Second Grade is Important: Literacy Instruction and Learning of Young Children in a High-Poverty School

Journal of Literacy Research, Winter 2003/2004 by Barone, Diane

Artifacts. I collected work samples from the students throughout the school year. These most often included journal entries, worksheets, and writing samples. I also recorded samples of the text they read and the conversations they had with their teachers. I collected teachers' informal assessments as well. These varied as each teacher chose the literacy assessments for the students in his or her classroom. The only constant among literacy assessments was running records (Clay, 1993) done by the first and second grade teachers.

At the end of each year, I collected end of the year assessments from the teachers. Again, these varied by teacher with some conducting running records, spelling inventories, writing samples, and so on; other teachers chose not to engage in any final assessments. If teachers did not conduct an end of the year assessment, I then asked the focal students in the class to:

1. Draw a self-portrait (purpose was to relax the child).

2. Write about himself or herself (purpose was to get a sense of his or her ability to record thoughts, use of conventions, and to see word knowledge).

3. Complete a developmental spelling inventory (Bear & Barone, 1989) (purpose was to provide a window into children's understandings of words. This list has words that began with simple CVC words like bed to more difficult words like pleasure or preparing).

Data Analysis

The data were analyzed using an interpretive approach. I sought an understanding of the teaching and learning in these classrooms (Erickson, 1986). To accomplish this, I reviewed all data routinely and built individual profiles of each child's literacy learning. I also compiled descriptions of the typical teaching provided to students. I noted the practices, groupings, and expectations of the teachers for their students, how they varied, and the reasons for any changes.

More specifically, I reviewed all field notes to document student learning and instruction. Following several passes through field notes, I considered all of the student artifacts. I matched these to descriptions of the students' literacy benchmarks or the teacher's instruction. The artifacts collected over time provided a visual record of each child's literacy development that I reviewed and matched to teacher comments to note congruity. Following these analyses, I again considered the interviews so that explanations of instructional decisions and student learning could be further explored. I identified quotes that indicated when teachers made decisions about their literacy instruction, whether it was new for a teacher, and how they felt about its success. I also selected teacher quotes that indicated aspects of their year that were successful or resulted in frustration.

I also collected quotes from students that highlighted their beliefs about themselves as readers and writers. I recorded books or activities that they particularly liked or disliked to more fully understand their classroom experiences.

Throughout data analysis, I made cross-case comparisons between the children to note differences and similarities in development, particularly looking at grade level accomplishments. I used the descriptions of literacy instruction in each room as the backdrop for a better understanding of each child's literacy development.