writing the self in a multi layered context joan travers

8/9/2019 Writing the Self in a Multi Layered Context Joan Travers

1/35

1

Childs Play: Writing the Self in a Multilayered Context

Joan Travers

Abstract

Educational practitioners are increasingly encouraged to build upon the knowledge

young writers bring with them from the home to the classroom. Childrens domestic

literacy practices, however, is a field which remains extremely under-researched.This paper focuses on a sample of domestic writing produced by an 8-year-old child

in French, German and English. It shows how skills are networked and meaning co-

constructed via writing as a multifaceted social tool. This paper confirms not only the

wide scope of literacy-related skills acquired at home, but also the extent to which a

text is deeply embedded in the particular sociocultural contexts we negotiate as part

of our identity construction. The paper concludes by encouraging authentic literacy

activities and dynamics within the classroom which may draw upon the childs

previously acquired funds of knowledge.

Keywords: literacy, trilingualism, home learning, intertextuality, identity

Introduction: The Domestic Context

I am in my study, playing the treble recorder. Hardly have I begun this treat, a reward

that I accord myself after a good stint of work, then along scuttles my daughter, Pia,

bursting breathlessly into the room.

We exchange glances. I bow her a bienvenue!. She responds with a smile. Pias

glance falls on my paper-strewn desk - a mess, to the untrained eye, but for me, my

desk is organic; the evidence of my mental webbing, the musical score for the

melody of a particular activity of mind. And Pia knows better than to touch anything


2/35

2

on it without my say-so. On the bookshelf is a sturdy plastic folder crammed full with

old paper her father brings home from work for his girls. Pia plucks out a sheet, flips it

onto the clean side and reaches for a nearby felt tip pen. Although I am concentrating

on a decent rendition of Telemann, I also take in the fact that, like me, every fibre of

her is involved in her graphical act. In no time, she has filled the page and holds it

beneath my nose. I nod. Satisfied, she places it on my table and skips off.

So much has been said between the two of us, though not a single word exchanged.

Telemann over, I take a look at Pias offering. Questions, questions, questions:

- Tu mapprend a Jouer la flute? (will you teach me to play the (descant)

recorder?)

- Warum samelst du alles vas ich mache? (why do you collect everything I

do?)

- Kann i doo some BasckdtBoll?

For each question, an allocated box:

- oui non

- Ja nein

- Jess No

To round off, the text is embellished by the drawing of a woman playing the recorder.

Pia? I call her back. Number one... I let her wait and her grin gets wider,

yes. Number two... I hook this in the air, just out of her reach.

She takes up the posture of someone about to catch a ball; knees dipped, hands at

the ready...

... because I learn a lot from you. And Ive told you that a hundred times

already.

A little hop of delight.

And number three...

She waddles with her hips and rubs her hands. On your marks... get set...

Of course you can.


3/35

3

Ou! she is off and out the door, whilst I hesitate, trying to grasp the wealth of

the preceding effortless minutes.

The fleeting, initially silent nature of the interaction belies the extreme complexity of

what is actually taking place. We may probe further with the following questions:

- What is happening here?

- How?

- Where is the control located?

- What does the interaction mean to the participants?

- What are the values transmitted?


4/35

4

- What does the interaction appear to tell us about identity and knowledge

construction?

- How can insight into the funds of domestic literacy inform classroom

practice?

Theoretical Background

In order to unpick the picture of literacy emerging here, it is useful to relate it to a

number of theoretical perspectives from the field. Hence, after a brief sketch of

general trends in literacy research, I shall move on to review the relevant literature on

domestic interactional patterns, outline the educational policies which bear upon

Pias literacy acquisition and conclude by presenting the essential findings on

multilingualism. A review of the research on discourse analysis, trilingualism or

home-school interactional dynamics, however, all extend beyond the purview of this

present paper (Bursch, 2005).

General Trends in Literacy Research

The overall trend has moved beyond the search for universal cognitive tendencies in

experimental or classroom-based settings (typical up to the 1970s), towards a more

context sensitive approach, acknowledging the significance of social, personal and

affective variables such as culture, class, site, language, motivation, and

interpersonal dynamics. This development has been triggered by the availability and

dissemination of Vygotskys theories from the 1970s onwards (Vygotsky, 1978, 1994;

Wertsch, 1985). Despite the decidedly academic position adopted in Vygotskian

theory, his work has been instrumental in redirecting the focus of research beyond

the classroom to the analysis of learning in realsettings.

Literacy Domains

Home environment

Literacy activities taking place beyond the school-gate have been referred to by anumber of terms, most frequently home or domestic literacy. Other terms employed


5/35

5

include out-of-school literacy (Gregory & Kenner, 2003), unofficial literacy (Gregory

& Williams, 2000), family literacy (Hannon, 2003), community literacy (Cairney &

Ruge, 1996), vernacular, everyday, alternative, hidden or indeed in-between

(Knobel & Lankshear 2003:54). There are, thus, many potential ways of viewing, and

contextualizing, the home.

The home environment is typified as a variegated, holistic, informal cultural context,

or learning biotope, fostering the inductive, even subconscious, yet earlyacquisition

of skills as social processes in the daily landscape (e.g. Taylor, 1983; Hall, 1994;

Kendrick, 2003:40).

Suggestions, hints and warnings, conversation, practical tasks shared, familyreminiscences and the like, all provide contexts within which the developingchilds learning and understanding are orchestrated and extended through socialinteraction. Often, as we shall see, the formative influences of such interactionson the childs mentality are not intentional outcomes of what we seek tocommunicate to the child. Rather, they are products of implicit features of socialpracticeswithin which communication and attempts to teach take place.

(Wood, 1998)

It is absurd to imagine that four- or five-year-old children growing up in an urbanenvironment that displays print everywhere (...) do not develop any ideas about

this cultural object until they find themselves sitting before a teacher at the age ofsix.(Ferreiro & Teberosky, 1979:12)

Children, thus, are exposed to and engage with writing well before formal instruction.

At home, children are generally accorded more space to bridge and compare their

personal experiences, discourses and texts gained in various areas in a manner that

is not as easily possible when an adult attempts to consciously teach and evaluate

competence.

A number of studies go on to make the claim that the childs willingness to participate

in and benefit from certain classroom activities appears to relate to experience of

these activities beyond the school-gate (e.g. Heath, 1982; Volk & de Acosta 2002).

Notions of right or wrong, of the appropriate interactive or indeed teaching style are

all culturally transmitted, thus room must be made for the potential diversity of

stances imported into the classroom by children from different backgrounds.

Parental belief systems,


6/35

6

Parental belief systems are shaped by parental values and personal experiences

which together form an educational agenda (Leichter, 1984:38), however implicit.

This agenda transmits what countsas literacy (e.g. Kendrick, 2003) and will channel

how parents interact with their children. Such belief systems, however, are not simply

a pill to be swallowed and digested by the child. Rather, children actively try to make

sense of the signals being sent their way (Valsiner, 1997).

Class-contingency, home-school dichotomy and deficiency

The idea that interactional style is an indicator of social class membership is a matter

of some dispute. A number of studies establish class sensitive patterns of interaction

(e.g. Mardle & Walker, 1980:98). A correlation between purchasing power and

interactional style has equally been established (Dyson, 2001) and contested

(Gibson, 1989).

It appears that the functions of literacy may also be class-sensitive. Hannon (1995)

points to the discrepancy between the potentialand actualpatterns of literacy across

classes, whilst Gregory & Williams (2000) highlight community as opposed to a class-

sensitive uses of literacy.

Even if we side-step the issue of the fluid nature of class membership and the even

more fluid nature of community membership in multicultural households, it is clear

that distinctions according to class or domain may easily harbour notions of

deficiency implicitly reinforcing the supposed infallibility of schools and middle-class

environments (Fairclough, 1989) to the displacement of the validity of other contexts

as valuable learning environments (Amanti, 1995). For Rogoff et al (1998), the

polarisation of a specific style to a particular domain downplays the true degree of

overlap, since a good interactive style is neither monolithic nor the prerogative of a

particular domain, activity or social group. This view is supported by two decades of

research (e.g. Ferreiro, 1984; Gauvain, 2001), which increasingly responds to the call

for greater bottom-up alignment between the home and school contexts. The starting

point for any such alignment must be the childs demonstrated competence, (Cope &

Kalantzis, 2000:18; Gregory & Kenner, 2003). If one is to effectuate such alignment,

much more research needs to be conducted in out-of-school contexts.


7/35

7

Institutional environment

The general character of institutional practice, conventionally typified by structured

atomistic as opposed to holistic encounters of an interactive style exhibiting more

trenchant asymmetry than usually encountered at home, has been well-documented

(e.g. Woods, 1980; Hall 1994:22-3; Faulkner et al, 1998). As the institutional context

merely provides peripheral data to support my focus on home interactions, my review

is accordingly brief and limited to the literacy stances adopted up by the governing

bodies at Pias French-German nursery-primary school.

The French curriculum is centralised (for a summary of the French education system

and the relevant official organs, see e.g. Rayna & Plaisance, 1998). Publications by

the Ministry of Education encourage practitioners to build upon the competencies

children bring to school (Cycles de lEcole Primaire, Ministre de l ducation

nationale,1992). Writing is described as urban furniture; an integral part of urban

space and a meeting point of communication. It is this furniture which permits the

initiation into various functions of writing.

French policy adopts a structuralist, stage-oriented view of literacy acquisition. For

each of the three years of nursery school, detailed attainment guidelines are laid

down. Literacy instruction begins with sensitizing to handwriting skills as part of the

pre-alphabet stage: lines are drawn, circles and loops as the precursor to alphabetic

writing. Nursery-school children later use writing models to move on to print and

finally to joined up writing, which they are expected to master before entry to Year

One. Parents are encouraged to support their childrens literacy acquisition and

development in order to additionally secure a smooth transition from the home to the

school. There is a wide variety of material for sale in supermarkets and bookstores to

this end. This type of alignment, however, is top-down.

Unlike centralist France, in Germany each federal state is responsible for its own

educational agenda (Bildungsplan). Pias bi-lingual school not only adopts the

curricular guidelines of the neighbouring German federal state of Baden-Wrttemberg

but also employs native speakers as teachers.


8/35

8

In Germany, a different position is taken up concerning early literacy acquisition.

Nursery school Kindergarten is predominantly viewed as a site of play and

discovery. Indeed, nursery education, unlike formal schooling, does not always fall

under the purview of the Ministry of Education, but sometimes under that of the

Ministry of Social Affairs. The growing critique of the lack of concrete teaching

objectives in German nursery schools (Otto & Spiewak, 2004; OECD ECEC) has

motivated individual federal states to commit themselves to transparent and

appropriate pedagogic programmes.

Multilingualism and Multilingual Writing

Whilst definitions of bi- and multilingualism abound (Hamers & Blanc, 1989;

Romaine, 1995; Baker & Jones, 1998; Hoffmann & Ytsma, 2004; Aronin & OLaoire,

2004; Helot, 2005) and stage theories on bilingual writing development have been

established (Ferreiro & Teberosky (1979;1982;1996), replicated (cf review by Bauer,

2004), and contested (see Kendrick, 2003:41 for an extended review), there still

remains a dearth of information on the products, as opposed to mere processes, of

early literacy (Kendrick 2003). Research on young bilingual childrens writing

development across both languages is quite limited (Saunders, 1988; Kenner, 2000;

Bauer, 2004:208; Maneva, 2004). Research encompassing both the domestic

environment and biliteracy is even more sparse (e.g. Pahl, 1999). Research on

domestic triliteracy, such as I conduct here, is, to my knowledge, practically non-

existent.

From this review of the relevant literature we see that studies on multilingual

domestic writing practices address a significant lacuna both in the fields of literacy

and multilingualism in addition to responding to the call for more bottom-up research.We may now turn to the analytical framework employed to interpret the sample of

domestic triliteracy presented in this paper.

Data Collection and Analysis

The primary data comprises the text written by Pia in addition to the field notes madeimmediately after the event and presented here in an abridged version as the


9/35


10/35

10

habitusor the requisite funds of basic information supplying the currency for us to go

about the business of our daily lives (Bourdieu 1991, 1993; Hall 1995:224).

This compound analytical framework provides the lens, then, that shall calibrate my

investigation of the social affordancesof writing.

Levels of analysis

Analysis is conducted at three levels. The first level of analysis views the interaction

from the social vantage. By this is meant the deployment of writing as a social tool to

construct a tangible text defined below - which is then redeployed as the

cornerstone of the social interaction under investigation. At this social level, I look at

the written text, embedded within the overall interactional text, at the levels of

graphics (or sign), form and function.

The second level of analysis addresses the wealth of data yielded on mother-child

dynamics. Here, I expose how the event extends beyond the ecological context of

the home and is networked to wider ecosystems (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Kendrick

2003).

The final analytical level is a psychological one focussing on textual indices for the

construction of knowledge, identity and meaning.

Intertextuality

In an analysis of writing as socially embedded practice, it is important to bring some

clarity to the central terms being used. My definition of intertextuality recognises any

manner in which a text is inter-related, or networked, in the agents mind to other

texts, either at the horizontal level of genre, or indeed at the deeper, vertical level of

wider personal experience, including non-written/verbal texts, behaviour or even

objects. This interpretation resembles the concept of coordinations propounded by

Gee (2002), or that of knotted relevancies proposed by Bateson (1979) (in Kendrick,

2003:159). Every new encounter, physical or mental, each a text in its own right,

creates a new node or knot which is then linked to ones existing knowledge. Such

intertextuality does not, however, merely lean on previous experiences, but mayalso establish links to future events in as far as these are already present in some


11/35

11

form ones mind. It is precisely because intertextuality, as an innate feature of every

thought act, not only exists at every interpretive level, but is an intra- as much as an

interpsychological phenomenon and spans temporal boundaries that I equally

propose, and employ, the terms networking or webbing.

Approaches to Writing

Behind every statement lies a theory, a concept or ideology, which to foreground,

enables a more transparent comparison of the stances taken up in research and

practice (e.g. Baynham, 2004).

Numerous studies identify the characteristics of various approaches to literacy (e.g.

Street, 2004; Kress, 1997; Pavlenko & Blackledge, 2003) which may broadly be

regrouped into two camps. One camp adopts an intrapsychological approach

regarding learning as an internal mental, stage-oriented process (e.g. Ferreiro &

Teberosky, 1979). The other adopts an interpsychological approach, acknowledging

the social, culturally contingent origins of learning and the role of critical awareness

or multimodality in knowledge acquisition and identity formation (e.g. Kress, 1997;

Pahl, 1999; Dyson, 2001). Other studies establish a typology of literacy approaches

which enable one to see the multiplicity of stances which may be adopted in any

single writing event (Ivanic, 2004).

Whether at an academic or domestic, everyday level, implicit or explicit concepts

determine what counts, that is, both what we choose to see andour approach.

The product of authoring is a text. I identify three levels of construction:

1. the tangible written, or semiotic text (T1)

2. the linguistic text, or accompanying dialogue (T2)

3. the literacy event (Heath 1982:93) or interaction as a whole (T3), as a

multimodal phenomenon comprising not only the semiotic and linguistic

texts, but also other non-verbal elements

In my aim to highlight the meaning-making aspects of writing in a specific socialcontext, I consciously distance myself from the portrayal of writing as an abstract


12/35

12

technical skill, producing dead data suspended from all contextual reality. My

analysis is further motivated by the view of writing as a process rather than a

polished end result, and by the view of the child beinga writer rather than becoming

a writer. I acknowledge skills rather than pick at mistakes, for authors are an authority

on their work and they know what they want to achieve (Robinson et al, 1990). Let us

now take a closer look at Pias text to see what it reveals about her being a writer in

the context of her home.

Level One: Textual analysis. The Deployment of Social Tools

Graphical level : code-contingent handwriting

Pia attends a French-German nursery-primary school in which the curricular

guidelines of both countries are applied. By the end of nursery school, the French

curriculum, like certain others in Continental Europe has taught children not only to

write their name in small and capital letters, but also to copy rudimentary texts in

joined up writing (e.g. Cotton, 1991). By contrast, the German literacy programme

starts a whole school year later. Moreover, the two languages teach completely

different scripts, the French being curlier, as Pia explains.

Kenner (2003) describes differences in script styles according to their analytic or

synthetic properties. Analytic script involves separate pen strokes, whereas in

synthetic scripts, the pen stroke remains continuous. The German practice, then,

trains an analytic script, whereas the French practice trains a synthetic one. Ferreiro

(1984) distinguishes between the figurative aspects of script on the one hand, that is

to say, the quality of the shapes, spacing etc, and the constructive elements on the

other, i.e. the links between the graphemes or letters, and the rules of their

production. Pia is not familiar with terms such as analytic or synthetic, figurative or

constructive, yet she learns to sharpen her awareness of what such words describe,

and she must faithfully reproduce such distinctions when she writes.


13/35

13

Her writing, however, does not exhibit a high level of graphical contingency; she does

not write in German the German way, or in French the French way. She writes

primarily, and tellingly, according to the French fashion. Throughout the text (T1),

there is also evidence of code-switching at the calligraphic level (see Table One):

Question/

Answer

Code Script

Q1 French Mixed

Q2 German Mixed

Q3 English Mixed

A1 French German

A2 German French

A3 English Mixed

Table One. Code and script distribution in relation to questions and answers

The answers to Question One are written according to the German fashion; the Oui

in print and the Nonin German capital letters. The German question Warum samelst

du alles vas ich mache? (why do you collect everything I do?) is written using both

scripts; the looped l, or the hin mache clearly come from the French script. The h

in ich is written in German script on the other hand. The word Basckd(t)Boll,

similarly, bears the hallmarks of French calligraphy; the b, the k, the l, though the d(t)

is clearly German and the use of capital letters derives from the German practice of

writing nouns with capital letters, which French, like English does not (with the

exception of proper names). It is important to point out here that Pia has not been

taught to write the English way. This mixing of styles continues with regard to the

answers. The French question is answered in German script; first print, then capitals.

The German question is answered in French script. The English question is

answered using mixed scripts; the French capitaljjoined to the e, the rest in German

script.

With all this mixing going on, would it be fair to surmise that Pia has not learnt her

handwriting lesson well?


14/35

14

Consistency in Pias writing is present at other semiotic levels. The circle drawn

around Question 2 and Answer 2 is, in both cases, bigger than the one drawn around

Question 1. The consistent encasement of Question 3 and Answer 3 is certainly not

coincidental. If we turn our attention to writing of music, we notice that the musical

notes are accurately reproduced in the speech bubble, whose conventional function

Pia recognises, and logically transposes, for it is not words she hears coming from

her mothers mouth, but music. Finally, calligraphic consistency may be noted with

regard to the multiple choice answers. Each response begins with a capital letter,

with the correction in Answer Two, from a small n to a capital N, illustrating the

conscious act of such consistency.

Orthography

English being Pias least proficient language, it is the one in which she exhibits the

most orthographic resourcefulness.

She spells can according to her knowledge of German; Kann. Pia correctly spells I,

but, as in French and German, not using capitals. Given that the French and German

pronunciation of the letter i pronounced /i/ - differs to its pronunciation in English

pronounced /ai/ - Pia is not accessing her knowledge of French or German

phonology but probably her previous exposure to this English word in print.

The word doo, similarly, reveals sensitivity to English spelling whilst making a

certain degree of cognitive conflict transparent. The word is initially spelled correctly:

do. It seems, however, that Pia is possibly recruiting French or German phonology,

according to which sound of the vowel here is short. The word, nonetheless, should

sound longer: doo. It is clearly not German orthography, for in Question 2 Pia

correctly spells the German homophone for this: du, meaning you. She is thus

aware that the same sound can be spelled differently according to the language

used.

What she is doing is to draw speech (Vygotsky, 1978:115), or draw sounds (Kress

1997:124). There is logic behind her spelling, based on the application (A) of an

abstract concept (C) once understood, internalised and reduced (R) (Stern, inKerstan, 2003). If I reduce this verbal analysis even further, I arrive at the formula:


15/35

15

C R A1 A2 A3 etc

The childs thoughts to this formula might read as follows: once Ive understood it (C),

that is, the basic idea (R), then I can use it in lots of different ways (A1, A2, A3), try it

out. This is precisely what children do when they approach writing.

Some is spelled correctly despite the potential for confusion due to the silent e and

the possible replacement of the oby the letter u. The only plausible explanation for

me is that Pia has picked up this word in its entirety from frequent exposure to it and

is not attempting to work out how to spell it.

In the case of Basckd(t)Boll we see that, conceptually, for Pia, basketball comprises

two discrete notions: basket, and ball, both of which, as nouns in German, are written

using capital letters. Her d is also a t, and this is no coincidence, for in French, the

word is pronounced ending with a d, whilst in English, the word ends with a t: she is

unsure which spelling is the correct one, so literally blends both. Pia knows the

German word Ball, yet seems unaware that the English word is written the same way,

i.e. that we are dealing with a homograph. It seems that the use of /a/ in Basckd(t)

misleads her to expect a different spelling at the end of the word. She is, after all,

making two completely different sounds. To verify my interpretation, I questioned her

when the text was out of view:

Mother: Pia, do you know how to write the word ball in English?Pia: Ball? I think so: b-a-l.

(Research Diary 17.05.04)

Hence, she does know how to spell ball in English, one could say, and is being

mislead by the different pronunciation of the ain the first part of the word basketball.

Notice, furthermore, that her spelling of Doo, Bolland No, demonstrate that Pia is

indeed aware that the same letter may represent different sounds.

Pias trilingual text (T1) is untypical as it is intentional. The second question starts off

in French: the P-o-u, subsequently crossed out, is the beginning of the Frenchquestion Pourqoui. I therefore venture to suggest that Pia is possibly making a


16/35

16

conscious effort at knowledge display arising out of her awareness of my academic

interest in her development.

Form and Function

Pias written text derives from the multiple choice paper she is familiar with from

school. Her text is not a replication but a modification. She discards the conventional

question-answer layout. She favours, instead, to group the answers into a category of

their own. A further deviation is her inclusion of a picture, which leans more on the

narrative genre.

The function of this format can be better understood intertextually. My longitudinal

analysis of Pias writing practices demonstrate that she typically uses such questions

and answers for games and requests.

The function of this written text is nonetheless still related to that of the multiple

choice paper, whose goal is to make the learners knowledge transparent whilst

limiting the options available. Here, it is less the case that the reader, myself, is being

invited to display my knowledge. It is more so the case that Pia uses the activity to

display her own knowledge. And yet, this is not a test; it is much more of a game- it

is not work, as at school, it is play. It is not an academic exercise imposed upon her,

it is a real life social skill which she herself selects as appropriate form for the

immediate context of getting her requests across without disturbing her mothers

musical interlude. In addition to being polysemous and multilingual, the text is,

therefore, equally multifunctional; it is a document of extreme yet subtle complexity in

view of the fact that it is rattled off with such apparent ease.

Level Two: Interactional analysis. Ecological frames

We have seen how Pia appropriates the multiple choice format more readily

associated with school and blends it with the narrative genre, thereby investing the

whole with a particular characteristic tailored to her immediate purpose. In a sense, it

is as if she opens her toolbox and deftly whips out those utensils that are available

and good enough to get the job done (Wood, 1998; Kress, 1997). Tools are made for


17/35

17

specific purposes, they have affordances, but may also be implemented,

coordinated, to achieve different, novel ends. Some tools Pia is able to handle well.

Others are less familiar, having been used less frequently. Toolboxes have

compartments which help us to order their contents and facilitate retrieval so we

become more efficient. Two central compartments of a childs social world and

development are home and school (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Valsiner, 1997). It is to

these compartments and their affordances in relation to the literacy event, to which I

would now like to turn.

Parental literacy indices

The literacy event (T3) yields key information about Pias household. She comes

from a highly literate family. Her (British-Caribbean) mother is a researcher, whose

desk is paper-strewn; littered with the accoutrements of learning.

Pias father is German. His work entails such high exposure to print that he brings

home pages full of texts, the reverse side of which serves as writing material for his

girls. Literacy skills thus play a central role in both Pias parents lives.

Domestic ecosystem

The event provides insights into a number of the values transmitted in this household

which inform Pias developmental pathway, or chreods (Valsiner, 1997).

The mother treats herself to a musical interlude: a reward that I accord myself after

a good stint of work. First one must work, then one may play. Glances are

exchanged. Words not. Pia knows that there are times when her mother is not to be

interrupted, but she knows it is alright for her to enter the room right now, for the

bienvenue bowed her way tells her so. She is careful to be as unobtrusive as

possible. She also leaves the room without a word, but with the nodded

acknowledgement of her mother, who then calls her back at a suitable moment. She

knows what she may touch and what not; she knows that she cannot just go and help

herself to clean paper, but must take the used paper brought from her fathers

workplace and which she must share with her sister, there being only one folder for

the two of them. She is a competent social actor in her home market which operatesaccording to dynamics that do not necessarily overlap with those enforced at school.


18/35

18

Institutional ecosystem

Although Pias text (T1) exemplifies French and German institutional writing

practices, the values couched behind these ecosystems cannot be foregrounded

purely by reference to the text. Information presented as part of the theoretical review

and later during the graphical analysis help us to identify the values at work here.

Again, we see that it is essential to look beyond the immediacy of the event as

beyond the individual item of data in order to fully contextualize and retrieve a

maximum of meaning.

What can be said here is that, at the institutional level, variegated, if not conflicting,

signals are being sent regarding both writing competence and strategy. Such

discrepancy must, nonetheless, be bridged in the individual child. In the text (T1), we

see Pia negotiating these values.

Interactional dynamics: Valsiner

Valsiners re-conceptualization of the Vygotskian notion of the Zone of Proximal

Development (ZPD) provides an accessible, cogent framework for the analysis of

interactional dynamics in learning environments of the developing child (Valsiner,

1997). He proposes a theoretical framework combining three abstract concepts

which may have particular real-life illustrations whilst remaining theoretical. These

are:

1. the Zone of Free Movement (ZFM)

2. the Zone of Promoted Action (ZPA)

3. the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD)

Zone of Free Movement (ZFM)

The ZFM structures access to a particular environment, the availability of objects

therein and the childs way of acting with these available objects. Access to the ZFM,

which may be physical as much as emotional or cognitive, is externally controlled by

an adult or gatekeeper. The construction of this zone may be proactive or reactive;

initiated by the child, by the adult, or by both. Often, the ZFM is delineated by theadults evaluation of child competence, based on past experience. It is a means to


19/35

19

channel the childs development and is dispensed with when no longer relevant,

much like a playpen or a car seat.

Zone of Promoted Activity (ZPA)

Unlike the ZFM, which is conceived of as an inhibitory psychological mechanism

(Valsiner, op.cit.p192) think back to the play pen activities within its counterpart,

the ZPA, are geared towards promoting new competencies to extend the childs

development. The salient characteristic of this zone is its non-binding nature. The

ZFM and the ZPA work together to canalise the childs development by delineating

and promoting specific areas of activity. The Zone of Promoted Activity is not a

necessity:

The only options available to children are those they can choose among, and aslong as it does not matter to the parents which option is chosen, no ZPA need bepresent.

(Valsiner, p195)

Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD)

Valsiner makes use of this Vygotskian concept (e.g. Vygotsky, 1978), which he

characterizes as entailing:

The set of possible next statesof the developing systems relationship with theenvironment, given the current stateof the ZFM/ZPA complex and the system.The ZPD helps us to capture those aspects of child development that have notyet moved from the sphere of the possible into that of the actual, but are currentlyin the process of becoming actualised.

(Valsiner, p200)

The ZPD forms a link to the ZFM and the ZPA in as much as it sets the parameters

for free movement and promoted activity: a promoted activity which lies beyond the

range of the childs developmental level will fail whereas a promoted activity

coinciding with the childs developmental level has the best chances of success.

Valsiners tripartite framework may be applied to any instance of learning in any zone

of learning. As such, it does not succumb to the polarised depiction of interactive

strategies. One may, nonetheless, anticipate that the proportionate parameters of the

ZFM, ZPA and ZPD relate to the domain or ecosystem in question. If we look back at

the activities taking place in Pias nursery school, we see that literacy occupies more


20/35

20

space as a promoted (and binding) activity in the French curriculum than in the

German, which is not to say that the German curriculum provides more room for free

movement; it simply accords more space to the promotion of other activities which

are equally structured and binding: song, physical activity, cutting and pasting etc,

and which may be regarded as equally bound up with the move into literacy (Pahl,

1999). Valsiners model can be seen to relate to and complement other

conceptualizations of adult child interaction within the socio-cultural paradigm,

notably Rogoff et als guided participation analysing mother-toddler interactions

(Rogoff et al, 1998), Woods control levels charting the escalating levels of adult

contingent intervention in collaborative activities (Wood, 1998), and perhaps the most

successful, though not uncritical, depiction of scaffolding by Jerome Bruner (e.g.

Bruner, 1994, 1996 ; Hoogsteder et al, 1998).

Valsiners interactional model can be directly applied to the literacy event under

investigation here. Literacy is clearly a Zone of Promoted Activity within this

household. It occupies a large space in Pias development, yet, unlike school, is of a

non-binding nature. She is not coerced into a particular behaviour. On the contrary,

the interaction is initiated by her. The Zone of her Free Movement is limited by the in-

house rules she has internalised as part of her enculturation into her family space:

which paper to take, when to speak, when to enter the room what type of behaviour

would be out of bounds. She is not only at the receiving end of such inhibitory

psychological mechanism, but sets up a play pen of her own in the form of her

multiple choice questions and their capacity for limiting the scope of her mothers

responses. She is, therefore, proactive as well as reactive. She is, above all, creative,

for within the limitations set up by her environment and by herself, she still

manoeuvres room for play. She has a perfect feel for the game, to return to

Bourdieus dispositions. And she plays to win. This typical domestic interaction is

less likely to take place in the classroom where Pia must occupy a different role in a

different space with its own affordances, where the asymmetry between the child and

the adult is more extenuated, and where she would have to compete with many other

children for the attention of the teacher. In this concrete sense, too, she has less

space in the institutional context, with the ZPA and the ZFM in a different

constellation to each other than at home.


21/35

21

The notion of space or zone, elsewhere encountered as fields, domains,

spheres or levels can be difficult to grasp at first. Table Two presents a bifurcated

regrouping of space for greater clarity:

Group 1: Concrete Spaces Group 2: Abstract Spaces

Ecological (geographical) domains

Materials/tools

Forms/products of literacy

Directionality

Social actors

Linguistic codes spoken/heard

Identity formation, (un)endorsed social roles

Meaning negotiation

Research paradigms, implicit theories

Intertextuality

Temporality

Table Two. Concrete and abstract spaces

However, and as Valsiner explains, the concept of zones is not a straightjacket

intended to render static a procedure which is of an inherently fluid, semipermeable

nature. I argue that such fluidity, such zoniferousness, is the result of the multiplicity

of spaces, roles and networking behind every instance of social interaction.

Level Three: Psychological Analysis. The Mosaic of Meaning and

Identity

This interaction presents a new knot in the chain of events which constitutes Pias

knowledge. It cannot be fully appreciated if left in a vacuum. Rather, it must be

related to the web of her experience. In order to unveil this, I must step outside the

text (T3) and resource my knowledge as the childs mother. Bearing in mind the

general consensus that knowledge, irrespective of methodology, is more subjectively

taken or socially co-constructed than it is an objectively given phenomenon, the

trustworthiness of my investigation is not undermined by this approach which allows

me to strengthen the case for the contextual contingency of development and

learning.


22/35

22

Upon closer inspection, then, the text (T3) throws a wide net of knotted relevancies

(Bateson, 1979). It links Pia to her mother, building upon the skills, the dispositions

or common sense she has acquired over time for successful interaction with her

mother in particular and for community appropriate behaviour in general (Bourdieu,

1993; Gauvain, 2001). It links her with her father, indirectly, with his workplace his

professional materials. Central to the understanding of this interaction is also the fact

that Pia receives piano tuition. She is therefore familiar with the musical score

although not yet required to write music herself. Pia knows that her mother received

intensive music tuition from a very early age. The text thus links Pia with not only with

her own music tuition, but forges a bridge between her mother playing the treble

recorder and Pia herself learning to play the piano, a bridge also, between her

mother as a child musician and Pia as a child musician. The interaction provides Pia

with a vehicle for webbing her knowledge of different forms of codification and layout,

e.g. French/German handwriting and music. It links the multiple choice and narrative

formats via the drawing. The speech bubble establishes a further node between

narrative presentation encountered at home and school, and the comic, regularly

borrowed from the local mediathque. At the communicative level, this interaction is

inter-related to all previous speechless encounters between mother and child,

involving writing or not, and contributing to the growth of the interactants

intersubjectivity as a lifelong conversation (Mercer, 1995). At the level of function,

the text is part of the larger network of both games on the one hand, and requests on

the other. The interaction makes links projected into the future as into the past; it

makes room for a new type of interaction between mother and child, a new tool;

learning to play the recorder, yet not so new, as it builds upon similar interactions

elswhere such as learning to write, and whose skills may be transposed to facilitate

the new activity (Bourdieu, 1993). As such, the text also makes a link between her

mother-as-teacher and her piano teacher. It is perhaps no coincidence that the

request to learn to play the recorder is formulated in French, for Pia has music

lessons in French. Pia furthermore knows that her mother can teach children: her

mother taught English to children for several years. She thus transposes her mothers

teaching skills from one domain to another. The text makes of Pia the teacher and of

her mother the learner; her mothers contextual notes written on the reverse side, her

role as pupil completing a multiple choice paper, and her mothers response to thequestion why do you collect everything I dodemonstrate the reversed positions. This


23/35

23

latter link clearly wanders beyond the home to Pias school and to her mothers

school; her working environment, so that both parents professional activities are

enmeshed in the event. The text makes a link to Pias sister, who is already learning

to play the descant recorder at school. Thus, a further home-school node involving a

further family member is established, and docking tenuously onto ongoing sibling

rivalry, for the necessity of sharing the folder of paper can be a highly contentious

issue when supplies are running low. The text, finally, projects Pia not only beyond

the home and its members out into the wider community of her parents workplaces

and their alternative non-domestic roles, it also quite concretely creates links to Pias

school, to herself as a pupil, to the dynamics and formats encountered at school, and

beyond; to her position in a much larger community as a speaker of that communitys

language: a speaker of English, a speaker of French, a speaker of German. And,

yes, a speaker of music. The text, I conclude, can be seen as an expression and

negotiation of the many facets contributing to identity and citizenship.

And if I were to try to visualise what I have needed a page and a half to express in

words, the image that would transpire would be... a web; a network of interlinked

textsof experience.

Intertextuality such as I have detailed above underscores the notion of zones

occupied by individuals as they negotiate their positions within culturally sensitive

scenarios (Valsiner, 1997; Maquire, 2001) at the various levels of their ecological

systems; the microsystem of family or school, the mesosystem of family-school links,

the exosystem of parental employment and the macrosystem of governmental or

national policies (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). For the polyglot, the number of potential

spaces occupied are, evidently, multiplied.

The construction of meaning & identity

If we accept that literacy, as a social tool, is deployed for the joint construction of

meaning, and that the meaning constructed reflects the negotiation of a particular

identity, the question which now presses is; what does this literacy event mean for

the individual interactants?

There is no direct verbal exchange between mother and child during the writing act.

Meaning is not co-constructed in the first, but in the second instance, as Pias mother


24/35

24

subtly answers her daughters questions. For Pia, it is clear what her own intentions

are; what she means. She wants to interrupt her mother without making her angry.

She wants to have her requests heard, and granted. If she plays her cards right, she

will get what she wants. She has internalised the mothers rule of work before play.

Pias knowledge display supplies the proof that she has worked. And now it is time to

play. The request it is not a demand is transformed into a game. A teaching game

in one sense, since her mother has to fill out the correct boxes in the way Pia has

herself learnt to do at school. In another sense, it is not quite a teaching game

because Pia does not have the answers nor can she anticipate how her mother will

respond.

For her mother, at the surface level, the meaning of the text (T1) appears clear, too.

The question why do you collect everything I do? cannot be answered by yes or no.

Pia appears to be on automatic pilot in the yes/no game. Her mother does not point

out to her the mistake but simply provides the correct answer as she knows what her

daughter means: meaning takes precedence over instruction right now.

Meaning is tied up with legitimacy and ultimately, with power, which is more than an

oppressive tool for it is also productive and malleable. Whilst it is true to say that the

mother, as the more competent agent, sets up the over-arching parameters via her

belief systems which Pia acknowledges (and uses to her advantage), the reverse is

equally true. By delineating the Zone of Free Movement of her mothers responses,

Pia reverses the conventional adult-child asymmetry. She takes up the classical

subject role of the teacher and thereby invests herself with power. Her mother,

however, may choose between more than the foreseen responses and by providing

alternatives, she indirectly points out the inappropriateness of the options given.

Although teaching is not the primary goal here, Pias mother does not let the

opportunity to instruct escape her. She isteaching although it is not immediately clear

if Pia has chosen to understand the lesson. In any case, a subtle tug-of-war over

power is taking place, and it is inextricable from the roles negotiated between the

interactants.


25/35

25

Meaning, thus, is constructed in the space between the utterances and behaviour of

interactants and to the degree to which each acknowledges the rights and intentions

of the other.

A salient feature of Pias identity which does not figure at all in the encounter is race.

I attribute the omission to the fact that my analysis of hundreds of Pias texts reveals

that race is an issue she refers to in her drawings rather than in her writings. Her

racial identity is essentially a visual matter, hence she selects the correct mode of

representation: the colour brown. Pia does not draw herself at all in the current

literacy event. She draws her mother, yet she does not colour her mother in...

Respondent validation is crucial so that meanings may be reconstructed as opposed

to fabricated:

Mother: this is a lovely drawing, Pia.(Pia smiles)Mother: why didnt you put yourself in the picture?Pia: eh ben, je dessine ce que je vois et cest sr que je ne vois pas moi mme moins que jaie un miroir. Et je n en ai pas! (well, I draw what I see, and ofcourse I cant see myself unless Ive got a mirror. Which I havent!)Mother: what about this drawing of me. Do you want to change anything? Colourme in or anything?

Pia: Non. Cest termin. (No, its finished)

NB should I have pointed out to her that I am not white, or would she take this tobe nitpicking and break down in tears at the criticism? Better keep my mouthshut. I am black and she knows it. She has the right to resist my mediationalmeans

(from Research Diary, 17.05.04)


26/35

26

A piece of writing acts as a snapshot of ones identity, in which any combination of

the different layers of embeddedness may be unearthed (Kearney, 2001; Bourne,

2002; Street, 2004). It can reveal who we think we are in the given context, or our

views about the intended audience. It can reveal how we feel and, particularly for

emergent writing, how we learn to write. It may provide indices for all the important

questions: who/where/how/why/when. The enormous scope of potential cultural

spaces/roles highlight the shifting, almost indefinite nature of ones possibilities for

selfhood (Ivanic, 1998, in Maquire, 2001), regarded as mosaic or as a hybrid,

conjectural process (Clifford, 1988). Pia is doing much more than asking a handful of

questions and seeking their answers. Essentially, she is navigating the central

question: who am I, and exploring the outlets for the expression of the Self.

Knowledge acquisition

Pia is not being taught in any overt sense, yet it would be wrong to assume that

social skills are purely being deployed without any true gains to the level of

knowledge.

The interaction provides her with the opportunity to consolidate and verify her social

competence. The behavioural blueprints acquired during socialisation are guides, not

guarantees. This means that every time we enter into an interaction, there is always

the risk of failure. If the interaction succeeds, then we are strengthened in our faith in

what we have learnt in our repertoire - so far. This is also learning: it is practice

followed by confirmation. The fact that this encounter achieves the desired goal

teaches Pia that her strategy is still an effective one which she may resort to in future

under similar circumstances.

The fact that her mother files everything away, collects everything I do instead of

awaiting an auspicious moment to dispose of the childs writing, teaches Pia that her

work counts; she has a particular value in this respect.

Pias attempts to spell in English constitute a further learning experience. She can be

seen to trawl her knowledge of phonology and orthography across three languages inorder to spell in a language in which she has received no formal instruction. It does

not matter that her mother does not correct her spelling. It is perhaps even better that


27/35

27

she has not done so in this context. Learning may take place in the absence of

instruction. It may take place on the periphery (Taylor, 1983:7). Indeed, this is one of

the salient characteristics of learning situations in a non-institutional context.

The ease with which Pia conducts this performance legitimises the question of what it

is she is learning. The fact that she requires no help whatsoever lends strength to the

conclusion that she is not operating within her Zone of Promixal Development (ZPD)

at the levels of genre and function. Regarding orthography, Pia is still operating

within the ZPD across all three languages, with English clearly at a lower stage of

development than her French and German. At the calligraphic level, too, one could

conclude that Pia is still in the learning phase and has not yet successfully

internalised the distinctions made between the French and German styles of

handwriting. Alternatively, one could argue that she simply chooses not to adhere to

the distinctions made at school, after all, she is not at school but at home.

Furthermore, this is not binding work. This is play, where she may give her

inclinations full reign.

Summary and implications for educational practice

The text (T3), despite its fleeting nature, is nonetheless a complex polysemous,

multilingual, multifunctional zoniferousencounter, which, when analysed at different

levels on the socio-semiotic, ecological and psychological planes, yields a wealth of

data about the overt and covert literacy values and strategies expressed within this

childs home environment and the ability of this child to resource and web such

knowledge. The text provides a space used to explore and negotiate possible

expressions of self for both interactants, who occupy a plethora of roles; controller,

reminder, expert, novice, teacher, co/author, daughter, player etc, with each role

conferring new shades of meaning to the overall interaction. We see how both

mother and daughter are actively engaged in the co-construction of knowledge and

how the child, as an active meaning maker-taker-shaper, draws from the wealth of

her social and linguistic skills in a literacy event which is everything but a solitary,

neutral performance. The intertextual indices testify to the texts deep embeddedness

in the contingencies of the childs community at every ecological level, from the micro


28/35

28

unit of the home to the macro unit of a nation. Hence, her trilingual authoring reflects

not only her domestic linguistic constellation and multiple cultural identities, it also

reflects her formal learning and the wider cultural political context in which she lives.

Pias toolbox is well-equipped. We see how it contains everything she needs so that

she may use un/conventional paths to meet her own truths. Sieving the interaction

to get down to the level of the stitch, and now standing back to take in the full picture,

we see a child who does much more than to absorb and enact endorsed literate

behaviour. We see the picture of a reflective child who negotiates and secures her

own position and identity within the multiple layers of her literate environment.

The implications of the current paper for educational practice are manifold, and I

would like to propose a small number which immediately come to mind. The wide

scope of literacy-related skills demonstrated by the child certainly lends weight to

calls to encourage children to engage in writing practices similar to those at home.

Developments in this direction are being made, as evidenced by the increased

practice of home corners in the classroom. The findings, further, foreground

sensitivity and willingness to engage in literacy which takes on meaning as soon as it

has a genuine social purpose as opposed to being reduced to a purely academic skill

disregarding both emotional component and the exploration of the self inherent in

every act of learning (Cope & Kalantzis, 2000). Acknowledgement of the need for

and benefits of authentic writing practices should ideally motivate literacy

policymaking and be borne in mind when curricula and teaching materials are being

designed. Child meaning-making strategies, finally, should not be disregarded, hence

wherever possible, a pedagogical approach which is bottom-up should be applied,

the impetus being the childs capacities, intentions and motivations. Every classroom

is as unique as the individuals who animate the activities taking place therein. The

present paper offers insights into the particular which, it is hoped, can make a

valuable contribution to endeavours to make the general literate climate of the

classroom a more enriching one.

Dr. Joan TraversFacult des Lettres, des Sciences Humaines, des Arts et des Sciences de l'EducationCampus Walferdange(Route de Diekirch) BP 2 L-7201 WalferdangeT +352 46 66 44 9670 F +352 36 66 44 6513Email: [email protected]


29/35

29

Bibliography

Amanti, C. (1995) Teachers Doing Research Beyond Classroom Walls. PracticingAnthropology. Vol.17, no.3, pp7-9

Aronin, L. & O Laoire, M. (2004) Exploring Multilingualism in Cultural Contexts:Towards a Notion of Multilinguality. In Hoffmann, C. & Ytsma, J. (eds.) Trilingualismin Family, School and Community. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, Chapter 1

Baker, C. (2001) Foundations of Bilingual Education & Bilingualism. Clevedon:Multilingual Matters, 3rd edition

Baker, C. & Prys Jones, S. (1998) Encyclopedia of Bilingualism & BilingualEducation. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters

Bakhtin, M. M. (1986) Speech, Genres & Other Late Essays. Edited by Emerson, C.& Holquist, M.) Austin: University of Texas Press

Bakhtin, M. M. (1981) The Dialogic Imagination. Translated by Emerson, C. &Holquist, M.) Austin: University of Texas Press

Barnes, J. D. (2006) Early Trilingualism. A Focus on Questions. Clevedon:Multilingual Matters. Second Language Acquisition Series

Bauer, E. B. (2004) Parallel Development of Writing in English and German. In Boyd,

F. B., Brock, C.H. & Rozendahl, M.S. (eds.) Multicultural and Multilingual Literacy andLanguage. Conetxts and Practices. New York: Guilford Press

Baynham, M. (1995) Literacy Practices: Investigating Literacy in Social Contexts.London: Longman

Baynham, M. (2004) Ethnographies of Literacy: Introduction. Language andEducation. Vol. 18, No.4, (pp285-290)

Bernstein, B. (1980) Class and Pedagogies: Visible and Invisible. In Dockrell, W. B.and Hamilton, D. (eds) Rethinking Educational Research. London: Hodder &

Stoughton, (pp115-139)

Bourdieu, P. (1993) The Field of Cultural Production. Edited by Johnson, R.Cambridge: Polity Press

Bourdieu, P. (1991) Language & Symbolic Power. Cambridge: Polity Press

Bourne, J. (2002) Oh, What Will Miss Say!: Constructing Texts and Identities in theDiscursive Processes of Classroom Writing. Language and Education. Vol.16, No.4,(pp241-259)

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979) The Ecology of Human Development. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press


30/35

30

Bruner, J. (1994) From Communicating to Talking. In Stierer, B. & MAYBIN, J. (ed. )Language, Literacy and Learning in Educational Practice. Clevedon: MultilingualMatters Ltd, (pp59-73)

Bruner, J. (1986) Actual Minds, Possible Worlds. Cambridge (Mass.): Harvard

University Press

Burnett, C., & Myers, J. (2002) Beyond The Frame: Exploring Childrens LiteracyPractices in Reading. Literacy & Language. Vol. 36, no.2, (pp56-62)

Bursch, J. (2005) Language Patterns in a Trilingual Household. Bilingual FamilyNewsletter

Cairney T. (2003) Literacy within Family Life. In Hall, N., Larson, J. & Marsh, J. (eds)Handbook of Early Childhood Literacy. London: Sage, Chapter 8

Cairney, T. & Ruge, J. (1996) Community Literacy Practices and Schooling: TowardsEffective Support for Students. Paper presented to American Association forEducational research Conference, N.Y., 8-12 April 1996

Cenoz, J., Hufeisen, B. & Jessner, U. (eds.) (2001) Looking Beyond SecondLanguage Acquisition; Studies in Tri- and Mulitlingualism. Tbingen: StauffenburgVerlag

Clifford J. (1988) The Predicament of Culture, C20th Ethnography, Literature andArt. Harvard: Harvard University Press

Cope, B. & Kalantzis, M. (2000), Multiliteracies; Literacy Learning and the Design ofSocial Futures. London: Routledge

Cotton, P. (1991) The Importance of Good Models: Should Children Be Exposed toJoined Writing on School Entry, as in France and Many European Countries.Reading, Vol 25, no.1. ( pp27-32)

Cycles de lEcole Primaire, Ministre de lducation nationale, 1992. Hachette

Czerniewska, P. (1992) Learning about Writing. Oxford: Blackwell

David, T. (ed.) (1998) Researching Early Childhood Education. EuropeanPerspectives. London: Paul Chapman Publishing

David, T., Goouch, K. & Jago, M. (2001) Cultural Constructions of Childhood & EarlyLiteracy. Reading, Literacy & Language, Vol. 35 no.29. (pp47-53)

De Houwer, A. (2004) Trilingual input and Childrens Language Use in TrilingualFamilies in Flanders: In Hoffmann, C. & Ytsma, J. (eds.) Trilingualism in Family,School and Community. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, Chapter 6

Dhring, C. (1997) Une libert qui a ses revers. Cahiers Pdagogiques no.359dcembre 1997. (pp10-11)


31/35

31

Dunn, J (1988) The Beginnings of Social Understanding. Oxford: Basil Blackwell

Dyson, A. H. (1997) Writing Superheroes. Contemporary Childhood, PopularCulture, and Classroom Literacy. New York: Teachers College Press

Dyson, A. H. (2001) Where are the Children in Childhood Literacy? An Exploration of(Outer) Space. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy. Vol.1, no.1, (pp9-39)

Fairclough, N. (1989) Language and Power. London: Longman

Faulkner, D., Littleton, K. & Woodhead, M. (eds.) (1998) Learning Relationships inthe Classroom. London: Routledge/Open University

Ferreiro, E. (1984) The Underlying Logic of Literacy Development. In Goelman, H.,Oberg, A. & Smith, T. (eds), Awakening to Literacy. London: Heinemann, Chapter 12

Ferreiro, E. & Teberosky, A. (1979) Literacy Before Schooling. London: HeinemannEducational Books

Gauvain, M. (2001) The Social Context of Cognitive Development. New York: TheGuilford Press

Gauvain, M. (1998) Thinking in niches: sociocultural influences on cognitivedevelopment. In Faulkner, D., Littleton, K. & Woodhead, M. (eds) LearningRelationships in the Classroom. London: Routledge/Open University, (pp67-89)

Gardner, H. (1980) Artful Scribbles; The Significance of Childrens Drawings. London:Jill Norman Ltd

Gee, J.P. (2002) A Discourse Approach to Language and Literacy. In Lankshear, C.(2002) Changing Literacies. Buckingham: OUP

Gibson, L. (1989) Literacy Learning in Early Years Through Childrens Eyes.London: Cassell

Gregory, E. (Ed.) (1997) One Child Many Worlds; Early Learning in MulticulturalCommunities. London: David Fulton Publishers

Gregory, E. & Williams, A. (2000), Work or Play? Unofficial Literacies in the Lives ofTwo East London Communities. In Martin-Jones, M. & Jones, K. (eds.) MultilingualLiteracies. Amsterdam: John Benjamin Publishing, Chapter 2

Gregory, E. & Kenner, C. (2003) The Out-of-School Schooling of Literacy. In Hall, N.,Larson, J., & Marsh, J. (eds) Handbook of Early Childhood Literacy. London: Sage,Chapter 7

Hall, N., Larson, J. & Marsh, J. (eds) (2003) Handbook of Early Childhood Literacy.London: Sage


32/35

32

Hall, N. (1994) The Emergence of Literacy. In Stierer, B. and Maybin, J. (eds.)Language, Literacy and Learning in Educational Practice. Clevedon: MultilingualMatters Ltd, (pp15-29).

Hamers, J. F. & Blanc, M. H. A. (1989) Bilinguality & Bilingualism. Cambridge: CUP.

Hamilton, M., Barton, D. & Ivanic, R. (eds.) (1994) Worlds of Literacy. Clevedon:Multilingual Matters

Hannon, P. (1995) Literacy, Home & School. London: Falmer Press

Hannon, P. (2003) Family Literacy Programmes. In Hall, N., Larson, J. & Marsh, J.(eds) Handbook of Early Childhood Literacy. London: Sage, Chapter 9

Harding, E. & Riley, P. (1996) The Bilingual Family. A Handbook for Parents.

Cambridge : CUP

Heath, S. B. (1982) What No Bedtime Story Means: Narrative Skills at Home andSchool. Language and Society. Vol.10, (pp423-42)

Helot, C. (2005) Bridging the Gap betwwen Prestigious Bilingualism & theBilingualism of Minorities. Towards an integrated Perspective of Multilingualism in theFrench Education Context. In OLaoire, M. (ed.) Multilingualism in EducationalSettings. Tbingen: Stauffenburg verlag, (pp15-32)

Hesse, S. (1997) Les coles Waldorf. Cahiers Pdagogiques. no.359 dcembre

1997. (pp47-48)

Hoffmann, C. & Ytsma, J. (eds.) (2004) Trilingualism in Family, School andCommunity. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters

Hoogstedder, M., Maier, R. & Elbers E. (1998) Adult-Child Interaction, Joint ProblemSolving and the Structure of Cooperation. In Woodhead, M., Faulkner, D. & Littleton,K. (eds.) Cultural Worlds of Early Childhood. London: RoutledgeOpen University,(pp178-195)

Ivanic, R. (2004) Discourses of Writing and Learning to Write. Language andEducation. Vol. 18, No.3, (pp220-245)

Kearney, C. (2001) The Monkeys Mask. Stoke-on-Trent: Trentham Books

Kendrick, M. (2003) Converging Worlds: Play, Literacy and Culture in EarlyChildhood. European University Studies. Series 11, Vol. 866

Kenner, C. (2000) Children Writing in a Multilingual Nursery. In Martin-Jones, M. &Jones, K. (eds.) Multilingual Literacies. Amsterdam: John Benjamin Publishing,Chapter 7


33/35

33

Kenner, C. (2003) Embodied Knowledges: Young Childrens Engagement with theAct of Writing. In Jewitt, C. and Kress, G. (eds.) Multimodal Literacy. New York:Peter Lang , Chapter 6

Kerstan, T. (2003) Wissen schlgt Intelligenz Die Zeit, 26 Sep Nr27, p65

Knobel, M. & Lankshear, C. (2003) Researching Young Childrens Out-of-SchoolLiteracy Practices. In Hall, N., Larson, J. & Marsh, J. (eds.) Handbook of EarlyChildhood Literacy. London: Sage, Chapter 5

Kress, G. (2003) Perspectives on Making Meaning: the Differential Principles andMeans of Adults and Children. In Hall, N., Larson, J. & Marsh, J. (eds.) Handbook ofEarly Childhood Literacy. London: Sage, Chapter 13

Kress, G. (1997) Before Writing; Rethinking the Paths to Literacy. London: Routledge

Kress, G. (1994) Learning to Write. London: Routledge, 2nd Edition.

Lancaster, L. (2003) Moving into Literacy: How It All Begins. In Hall, N., Larson, J. &Marsh, J. (eds.) Handbook of Early Childhood Literacy. London: Sage, Chapter 12

Lankshear, C. (1997) Changing Literacies. Buckingham: Open University Press

Leichter, H. J. (1984) Families as Environments for Literacy. In Goelman, H., Oberg,A. & Smith, T. (eds) Awakening to Literacy. London: Heinemann, Chapter 3

Maquire, M.H. & Graves, B. (2001) Speaking Personalities in Primary SchoolChildrens Second Language Writing. TESOL Quarterly. Vol. 35, No.4, (pp561-593)

Maitrise de la Langue LEcole, Ministre de lducation nationale, 1992. Hachette

Maneva. B. (2004) Maman, Je Suis Polyglotte!: A Case Study of MultilingualLanguage Acquisition from 0-5 Years. International Journal of Multilingualism. Vol.1No.2, (pp109-122)

Mardle, G. & Walker, M (1980) Strategies and Structure: Some Critical Notes onTeacher Socialisation. In Woods, P. (ed.) Teacher Strategies. London: Crook Helm

Mercer, N. (1995) The Guided Construction of Knowledge. Avon: MultilingualMatters

Nutbrown, C. & Hannon, P. (2003) Childrens Perspectives on Family Literacy:Methodological Issues, Findings and Implications for Practice. Journal of EarlyChildhood Literacy. Vol. 3, no. 2. (pp115-45)

Observatoire Nationale de la Lecture (ONL) Apprendre lire: au cycle desapprentissages fondamentaux, Ministre de lducation nationale de la recherche etde la technologie

Otto, J. & Spiewak, M. (2004) Spielend ein Genie, Die Zeit, 25. nov, Nr.49


34/35

34

Pahl, K. (1999) Transformations. Meaning Making in Nursery Education. Stoke-on-Trent: Trentham

Pavlenko, A. & Blackledge, A. (eds.) (2003) Negotiation of Identities in MultilingualContexts. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters

Rayna, S. & Plaisance, E. (1998) Early Education Research in France. In David, T.(ed) Researching Early Childhood Education. European Perspectives. London: PaulChapman Publishing

Robinson, A., Crawford, L. & Hall, N. (eds.) (1990) Some Day You Will No All AboutMe; Young Childrens Explorations in the World of Letters. London: Mary GlasgowPublications

Rogoff, B., Mosier, C., Mistry, J. & Gnc, A. (1998) Toddlers guided participationwith their caregivers in cultural activity. In Woodhead, M., Faulkner, D. & Littleton, K.

(eds.) Cultural Worlds of Early Childhood. London: Routledge/Open University,(pp214-222)

Romaine, S. (1995) Bilingualism. Oxford: Blackwell, 2nd edition

Saunders, G. (1988) Bilingual Children from Birth to Teens. Clevedon: MultilingualMatters

Saunders, G. (1982) Bilingual Children: Guidance for the Family. Clevedon:Multilingual Matters

Street, B. (2000) Literacy Events and Literacy Practices; Theory and Practice in theNew Literacy Studies. In Martin-Jones, M. & Jones, K. (eds.) Multilingual Literacies.Amsterdam: John Benjamin Publishing, (pp17-29)

Street, B. (1994) Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Literacy. In Maybin, J. (ed)Language and Literacy in Social Practice. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd, (pp139-151).

Street, B. (2004) Futures of the Ethnography of Literacy. Language and Education.Vol. 18, No.4, (pp226-330)

Taylor, D. (1983) Family Literacy. Young Children Learning to Read and Write.London: Heinenmann Educational

Taylor, D. (1994) Family Literacy: Conservation and Change in the Transmission ofLiteracy Styles and Values. In Maybin, J. (ed) Language and Literacy in SocialPractice. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd, (pp58-72).

Valsiner, J. (1987) Culture and the Development of Childrens Actions; A Cultural-historical Theory of Developmental Psychology. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons

Valsiner, J. (1997) Culture and the Development of Childrens Actions; A Theory of

Human Development. New York:John Wiley & Sons, second edition


35/35

Van Der Veer, R. & Valsiner, J. (1991) Understanding Vygotsky: A Quest ForSynthesis. Oxford: Blackwell

Volk, D. & De Acosta, M. (2001) Many Different Ladders, Many Ways to Climb...Literacy Events in the Bilingual Classroom, Homes and Community of Three Puerto

Rican Kindergartners. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy. Vol.1, no.2. (pp193-224)

Vygotsky, L. (1978) Mind in Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press

Vygotsky, L.S. (1994) Extracts from Thought and Language and Mind in Society. InStierer, B. & Maybin, J. (eds.) Language, Literacy and Learning in EducationalPractice. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd, (pp45-58).

Weinberger, J. (1996) Literacy Goes to School; the Parents Role in Young ChildrensLiteracy Learning. London: Paul Chapman Publishing

Wells Rowe, D. (2003) The Nature of Young Childrens Authoring. In HallL, N.,Larson, J. & Marsh, J. (eds) Handbook of Early Childhood Literacy. London: Sage,Chapter 22

Wertsch, J. V. & Tulviste, P. (1998) L.S. Vygotsky and Contemporary DevelopmentalPsychology. In Faulkner, D., Littleton, K. & Woodhead, M. (eds) LearningRelationships in the Classroom. London: Routledge/Open University, (pp13-30)

Wertsch, J. V. (1985) Culture, Communication and Cognition: VygotskianPerspectives. Cambridge: CUP

Willinsky, J. (1994) Introducing the New Literacy. In Stierer, B. & Maybin, J. (eds)Language, Literacy and Learning in Educational Practice. Clevedon: MultilingualMatters Ltd, (pp1-14).

Wood, D. (1998) Aspects of Teaching and Learning. In Woodhead, M., Faulkner, D.& Littleton, K. (eds) Cultural Worlds of Early Childhood. London: Routledge/OpenUniversity, (pp157-177)

Wood, D. (1988) How Children Think and Learn., Oxford : Basil Blackwell

Woods, P. (ed.) (1980). Teacher Strategies. London:Crook Helm

www.oecd.org/document/3/0,2340,en_2649_34511_27000067_1_1_1_1,00.htmlaccessed 19.07.06

writing the self in a multi layered context joan travers

Documents