socializing respect and knowledge in a racially integrated science classroom

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Linguistics and Education 20 (2009) 273–290

Socializing respect and knowledge in a raciallyintegrated science classroom

Jorge Solís a, Shlomy Kattan b, Patricia Baquedano-López b,∗a Department of Education, University of California, Santa Cruz, 217 Social Science 1, Santa Cruz, CA 95064, United States

b Graduate School of Education, University of California, Berkeley, 5625 Tolman Hall, Berkeley, CA 94720-1670, United States

Abstract

In this article we examine the socialization of respect in a racially integrated science classroom in Northern California thatemployed a character education program called Tribes. We focus on the ways scripts derived from this program are enacted duringCommunity Circle activities and how breaches to these scripts and the norms of respectful behavior they espouse create productiveopportunities for explicit socialization in the classroom. We find that respect in this classroom consisted predominantly of controllingboth bodily comportment and discursive production. Our analysis sheds light on the ways curricular initiatives, such as the oneutilized in the Tribes approach, while purporting to democratize classroom learning, may in fact function as vehicles for reproducinginstitutional hierarchies of power.© 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Respect; Footing; Breaches; Community Circle; Science education

1. Introduction

In this article we examine the socialization of respect in a racially integrated 3rd-grade science classroom at La PazElementary School in Bridgeport, California,1 that employed the principles espoused by a character education program2

called “Tribes” or Tribes Learning Communities (TLC®). The Tribes program, utilized widely in the Bridgeport SchoolDistrict, is designed to foster mutually respectful behavior, accountability, collaboration, and equal participation amongstudents and teachers. In so doing, it lays out explicit rules for what constitutes respectful behavior in the classroom.Drawing on videotaped data collected in this classroom over a three-year period, we offer an analysis that illustrates theways rules of respect dictated by the Tribes program are enacted by teacher and students during “Community Circle”activities that take place in daily science lessons.3 While purporting to create a more equitable learning environmentand to democratize classroom discourse by proposing “a new pattern of interaction” (Gibbs, 2001, p. 20), the Tribesapproach paradoxically requires the reproduction of institutional hierarchies and sanctions asymmetrical forms of

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 510 642 1704; fax: +1 510 642 4799.E-mail address: [email protected] (P. Baquedano-López).

1 We use pseudonyms for names of cities, individuals, schools, and non-registered trademark educational projects.2 The state of California mandates the implementation of character education programs in schools, as do several other states in the nation. See

California Education Code Section 233.5(a).3 Community Circle resembles other forms of interaction in classrooms such as “sharing time” (Cazden, 2001; Michaels, 1981) and “the daily

calendar” (Cole, 2009).

0898-5898/$ – see front matter © 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.linged.2009.07.003

mailto:[email protected]

dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2009.07.003

274 J. Solís et al. / Linguistics and Education 20 (2009) 273–290

surveillance and control. In this way, in Tribes classrooms the rules and norms of respectful behavior become both themeans and ends of the teaching process.

Like many other social institutions, schools are sites for the reproduction of cultural knowledge (Bourdieu &Passeron, 1977; Foucault, 1977; Ryan, 1991). The inculcation of rules of respectful behavior constitutes one of theprimary loci of this reproduction. By defining “respect” as displays of particular modes of corporeal comportmentand communicative practice, the scripts for classroom discourse and interaction offered by the Tribes program callfor attention to and control of students’ bodies and their talk. Inasmuch as these efforts are in large part designed tobridge cultural differences in multicultural classrooms, they function as reculturative processes through which students’habitus are explicitly made to align with social norms of the school (Bourdieu, 1991, p. 87).

To examine how rules of respect are inculcated in this classroom we first offer a critical analysis of the profferedscripts, recommended spatial arrangements, and proposed activities of the Tribes curriculum to examine how thesecall for control of students’ talk and bodies. We then analyze instances of classroom interaction in which studentsbreach these expected norms, examining the reactions these breaches provoke. Breaches bring to the foregroundthe norms of social behavior (Garfinkel, 1967) and thus constitute productive opportunities for explicit socialization(Baquedano-López, Solís, & Kattan, 2005; Kattan, 2008; Jacobs-Huey, 2007). Specifically, while compliant participantsare selected as exemplars of appropriate behavior, non-compliant participants are singled out for collective observationand sanctioning. We conclude by considering how the inculcation of rules of respect constitutes a reculturative processin racially mixed classrooms.

2. Socializing respect: scripting words and scripting the body

2.1. Scripts and breaches in the classroom

While attention has been paid to the effectiveness of scripted curricula in the transmission of knowledge and skillsin elementary school classrooms,4 there is still much to understand about the ways that scripts of classroom discourseand practice also socialize explicit rules of comportment and behavior (Gutiérrez, Baquedano-López, & Tejeda, 1999;Gutiérrez, Rymes, & Larson, 1995; Kantor, 1992). Scripts can be understood either as the implicit cultural rules knownand enforced by gatekeepers across social institutions, or as the non-spontaneous discourses that are used by socialactors to effect specific outcomes and fulfill particular social roles (what teachers say, what students say). It is the latterunderstanding that concerns us here.

The Tribes approach, as a character education program, provides scripted language and practices for teachers andstudents, which aim to foster particular ideals of communal interaction. These scripts are regularly entextualized(Silverstein & Urban, 1996) by teachers and followed by students. While most studies of classroom discourse lookat the unplanned and improvisational nature of classroom interaction (Baquedano-López et al., 2005; Cazden, 2001;Erickson, 1982; Mehan, 1979; Sawyer, 2002), attention to the use of curricular scripts also affords us a way to examinehow such scripts are locally enacted and supported in classrooms.

As with other social encounters, classroom participants orient to each other and to the goals of their commoninteraction in ways that are historically and socially conditioned. Elsewhere we have discussed our theory of adaptation(Baquedano-López et al., 2005; Solís, Kattan, & Baquedano-López, 2009), which illustrates how learning is in largepart driven by reactions to breakdowns in expected norms and participation frameworks (Goffman, 1981). In this sense,learning in classrooms is hardly a harmonious activity. Rather, it is characterized by conflict and tension as teachers andstudents negotiate roles and resist and/or acquire dispositions and knowledge that are both historically and locally valuedand promoted. We draw on Garfinkel’s (1967) notion of breaches as the disruptions or discontinuities in social exchangesthat reveal the largely tacit rules underlying everyday routines and social encounters. Breaches are also quotidianoccurrences in classroom interaction that, when they take place, reveal the orderliness of social interaction and theorganization of expected and valued forms of classroom participation. More importantly, breaches provide productiveopportunities for socializing novice participants into the rules and mores of the community (Baquedano-López et al.,2005; Kattan, 2008; Jacobs-Huey, 2007).

4 Two well-known examples of scripted curricula are Open Court and Success for All.

J. Solís et al. / Linguistics and Education 20 (2009) 273–290 275

We find that when a breach is identified during classroom interaction it typically leads to a change in footing(Goffman, 1981, p. 128) that brackets the ongoing activity (e.g. a teacher giving instructions) so that the breach (say,a student talking out of turn) may be addressed (the teacher tells the student to be quiet). This change in footing ismarked by linguistic and paralinguistic cues (changes in pitch, tone, and volume, word choice, syntax), gestural cues(changes in eye gaze, pointing), and interactional cues (changes in addressees). A significant feature of the changes infooting that occur as results of breaches is that they turn, at least momentarily, other participants to the conversation(i.e. the students who have not breached) into bystanders (Goffman, 1981, p. 134). In our studies of classroom talk andinteraction, we have observed that responses to breaches very often call upon these bystanders to serve as exemplarsof appropriate behavior. That is, teachers will often not only address students who have committed a breach, but willfollow this by referring to how other students have abided by the classroom’s rules of respectful behavior. Thesechanges in footing and the shifting of participants from the status of addressees to bystanders, and vice versa, marka shift in the participation status of the participants and thus a change to the participation framework of the ongoingconversation (Goffman, 1981, p. 137).

To understand how a scripted character development curriculum provides the code and language to enact expectednorms of respect in our focal classroom as well as socializes particular dispositions, we examine two sets of data.First we critically analyze the scripts of the Tribes program as presented in the Tribes teacher manual, Tribes: Anew way of learning and being together (Gibbs, 2001). Rather than enabling the purported democratic ideals of thecurriculum, these scripts provide rules for expected social interaction that reproduce traditional classroom inequalities.We then analyze transcripts of Community Circle activities in which these scripts are enacted and taught to students,considering in detail how these scripts prescribe speech forms and control students’ bodies. Students’ breaches to theseexpected forms of behavior motivate explicit articulation of these rules. We examine the changes in footing that occuras responses to breaches and how they in turn cause changes in participation frameworks that position some students asexemplars of respectful behavior. We conclude this paper by discussing how the teacher’s enactment of the curriculumemploys methods for controlling the body in her attempts to socialize respect. We argue that these methods functionto perpetuate a teacher-directed discursive space enabled by the curricular scripts and which serves to inculcate and,in fact, reculturate students to the norms of the schools.

3. Tribes and classroom discourse: Scripts of respectful behavior

Tribes is one of many character education programs commercially available in the United States and its pedagogicalbenefits have been promoted by its authors in a number of publications (cf. Gibbs, 2001 and sources therein). Tribesand similar programs have been adopted not just by individual schools, but, in some cases, by entire school districts. AtLa Paz Elementary School, Ms. Anna Torres, the teacher of the 3rd grade class we discuss here, consistently utilizedthe Tribes approach in her classroom.

Tribes was first developed as an outreach program in the late 1970s to deter substance abuse among youth. The“Tribes” concept, while not ostensibly emulating the cultural practices of a specific group, originated from what programdevelopers imagined the practices of past indigenous tribal communities to be.5 Based on principles of inclusion andcommunity building, the program evolved from its substance abuse focus to become a set of principles around whichteachers organize classroom interaction and learning. The Tribes program argues that through “cooperative learning”students take responsibility both for their behavior and for the content they encounter in class.

At the center of the Tribes approach is a direct call for mutually respectful behavior among all classroom participants.The rules of respectful behavior are explicitly articulated through “Four Agreements” (see Table 1), which are intendedaccording to the program’s authors, to promote inclusion and communal cohesiveness.

The agreements, which are to be taught to students during the first weeks of the school year in an activitycalled Community Circle (described below), serve both as a means for and as an end to inculcating students withrespectful comportment norms. The Tribes manual instructs teachers to demand and to display the type of behaviorwhich leads to and is itself considered respectful behavior. The four agreements achieve this through two pri-mary modalities: control of the body and control of discourse. That is, they dictate what classroom participants

5 The Tribes teacher manual (Gibbs, 2001) makes numerous references to stereotypical icons of Native American culture, such as feathers,basketry, and holistic relationships with the land in contrast to Western societal norms (Gibbs, 2001, pp. 72–73).


Table 1“Four agreements” in Tribes.

1 Attentive listening To pay close attention to one another’s expression of ideas, opinions and feeling; to check forunderstanding; and to let others know that they have been heard

2 Appreciation/no put-downs To treat others kindly; to state appreciation for unique qualities, gifts, skills and contributions; to avoidnegative remarks, name-calling, hurtful gestures and behaviors

3 Right to pass To have the right to choose when and to what extent one will participate in a group activity; to observequietly if not participating actively; and to choose whether to offer observations later to a group asked todo so

4 Mutual respect To affirm the value and uniqueness of each person; to recognize and appreciate individual and culturaldifferences; and offer feedback that entourage growth

can and cannot say, how they should formulate what they say, and how they are to physically act while others arespeaking.

To achieve these goals, Tribes calls for both spatial and discursive rearrangements of what its authors view as theteacher-centeredness of traditional classrooms. We therefore examine the scripts for classroom interaction offered inthe Tribes teacher manual and the spatial configuration of the classroom called for by the program. We note that wedo not merely present the features of the Tribes program, but rather offer a critical analysis of the curriculum in orderto interrogate how the changes it recommends paradoxically disable the outcomes its authors advocate.

In disclosing and appraising the reproductive aspects of equalizing pedagogies we do not suggest that “all pedagogicaction is condemned ineffective” or that teachers are “simply unquestioning dupes” of the system, as some criticaldiscourse scholars have implied (Hasan, 1998, p. 77). Rather, we aim to understand the main assumptions on which theTribes program rests: that through the teaching of explicit rules of respect equitable student participation is increased.We hope to illustrate the problems that arise when curricular interventions assume that power differentials can be foundin language itself—and thus the misleading assumption that its manipulation can lead to equalizing outcomes—andfail to recognize the institutional vesting of authority as responsible for separating teachers and students into positionsof relative power. While working towards equity is at the core of American ideals of a universal, common education(Coleman, 1966; Dewey, 1902), such ideals are not attainable simply by changing forms of communication.

3.1. Scripts and discursive strategies in Tribes

To encourage adherence to the four agreements, the Tribes teacher manual scripts language for teachers and students.For example, in its description of the first week of classes and the initial meetings of Community Circle, the manualdirectly addresses teachers and offers a script to use in the classroom: “Tell them, ‘This year our class will be workingtogether in some new ways—in small groups, so that people can help each other learn and learn from each other. Wewill meet often as a whole class, talking together in a Community Circle like this”’ (Gibbs, 2001, p. 89). As this scriptillustrates, teacher-talk in Tribes classrooms avoids use of the grammatical second person, preferring instead use ofthe collective first-person pronouns (“our,” “we”) and universal non-assertive pronouns such as “people.” This, alongwith the repetition of reciprocal pronouns such as “each other” and adverbs such as “together” is intended to promoteinclusiveness according to the Tribes manual. As we will see in the classroom discourse examples discussed in thesections that follow (especially Excerpt 4), teachers faithfully model these scripts for students. Yet, we argue that thechoice of pronominals in and of itself is not an effective equalizing strategy. In fact, the language of this script beliestwo persistent features of the distribution of power in classrooms. First, the teacher remains the controlling figure. Theteacher does not abdicate the exclusive right to initiate Community Circle interaction and continues to determine whatconstitutes legitimate and illegitimate behavior. Although presumably designed to include students in decision-makingprocesses in the classroom (“our class” as opposed to “my class” or “your class”), such scripts do not equalize butin fact increase the distance among classroom participants in different positions of relative power. Second, inasmuchas students are given increased responsibility, this responsibility is for monitoring other students’ behavior to ensureconformity to classroom rules. As students’ responsibilities for enforcing and upholding classroom rules increase, theiragency in affecting those rules diminishes.

The Tribes manual instructs teachers to encourage students to adhere to the four agreements by example, especiallyto speak and act in ways that “minimize put-downs” and “offer appreciations.” Again, teachers are given a script:


Statements of appreciation are invited after every strategy and are modeled by the teacher throughout the day.It is very important that you search for truths to say. Kids know when something doesn’t ring true—it is notsincere and honest. To help people begin making statements of appreciation, use such sentence structures asthese: ‘I liked it when. . .(describe the situation).’ ‘I felt good when you. . .’ ‘I admire you for. . .(describe thequality).’. . .It is important that you model being both a good giver and a good receiver. Examples ‘I appreciateyour kindness, Joel.’ ‘The ideas that you came up with, Sandy, made our project special.’ ‘I felt honored whenyou gave me a copy of your own poem”’ (Gibbs, 2001, p. 95).

As used in the Tribes curriculum, “appreciations” have a particular syntactic structure. They are given in the formof I-Messages, highlighting the speaker’s positive emotional state in response to someone else’s actions. As definedby Gibbs (2001, p. 120), “An I-Message is a statement of the speaker’s feelings in response to the behavior of others.Unlike a You-Message, an I-Message does not convey judgment, nor is it a put-down.” Gibbs provides an example ofeach: “You-Message: ‘Kim, you dummy, you ruined my chance to be the pitcher. You make me angry.’ I-Message:‘Kim, I feel angry whenever a catcher isn’t paying attention.’

Yet, these highly scripted formulas restrict the range of possibilities to interact with students, thus potentially servingas forms of controlling actions. Having these scripts made available to everyone in the classroom provides teachersand students the language with which to control each other. Thus, these formulas in effect fuse respect and control.We would like to suggest—and we will demonstrate this further in our analysis of recorded classroom activities—that“appreciations” serve the function of displaying to students the teacher’s capacity as panoptic overseer (Foucault,1977).6 “I appreciate” is thus “I see,” where the teacher regulates respectful behavior through positive assessment ofdesirable public action.

Note that an I-Message does not intend to change the illocutionary force of an utterance, only its locutionaryform and its perlocutionary effect (Austin, 1962). The speaker still conveys her anger (illocutionary force), but avoidsthe accusatory formulation of the You-Message, thereby not “putting down” (perlocutionary effect) the hearer. Suchdiscursive strategies address politeness rules only on the referential level. When employed during Community Circle,I-Messages function as an important tactic for conveying classroom norms of behavior while placing the responsibilityof compliance on students. In our discussion of classroom discourse examples below we will see how shifts betweenfirst, second, and third person during Community Circle conversations act as a means of not only conveying classroomrules of respectful comportment, nor merely as models of appropriate speech communication, but are themselves waysto control bodily movement.

3.2. Spatial reconfiguration

In addition to scripting teacher and student talk, Tribes calls for specific spatial reconfigurations of the classroom.As seen in Figs. 1 and 2, Tribes views the teacher-centeredness of classroom interaction as a result of how tables andseats are arranged. Both figures are reproduced from the Tribes teacher manual and represent what Tribes views as,respectively, the traditional and the ideal classroom configuration and resulting interactional patterns. In traditional,whole classroom instruction, the authors of Tribes argue, the teacher sits behind a desk at the front of the class. Talkin such a classroom is mainly initiated by the teacher, and nearly 80% of all talk (disciplining, giving instructions,questioning, and lecturing) is top-down. It should be noted, however, that these statistics are, as far as one can tell,hypothetical. They do not represent the results of empirical studies, and they seem to be based on the assumptions ofthe author.7

Fig. 2 represents the Tribes classroom, in which students sit in small groups with the teacher at the center of theclass, rather than at the front. We note that the authors of the Tribes manual assume that this reconfiguration leads toa complete restructuring of classroom interactional patterns. Nearly 75% of teacher communication is now used toencourage student talk.

The lines in both figures represent “lines of sight” from the teacher’s perspective. These representations capture theclaim that in traditional classroom configurations (e.g. “whole class instruction”) the teacher controls most communi-

6 The panopticon refers to the structural plan of a prison (or school or hospital for that matter) first conceptualized by Jeremy Bentham (1995) toallow for maximum observation of behavior through a central watchtower.

7 That is, there were no such citations in this edition.


Fig. 1. Communication in the teacher-centered classroom (Gibbs, 2001, p. 55).

cation during instruction whereas the Tribes classroom communication is distributed and interactive through teacher’sfacilitation of student talk. However, in both configurations the teacher has a privileged view of all students. In wholeclass instruction this view is pyramidal, meaning that the teacher has a better view of students in the front of theclassroom, while in the Tribes classroom configuration the teacher has an unobstructed perspective. This, in effect,functions as a more efficient model of teacher control of student behavior and communication. We feel it importantto note that, like the scripted language offered by the teacher manual, this spatial reconfiguration does not, in fact,change the position of the teacher as overseer of the classroom. In fact, the configuration called for by Tribes recallsBentham’s panopticon with its neat arrangement of rows around a watchtower.

3.3. Community Circle

The spatial and discursive reconfigurations of the classroom coalesce during Community Circle. According to theTribes training manual, the purpose of Community Circle is to foster the modes of behavior that will build a Tribescommunity. As the manual states, “The daily Community Circle is step one in implementing the essential protectivefactors that foster resiliency: caring and sharing, participation, and positive expectations” (Gibbs, 2001, p. 88). DuringCommunity Circle the teacher’s “primary responsibility is to make it safe for people to share and for [the teacher]to affirm how glad [s/he is] that they are part of the learning community” (Gibbs, 2001, p. 89). The Tribes manualexplicitly instructs teachers in the language they are to use with students during Community Circle.

In Community Circle students and teacher gather in a circle or any even-sided polygon on the floor of the classroomwith no objects placed in the circle or between students. The teacher initiates the meeting by making a statement thatmodels for students what they should speak about as well. The teacher then passes an object that gives the floor to onlyone speaker (which, in the classrooms we observed, was usually a stuffed toy). The students go around the circle taking

Fig. 2. The Tribes classroom and the teacher as facilitator (Gibbs, 2001, p. 57).


turns making statements about their emotional states that day or about their attitudes towards classroom activities.While one classroom participant speaks, the other members of the class are expected to display respect toward thespeaker by remaining quiet, looking at the speaker, and keeping still. During Community Circle, teachers and studentsreview the four Tribes agreements, offer appreciations, and discuss daily schedules.

4. Methods and data: 3rd grade classroom

In this article we draw on ethnographic data collected at La Paz School, which was one of six schools participating ina study of the learning processes and discourses in elementary science inquiry classrooms.8 Our data consist of compar-ative quantitative findings based on student test scores, weekly ethnographic field notes of classroom observations, pre-and post-interviews with teachers, and video and audio recordings of naturally occurring classroom interaction duringthe last two years of implementation of the project. Sixty lessons were video recorded, totaling over 60 h of classroomrecordings across 10 classrooms. It is important to note here that we carried out our observations during a class periodwhen two pedagogical and institutional interventions were implemented. The first was the science inquiry curriculumthat was at the core of our university-elementary school partnership project, the Science Instruction for Grade Schools(SIGS). The second was a district mandated racial integration time (“Mixing Time”) that brought together studentsfrom three different language support programs—Spanish, Cantonese, and English Development.9

In the analysis we present in this article we focus our observations on Ms. Anna’s classroom. Ms. Anna was awhite, 3rd grade Spanish-English bilingual teacher who normally taught all subject areas typical of elementary schoolteachers. However, during three or four 1-h periods of the week, which is when we observed her, Ms. Anna onlytaught science. During science time Ms. Anna and all other 3rd grade teachers worked with a linguistically and raciallymixed group of students that were not part of their everyday homeroom nor grouped by English-language proficiency.This period of science is also referred to in this school as “Mixing Time.” In an interview with Jorge Solís, Ms. Annaexplained the pedagogical goals of Circle Time activities during science teaching (or Mixing Time) as an explicit timeto teach her students specific rules and behaviors:

My students’ role in the classroom . . . is to give themselves and each other structure in terms of their behavior sothat they can facilitate their learning, so that they know where to be and when to be and how to be and that wayit makes it easier for them to relate to each other and for me to talk to them. So that’s their first responsibility isto take care of themselves and each other (J.S. Interview Transcript, 2001).

For Ms. Anna, students’ experiences included embodying the products of inculcations, knowing “where to be andwhen to be and how to be,” that were central to learning in her classroom. It is difficult not to read in this understandingof the goals of Mixing Time a potential sense of “false agency” accorded to students, either as being responsible fortheir own actions or the actions of others, when in fact the classroom and the entire school followed a strict Tribesapproach.10 That is, the norms of participation ascribed to students embody a form of distributed surveillance mediatedby an explicit, school-wide, behavioral curriculum.

We analyze transcribed data from Community Circle sessions on two different days of instruction in Ms. Anna’s 3rdGrade class during the second year of observation. These sessions were exemplary of Community Circle activities inall three years of observation and closely resembled Community Circle activities in other classrooms observed duringthe course of our study (Baquedano-López et al., 2005; Solís et al., 2009). On the two days discussed here, 17 studentswere present: 4 Asian, 4 African-American, and 9 Latino.11 Our transcripts highlight the ways gesture, prosody, talk,and use of space coalesce in these interactions. Stills from the video recordings are used to indicate the positions ofactors, their postures, movement, and eye gaze. In our analysis we focus on the enactment of scripts, the display ofbreaches and responses to them, the changes in footing that ensue, and the embodiment of respectful behavior. We lookat the use of pronouns, the syntactic structure of scripted language, gestures, eye gaze, and the way prosody functions

8 A total of 10 teachers and 248 students participated in the larger study.9 We note that language background here appears to stand for racial or ethnic group.

10 We distinguish this expectation from stock educational expectations that students need to internalize knowledge and become independent actorsin their own learning. This familiar educational expectation is different in this classroom since the focus is foremost on regulating or controllingbehavior, which is seen as a precondition to learning.11 Ethnicity descriptors were taken from teacher’s records.


Table 2Transcription conventions.

. Falling tone , Slight rising inflection? Rising intonation ! Animated tone: Sound elongations ↑↓ Rising or falling intonation[ Overlapped speech = Latched speechline Relative emphasis - A cut-off /sudden stop in flow of talk(( )) Non-verbal behavior ( ) Unintelligible speech or best guess(0.0) Length of pause in seconds and 10ths CAPS Relatively louder speech>talk< Relatively fast speech <talk> Relatively slow speech

in classroom discourse to consider how these features of communication work to inculcate students with the rulesof respectful behavior of this classroom. Transcription conventions used for analyzing classroom activity are adaptedfrom Jefferson (2002, pp. 1377–1383) with some modifications. Intonation and other paralinguistic features of speechare marked by the following symbols in Table 2.

5. Socializing respectful behavior during Community Circle

The Community Circle classroom routines analyzed in this paper were filmed during the 2002–2003 school year.During the Community Circle routine, we observed students sitting on a rectangular rug at the front of the classroomafter coming in or being directed to do so by the teacher. Ms. Anna commonly approached the rug area after most ofthe students had sat down on the rug and after instructing students how they should sit, where their eyes should gaze,and how they should behave with one another. In the first three excerpts we analyze, we discuss the variations of these“calls to order” which were filmed on different instructional days.

5.1. Calls to order: Setting expectations for bodily comportment

Excerpt 1, filmed during the second meeting of this group of students, is particularly telling of the first interactionsaround Community Circle. The rules of comportment and bodily control are made explicit and desired behavior isexpressed. The recurring intonation contours of Ms. Anna’s utterances not only draw attention to, but also indicate,a desired sequential order of actions. These features also draw on features of teacher-talk register, such as elongatedvowels, deliberate tempo, and phrase-final tonal rises (Cazden, 1979). These features reinforce “attentive listening,” afeature of the Tribes curriculum, for students in the class. Similarly, laudations and assessments (Goodwin & Goodwin,1992) are marked by further changes in intonation, as well as a lowering of sound volume, making them distinct fromthe talk about actions that are being carried out. We note that Ms. Anna changes her intonation contour when addressingparticular students in order to sanction their actions (lines 7–14). Such changes in intonation key shifts in participantstructure which bracket compliant students from non-compliant students. These changes in participation structure andbracketing of participants are furthered by deliberate shifts in pronoun usage. Characteristically, calls to order start byframing a generic rendering of actors (everybody, anyone) and future actions (sitting in particular ways at the rug) andmove to second person singular or plural referent, namely the students in the circle, and their observable actions.

The call to order began with an announcement of an impending countdown, which set a timeline and the tempofor the compliance with certain modes of comportment (line 1). On this particular occasion, the countdown did notoccur in the end because students promptly complied with Ms. Anna’s instructions. Throughout the call to order wenote that Ms. Anna instructed students where different parts of their bodies should be, delineating how to sit down,“on their bottoms” (line 2), “legs are folded” (lines 5 and 8); where to sit down, “we’re moving over” (line 7); what todo with other parts of the body, “hands on your lap” (line 9); and where to look, “eyes are on me” (line 12). Inasmuchas these bodily positions and dispositions are supposed to achieve the stated goal of attentive listening, they became aproxy for paying attention. By telling students how they are expected to sit when they display that they are listening toothers, Ms. Anna created the possibility for gauging whether students were paying attention. Additionally, because ingiving these instructions Ms. Anna could actually see whether they were being followed, the interaction itself becamean exercise in attentive listening. Attentive listening in Community Circle was therefore both the end and the means.


Excerpt 1. “I’m gonna count to two.”

Rather than using imperatives (e.g. “sit on your bottoms,” “cross your legs,” “put your hands in your laps,” or “lookat me”), the teacher used the present tense to express the positions the students were expected to be in a future event,as if the actions had already occurred. Such indirect speech acts presumably democratize the classroom (the teacher isnot commanding, she is narrating), but this presumption rests on the fallacy that syntax rather than semantics controlspeoples’ behavior.

We note that a breach to an unstated expectation (that every student sit within the circle) prompted an articulationof the rule toward an identified student (“Sergio you need to be in the circle”) in line 14. The shift from a possibly


Excerpt 2. “I expect your eyes to be on me.”

plural second person pronoun to a definitively singular addressee brought attention to this breach and also indicated anecessary change in the participation structure. The responsibility for being in the circle does not fall on Sergio alone,however. It is distributed among the rest of the students, especially between the two students seated next to him. Inlines 15–23, Ms. Anna asked two students to move and make space so that Sergio could sit in the circle. Appealing tothe students with the conditional clausal sentence “if you can move,” the teacher again avoided using imperatives yetdirected the students (both verbally and gesturally) to enact a particular spatial arrangement with the accompanyingdisposition.

We also note that the teacher repeatedly offered positive assessments of students’ compliance (“good job” and “thankyou”), which reinforced the desirability of the stated actions. This exchange ended with an “appreciation” profferedby Ms. Anna, consistent with the manner described in the Tribes manual. The teacher recognized those students whoavoided stepping on or kicking the cord of the researchers’ camera’s microphone, located in the middle of the rug, whenmoving to make room for Sergio. The teacher’s words “I appreciate how careful you’re being with the cord” (lines25–26) modeled a script for students while also enacting that script. The instructions given were therefore an explicitmeans of socializing both how students should physically behave and how they should speak during Community Circle.It aimed at creating the lasting dispositions, the habitus, with which the Tribes program, La Paz School, and Ms. Annadesire to inculcate students.

The teacher often used the Tribes’ scripted I-Messages to articulate classroom rules. These I-Messages involvingclassroom rules were stated both negatively and positively. That is, Ms. Anna explained what constituted appropriatebehavior through I-Messages, and sometimes explained what did not count as proper comportment. In addition,the teacher, rather than the students, consistently initiated such statements, indicating that she maintained the soleprerogative for identifying and holding students responsible for breaches to Tribes norms. Excerpt 2 depicts an exchangethat took place after another student in Ms. Anna’s classroom, Erica, had been asked to move to another spot in the circlebecause of her unauthorized interactions with another student. In accordance with Tribes politeness communicationrules, Ms. Anna thanked Erica for moving to a different spot on the rug. She then turned to look at her as she explainedto Erica why she had been asked to move. She then turned her gaze to the rest of the students in the circle and offereda negative statement of the same rule (“not on your neighbor”).


In this excerpt, Ms. Anna used the phrase “I expect” to convey classroom norms of respectful behaviour. Both thenorms being expressed and the I-Messages through which they were articulated echoed the rules and scripts offeredby the Tribes manual. Like the previous example, here respectful behavior necessarily entails the control of the body.Such control of the body is an important feature of all classrooms, but we find that it is especially striking in Tribesclassrooms. In accordance with Tribes principles, statements such as “I expect” (line 1) are generally used to mitigatedemands imposed on other participants. While Ms. Anna did not explicitly charge Erica with breaking a classroomrule, she singled her out by individually addressing her, “Erica, I expect your eyes to be on me” (line 1) and implicatedher whereabouts and behavior for collective inspection. The application of the rule to a specific event (Erica’s breach)and its expansion was accomplished through a change in footing that was marked by the teacher’s gaze shifts fromErica to the rest of the group.

The second part of Ms. Anna’s utterance, “not on your neighbor,” constituted another act of further sanctioningbodily comportment. Here, in addition to a positively stated norm (“I expect your eyes to be on me”), there is also anegatively stated one. This is a common feature of the socialization of respect in this classroom. Students were rarelytold simply how to behave, they were also told how not to behave, and had their non-compliant behavior sanctionedand corrected. It is the inclusion of this second part that often most explicitly delimits respectful behavior, for it alsosanctions disrespectful behavior.

It is significant to note, however, that the teacher was the one who generally employed, or directed others to employ,the Tribes script “I expect.” In this way, we can see how the asymmetrical forms of surveillance and control that areenabled by the prescribed seating arrangements, scripted forms of talk, and expected behaviors of Tribes belie thepurported diffusion of power in this classroom. Rather than being equally distributed among all participants, powerrested in the ability of the teacher to locally organize the contexts for learning and of suggesting courses of action forstudents to expect and impose norms of behavior on each other. This runs counter to the purported democratizing goalsof the Tribes curriculum, and yet it is wholly a product (and indeed we can argue, also a goal) of the Tribes approach.

In this class, the allocation of spots at the rug served as opportunities to regulate appropriate placement of the bodyand appropriate use of space. The visible nature of the formation of Community Circle also allowed everyone in thecircle to be a third party or witness to each others’ behavior and to rectify inappropriate behaviors and outcomes thatdid not meet the teacher’s expectations within a specific timeframe (i.e. before the teacher finishes counting to twoin Excerpt 1). This is further illustrated in Excerpt 3, a segment of video interaction recorded after students had beenassigned to and occupied regular spots on the rug. Recall that in Excerpt 1, at the request of the teacher, studentsrearranged themselves around the rug to allow Sergio to be in the circle. In Excerpt 3, which occurred a week later,Anita and Joe enacted the repair of another breach to circle formation while students were being given a script torequest rectification. Ms. Anna had asked students to move to the rug so that they could engage in a science activityinvolving measuring objects. Before she could proceed with the science lesson the teacher noticed that one student,Joe, was not sitting on the rug, and was in a chair outside of the circle while another student occupied his spot. In thiscall to order, the teacher again employed generic pronouns and referents to indicate the desirable and ideal conditionsfor participation in Community Circle activities. We note the teacher’s use of parallel constructions to indicate how atransgression to the rules of participation had taken place.

The exchange began with the teacher’s announcement of her intent to count to four as students were sittingdown in their spots at the circle. We note that the teacher announced her intent to count not just as a principleof calls to order, but also in response to a breach to the circle formation. The use of the universal non-assertivepronoun “everybody” in her description of desirable behavior to be observed served as an empty slot that con-structed potential and appropriate roles to be taken up by the students in her class: “everybody should be in theirspot” (line 3). The parallel statements “Because sitting in a chair is not acceptable” (line 4) and “and not being inyour spot is not acceptable” (line 5) did not directly assign blame to a particular student, but nonetheless high-lighted the breach and publicly identified a transgression—that a student was sitting on a chair and not in thecircle.

It is compelling to see that Anita (see top video still) reacted to the teacher’s statements by looking up at Joewho was sitting in a chair and who should have been sitting between her and Danny, another student. Anita quicklyassisted Joe (see video stills in line 9) as the teacher began to slowly and deliberately count to four. We argue thatthis public description of the breach indirectly enlisted students as bystanders (Goffman, 1981) in the assessment andrepair of inappropriate Community Circle behavior, as Anita’s actions demonstrate. This script is not drawn fromthe teacher’s manual, but is formulated by the teacher who instructs her students how to address each other: “If


Excerpt 3. “I’m actually gonna count to four.”

somebody’s IN your spot? Then you ask them to please move over” (line 8). In this case, both Anita and Joe performedthe script in the immediate repair of the violation of the seating arrangement rules and preconditions of CommunityCircle.

We have seen thus far that during Community Circle Ms. Anna utilized the scripts of the Tribes curriculum in teachingstudents to behave in particular ways in her classroom. These modes of behavior were predominantly modes of bodilycomportment, thus making non-compliance readily visible. When students breached these expected forms of behavior,for example, by not sitting on the rug or in the circle, Ms. Anna, in compliance with the Tribes curriculum, singledout those students for collective observation while modeling ways in which those breaches may have been rectified.The recognition of these breaches was invariably keyed with changes in pronominal usage and in intonation. Whenstudents’ breaches were pointed out, these were not simply temporary occurrences, but rather events that accordedstudents complier, transgressor, and rectifier roles. When students were interpellated into these roles (Althusser, 1971)they became responsible for ensuring that their peers also complied with the rules of behavior of the classroom.Inasmuch as the means of rectifying breaches drew on scripts that utilized traditional forms of linguistic politeness,


Excerpt 4. “Our first job we’re gonna have today.”

such as “please move over” as opposed to “move over” (Excerpt 3) (see Brown & Levinson, 1987), presumablymitigating power differentials in the classroom, they did so only on a formal and not on a substantive level. In fact, thepublic recognition of breaches was a way to demarcate appropriate and inappropriate behavior. If anything, the use ofpoliteness forms served to occlude the direction of power, not eliminate it.

5.2. Laying out rules for interaction

Socializing respect in Ms. Anna’s classroom, while largely focused on controlling the body, involved setting outrules for interaction among students as well. In Excerpt 4 (which took place on the same day as Excerpt 1), Ms. Annaexplained to her students that on that day they would be putting together a puzzle. She then referred to this activity as afuture model for the type of group work that the class would be doing during the course of the entire school year. She


then listed what such group work entailed, including taking turns and sharing, both distinctive features of the Tribescurriculum and the “Four Agreements.”

The rules of classroom interaction as described in this exchange (partner work, small groups, sharing, taking turns)were drawn from the Tribes approach, and were scripted forms of classroom talk (see our earlier discussion). Thatis not to say that the teacher repeated the Tribes script verbatim, but that significant portions of her talk—collectivepronouns, future tense, the type of reasoning given—were given to her by the Tribes manual. The turn-taking rule,given in line 16, is especially noteworthy to us, for it overtly controlled how and when students could speak. Turn-taking is fundamental to the “four agreements,” as it requires—and therefore enables—attentive listening while othersare speaking and speaking only when called upon. Yet, norms of respect were here displayed not only through alisting of expected behaviors, but also through Ms. Anna’s actual talk. Cazden (1979, pp. 149–151) has suggested thatthe use of plural first person pronouns “our” and “we” (in this segment lines 5, 10, 11, 12, 15), parallel repetitions“we are gonna need ” and “that/it means sharing” (in this excerpt lines 11, 12, 15, 16, 18), and explanations“The reason we’re doing this” (see lines 10–18) are features of teacher-talk that can be analyzed as methods toredress or minimize both positive and negative actions. These discursive features, which are not only exemplary ofteacher-talk but are also prescribed by the Tribes teacher manual, model the way students are supposed to speakto each other. While the avoidance of the use of the second person (e.g. “you are gonna need to work together alot”) may seem more “democratic,” students were not necessarily included in determining those regulations. Thusstudents were held responsible for adhering to rules formulated by the teacher, much as they would be in a “traditional”classroom.

Throughout Ms. Anna’s talk, students partook in byplay (Goffman, 1981, p. 134) by adding positive assessments(“Yay!”), projections of the difficulty of the tasks (“That’s hard” and a whistle), and even subdued voices of resis-tance (“no”). These evaluative comments were not simple reactions to the teacher’s words, but also functioned tocollaboratively construct the very rules of comportment being prescribed.

In the second video still in the transcript (linked to the teacher’s talk in line 13), a student, Mariana, leaned andturned toward Daniella, drawing the teacher’s gaze and attention. This gesture was identified as a breach in that theteacher called out the students’ names as she described the meaning of working together, which in this class also meantlistening to each other—what Mariana and Daniella did not appear to be doing as the teacher was talking to the entireclass in Excerpt 5.

Mariana and Daniela’s breach triggered a shift in footing that changed the participation structure of the ongoingdialogue. Ms. Anna turned her gaze towards the two girls and addressed them by name, thus designating them as theaddressees of her talk while momentarily forcing her to suspend her enumeration of the list of rules of the classroom.During this part of the exchange, the rest of the class became bystanders. In being called out by the teacher Marianaand Daniela were serving as negative exemplars for the rest of the class. Ms. Anna’s utterance directed at the two girls(line 22) had invoked one of the Tribes agreements, attentive listening. Student gaze upon the teacher was evaluatedas a form of attentive listening, and not looking at the teacher as lack of attention to the ongoing activity.

We also note a change in footing as Ms. Anna averted her gaze from the girls and turned to face the rest of the group.This shift in footing was marked by the rhetorical question “you know what else it means?” (line 23). The teacher thenoffered an explanation with a negatively stated rule for the class: “It means not always getting your way.” As rules thatare projected for future activities as well as the present one, these classroom expectations take on a timelessness thatspeaks to their general applicability.

We would like to suggest that breaches function as especially productive sites for explicit socialization because theyoffer an example of how not to behave on the one hand, and because they allow for the possible proper enactment ofthe rule on the other. In lines 28–30 the teacher voiced a student position through a hypothetical scenario of how onewould deal with the situation being discussed: “Well, this time I won’t get what I want, but another time I will.” We havedocumented elsewhere the use of this voicing strategy to project shared expectations upon the class (Baquedano-Lópezet al., 2005). This hypothetical quoted speech offered a script for students to use but also reminded them of the rulesof the classroom. It is notable that this voicing strategy was offered using the first person singular pronoun “I.” Asopposed to the universal rules of the classroom, which are articulated repeatedly as collective norms, the reasoning onemust do here to accept those rules is individual. Each student was made responsible for adhering to classroom rulesof respectful behavior. The excerpt also illustrates how an explicit moralizing message about group participation andgood citizenship inculcates the value of delayed gratification, that is, how one is rewarded in the end when allowingothers to “get their way” first.


Excerpt 5. “It means listening to each other?”

6. Respect in the classroom: Concluding thoughts

The uses of rules for promoting respectful behavior in schooling—and the socialization of classroom participantsto them—are common, everyday occurrences. They are located at the center of conventional, and often, reform-minded teaching and learning practices aimed at constructing democratic and inclusive interactional learning contexts.Moreover, these normative practices necessarily focus on the management and control of social interaction and theexecution of discursive and corporeal mechanisms that constitute a kind of pedagogy of control. Classrooms are fluidand tension-rich, and indeed are socio-cultural sites where students’ roles are negotiated, learned, and contested. Theyare also characterized by actions that assert teachers’ power in how they have learned how to execute their institutionalrole as principal knowledge-bearers and arbiters of social mores. We argue that these asymmetries in participation andpower can constitute productive opportunities for learning and development when properly identified and mediated(Baquedano-López et al., 2005; Matusov, 1996). A range of discursive mechanisms used for the redistribution ofknowledge and roles in the classroom (e.g. social mediation) are part of widely accepted sociocultural theories oflearning that include among others cognitive scaffolding, complex instruction, and joint productive activity (see alsoBruner, 1996; Cohen & Lotan, 1997; Tharp & Gallimore, 1988). Yet, as we have attempted to illustrate in this article,such attempts at the redistribution of power in the classroom, as in the Tribes curricular scripts, reproduce participantstructures that reinforce the teacher as the principal authority. In fact, attempts to upend the teacher-dominated natureof classroom discourse often result in the elision of power, not its abolition. Under these circumstances, classroomsremain venues for social reproduction, reculturation, and discipline.

Understanding schools as primordial social reproductive sites allows us to both discern existing hierarchies as wellas to see how people learn their place in those hierarchies through socialization processes and practices (Bernstein,1972; Bourdieu, 1977). In this article we have focused on how ideologies and norms of respect are manifested in theteaching and learning practices of a Tribes classroom. We did so through an analysis of the socialization of respect


during Community Circle activities in a 3rd-grade science classroom. Community Circle, a typical Tribes and a popularelementary school classroom activity, constructs spaces where public displays of shame, reprimands, regulation, andpraise take place (Cazden, 2001; Michaels, 1981; Poveda, 2001). We have argued that Community Circle is also animportant site for the socialization of rules of respect in the classroom. Inasmuch as it offers explicit rules for interactionand behavior, Community Circle is an activity in which breaches are laid bare and thus made noticeable, allowingopportunities for sanctioning, disciplining, and instructing students.

We routinely observed in Tribes classrooms that students were socialized to follow rules of respect through theteacher’s and their own panoptic monitoring and enforcement of Tribes norms. The structural comparison and surveil-lance properties of the organization of classrooms have previously been addressed in the study of schools and classroomlearning environments (Gutiérrez & Stone, 2002; Roth, 1992; Ryan, 1991; Warschauer & Lepeintre, 1997). Indeed, aswas shown in Figs. 1 and 2, the Tribes instructional approach offers its own critique of the panoptic, traditional natureof classroom organization and the central, institutional role of the teacher (Fig. 1). The alternative provided by Tribesis, however, a reorganization of where the students’ gaze can fall (on each other, in addition to the teacher), not theelimination of the teacher’s gaze as the Tribes approach would like to suggest (Fig. 2). This panoptic vision is clearlyavailable to the teacher during Community Circle and it is therefore not remarkable that she is able to identify so manybreaches during Community Circle activities.

Our point here is that these forms of control are deeply ingrained in classroom practices, even during activitiespurported to minimize this effect. Rather than diffusing the power to monitor and control student comportment amongthe students, the teacher’s actions instead maintain her own power and control. Furthermore, the fact that the circleformation makes all students’ behavior available to each other allows the teacher to call attention to fellow students’breaches as negative examples. Bodies, as gesturing, moving, posturing objects, become subjects to be controlled byclassroom participants, especially teachers (Foucault, 1977; Ryan, 1991). For example, the sitting arrangement usedduring Community Circle affords both the teacher and students a clear view of each other’s behavior, posture, eyegaze, and speech. This spatial arrangement affords monitoring and control of behavior by all members of the classroomincluding how to sit, when to talk, what to say, and where to look—in other words, to behave respectfully. That is,the norms of respectful participation ascribed to students embodied a form of distributed surveillance mediated by anexplicit, school-wide, behavioral curriculum.

The socialization and the display of respect, as described here through an analysis of scripted behavioral curriculaduring classroom routines, are part of broader processes of disciplining and de/reculturation in which particular regimesof power are enacted and inculcated. The inculcation of desired behaviors and the expected physical comportmentassociated with them requires a process of “deculturation and reculturation” (Bourdieu, 1991, p. 87). This echoesFoucault’s notion of “docile bodies,” made so through the structured mechanisms of disciplinary practice (Foucault,1977, p. 149). Such mechanisms of accountability, as Foucault argued, are by nature violent. The surveillance anddiscipline of the body, once institutionalized, are also legitimized. Yet, control of the body extends beyond physicalmanipulations and constraints. It has to do as well with the control that the institution imposes upon the subject throughmechanisms believed to be independent of the institution (i.e. ideologies of proper behavior or scaffolding studentparticipation) but which actually reside in the norms of the institution—that is, they are its “natural” knowledge. Thewords and actions socialize the body to not just be the repository of culture but to remember “version of culture” andto forget that which is undesirable.

To speak of the multicultural classroom, like the one in this study, as a site of socialization and de/reculturation, sup-ports scholarly discussions on the uneven distributions of power in racialized America and schools (Ladson-Billings& Tate, 1995; Leonardo, 2004). Schools become sites of a process of reproduction that re-culturates marginalizedsubjects, in this case students as minors who may belong to non-mainstream groups, who must learn norms of partici-pation as historically defined by those in power. The socialization of norms of respect in classrooms reproduces socialstructures where adults who represent mainstream cultural ideals are endowed with authority while also holding upthose very cultural ideals as authoritative. Students are not merely expected to recognize the rules of the classroom;they are expected to abide by them through strict control of their own and their classmates’ behavior. We offer theanalysis in this article to show the limitations and consequences of curricular scripts and discursive strategies, like theones promoted in Tribes, that advance and obscure the restrictive, reproductive aspects of schooling and the role ofcultural norms of respect. Moreover, reform measures like these that focus on the socialization of children to a schoolcommunity and culture redirect explanations of school failure and success onto individual traits and choices. Studentsare offered “new qualities of persons as explanations for their fates” (Varenne & McDermott, 1998, p. 213) that are in


fact part of a longer cultural-historical trajectory, and one where classrooms are defined by the inequalities they canreproduce.

Acknowledgements

The data analyzed here are part of a corpus of classroom interactions collected for a larger project on the developmentof science inquiry and which was funded by a grant from the National Science Foundation and National Institute ofHealth (Grant No. REC-0089231). We are grateful to the students, teachers, and researchers who participated in theScience Instruction in Grade Schools (SIGS) project. We thank Kathy Howard and Adrienne Lo, the editors of this issueof Linguistics and Education, for their vision and leadership. We have benefitted tremendously from the suggestionsof Alexandra Jaffe and the journal’s anonymous reviewers. We also thank Laura Sterponi for helpful comments onearlier drafts. Any errors or omissions remaining are, of course, our own.

References

Althusser, L. (1971). Lenin and philosophy, and other essays. London: New Left Books.Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Baquedano-López, P., Solís, J., & Kattan, S. (2005). Adaptation: The language of classroom learning. Linguistics and Education, 6, 1–26.Bentham, J. (1995). Panopticon. In M. Bozovic (Ed.), The panopticon writings (pp. 29–95). London: Verso.Bernstein, B. (1972). Social class, language and socialization. In P. P. Giglioli (Ed.), Language and social context: Selected readings (pp. 157–178).

Harmondsworth: Penguin.Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. New York: Cambridge University Press.Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J. C. (1977/1999). Reproduction in education, society, and culture. London: Sage & Teesside Polytechnic.Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness. New York: Cambridge University Press.Bruner, J. S. (1996). The culture of education. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.Cazden, C. B. (1979). Language in education: Variation in the teacher-talk register. In G. R. Tucker, & J. E. Alatis (Eds.), Georgetown University

round table on languages and linguistics (pp. 144–162). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Cazden, C. B. (2001). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann Publishers.Cohen, E. G., & Lotan, R. A. (1997). Working for equity in heterogeneous classrooms: Sociological theory in practice. New York: Teachers College

Press.Cole, K. (2009). The writing on the wall: The daily calendar as science practice. In K. Richardson Bruna, & K. Gomez (Eds.), The work of language

in multicultural classrooms: Talking science, writing science (pp. 69–92). New York: Routledge.Coleman, J. S. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education.Dewey, J. (1902). The child and the curriculum. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Erickson, F. (1982). Classroom discourse as improvisation: Relationships between academic task structure and social participation structure in

lessons. In L. C. Wilkinson (Ed.), Communicating in the classroom (pp. 153–181). NY: Academic Press.Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison (A. Sheridan, Trans.). New York: Vintage.Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Gibbs, J. (2001). Tribes: A new way of learning and being together. Windsor, CA: CenterSource Systems LLC.Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Goodwin, C., & Goodwin, M. (1992). Assessments and the construction of context. In A. Duranti, & C. Goodwin (Eds.), Rethinking context:

Language as an interactive phenomenon (pp. 147–190). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Gutiérrez, K., Baquedano-López, P., & Tejeda, C. (1999). Rethinking diversity: Hybridity and hybrid language practices in the third space. Mind,

Culture & Activity, 6(4), 286–303.Gutiérrez, K., Rymes, B., & Larson, J. (1995). Script, counterscript, and underlife in the classroom: James Brown versus Brown v. Board of

Education. Harvard Educational Review, 65(3), 445–471.Gutiérrez, K. D., & Stone, L. (2002). Hypermediating literacy activity: How learning contexts get recognized. In O. N. Saracho, & B. Spodek (Eds.),

Contemporary perspectives in literacy in early childhood education (pp. 25–51). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishers.Hasan, R. (1998). The disempowerment game: Bourdieu and language in literacy. Linguistics and education, 10(1), 25–87.Jacobs-Huey, L. (2007). Learning through the breach: Language socialization among African American cosmetologists. Ethnography, 8(2), 171–203.Jefferson, G. (2002). Is “no” an acknowledgment token? Comparing American and British uses of (+)/(−) tokens. Journal of Pragmatics, 34,

1345–1383.Kantor, R. (1992). The construction of schooled discourse repertoires: An interactional sociolinguistic perspective on learning to talk in preschool.

Linguistics and Education, 4, 131–172.Kattan, S. (2008). Time and identity: Socializing schedules and the implications for community. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 16(1), 3–30.Ladson-Billings, G., & Tate, W. (1995). Toward a critical race theory of education. Teachers College Record, 97(1), 47–68.Leonardo, Z. (2004). The color of supremacy: Beyond the discourse of “white privilege”. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 36(2), 137–152.Matusov, E. (1996). Intersubjectivity without agreement. Mind, Culture & Activity, 3(1), 25–45.


Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Michaels, S. (1981). Sharing time: Children’s narrative style and differential access to literacy. Language in Society, 10, 423–442.Poveda, D. (2001). La ronda in a Spanish kindergarten classroom with a cross-cultural comparison to sharing time in the USA. Anthropology &

Education Quarterly, 32(3), 301–325.Roth, J. (1992). Of what help is he? A review of Foucault and education. American Educational Research Journal, 29(4), 683–694.Ryan, J. (1991). Observing and normalizing: Foucault, discipline, and inequality in schooling. The Journal of Educational Thought, 25(2), 104–119.Sawyer, R. K. (2002). Improvisation and narrative. Narrative Inquiry, 12(2), 319–349.Silverstein, M., & Urban, G. (1996). Natural histories of discourse. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Solís, J., Kattan, S., & Baquedano-López, P. (2009). Locating time in science classroom activity: Adaptation as a theory of learning and change. In

K. Richardson Bruna, & K. Gomez (Eds.), The work of language in multicultural classrooms: Talking science, writing science (pp. 139–166).New York & London: Routledge.

Tharp, R. G., & Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing minds to life: Teaching, learning & schooling in social context. NY: Cambridge University Press.Varenne, H., & McDermott, R. (1998). Successful failure: The school America builds. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Warschauer, M., & Lepeintre, S. (1997). Freire’s dream or Foucault’s nightmare? Teacher-student relations on an international computer network.

In R. Debski, J. Gassin, & M. Smith (Eds.), Language learning through social computing (pp. 67–89). Canberra, Australia: Applied LinguisticsAssociation of Australia.

socializing respect and knowledge in a racially integrated science classroom

Documents