

Condition: Context of social sciences: history/cultural studies

Condition: Context of story/character(s)/setting

Condition: Context of studying pareidolia

Condition: Factual/objective presentation of religion

Condition: Grade level

Condition: If I did more research on the subject

Condition: If required or supportive of curr/content standards

Condition: No proselytizing: teach about religion only

Condition: Parent/school/community approval

Condition: Student population (ESL/Spanish speakers/Mexican)

Condition: Student questions/comments

Condition: Surface level information

Consistent with teacher's beliefs/notion of faith

Cultivate friendship with people who are different

Discussing religion makes me uncomfortable/confused

Dislike the style/format/content of book

Elders are source of knowledge/should be respected

Empathize with characters' struggles in story

Encourage religious awareness

Healer/Herb Woman

La Llorona

322

Exposure to your culture

Family life, traditions, relationships, childhood: general

Family life, traditions, relationships, childhood: Mexican-American

Family life, traditions, relationships, childhood: Mexican/Hispanic/Latino

Family/community beliefs/traditions are irrational

Foster cultural awareness: general

Foster cultural awareness: Mexican-American

Foster cultural awareness: Mexican/Hispanic/Latino

Friends help/support each other

Friendship

Generations

Hardship/struggle in life: general

Hardship/struggle in life: Mexican

Hardship/struggle in life: Mexican immigrant

Help and/or treat people who are different/in need with kindness

I do not have enough background knowledge (about religious significance)

I would not discuss religion

I would not discuss religions that contradict my beliefs

Immigrants are like Jews/Slaves/Japanese

Immigration: Alternative perspective

Immigration: Border patrol

Immigration: Causes

323

Immigration: General

Immigration: Historical issue

Immigration: Mexican

Immigration: Negative social discourse

Immigration: Undocumented/illegal

It is important to acknowledge religious significance

Lack of accurate knowledge should not inhibit discussion

Like the style/format/content of book

Little/no religion permitted in public schools

Mexican/Hispanic/Latino culture/traditions

Mexicans and Mexican Americans are expected to support each other

No curriculum/standards connections

No personal connection

Religion does not belong in school

Non-traditional medicine/treatment (earache)

Not exciting

Not risky

Not specified

Other reasons

Other/different culture/traditions

Outside the scope of what I would like to teach

Overcoming challenges

324

Overcoming generation gaps

Parents teach religion

Personal connection: family life

Personal connection: feelings/experiences

Personal connection: grandparents

Personal connection: religion

Personal connection: traditions/holidays

Questionable content: La Llorona

Questionable content: racial slurs

Questionable content: unlawful character behavior

Reinforce acceptance/respect for others

Relatable for the reader: family life

Relatable for the reader: feelings/experiences

Relatable for the reader: grandparents

Relatable for the reader: traditions/holidays

Relatable/interesting for the reader

Religion has a place in the curriculum

Religion/religious artifacts: part of culture

Religious content (visual/textual) is not important to the story

Candles are less controversial

Catholicism is a major U.S. religion

Religion is not exclusive to culture

325

Respect students' beliefs

Respondent's interpretation does not reflect religious significance

Reveal racism/discrimination

Risky/controversial topic (immigration)

Risky/controversial topic (religion)

Students might not relate/be interested in story

Students should know about national/regional issues

Teach appreciation/importance of family

Teach Spanish language

Topic difficult to discuss (religion)

Topic is not for kids (immigration)

Topic is not for kids (religious significance)

Unfamiliar beliefs are not important to address

I don't share same beliefs and don't want to diminish other culture

Observe separation of Church and State

Parent/community disapproval

Student reaction

Yes curriculum/standards connections

prospective teachers' discourse around latino literature for

Documents