See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/284853547

Reading as a social process

Article · January 1991

CITATIONS READS

22 1,696

2 authors:

Judith Lee Green Ginger Weade

University of California, Santa Barbara Ohio University
195 PUBLICATIONS 5,852 CITATIONS 9 PUBLICATIONS 74 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Higher education-- challenges of researching innovative inter/transdisciplinary initiatives View project

Technology-enabled PBL and clinical reasoning: An Interactional Ethnography View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Judith Lee Green on 30 January 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The social construction of classroom
reading: Beyond method
Judith Green and Ginger Weade

The authors question the focus on 'reading method'

which has dominated the literture on reading, and
influenced actual classroom practices. They believe
reading is a social process and that this view of
reading has important implications for how children
learn.

In 1883 in the introduction to Swinton's Primer and First Reade

author states:
The more successful you are in teaching primary reading, the les
you be disposed to make a fetich of any so-called 'method'. Chi
have been taught to read by every method and by no method, — and
it would puzzle the wisest to tell exactly how a child does learn
our anamolous mother tongue.(pA)
The author of the Swinton Reader argued against getting into a
'fetich' and for informed knowledge about reading by teachers who can
then use a variety of 'methods' in 'sound' ways (p.5). Yet the century
following that publication might be characterised by just such a process.
Even today, arguments abound about method (i.e. see Anderston et. al.
1985; Chall 1989). Teachers are constantly bombarded with claims
about the single-best w a y to teach reading.
Recently, however, systematic explorations of reading instruction in
classroom settings have raised questions about 'method'. These studies
have explored:
1. what students experience as reading (writing and literacy) within or
across approaches;
2. what students have an opportunity to 'learn' about reading within
and across classroom events;
3. what 'counts' as reading method in the everyday instructional
contexts of classroom life.
In addition, recent comparative studies have been completed which
explored the similarities and differences in teaching across teachers and
groups, and the consequences for student learning about participating
in classroom settings. These studies show that even when teachers
have long term training in 'method' (such as of using language basis
for reading comprehension; or Reading Recovery), there is variability
in the ways in which they engage students in reading (Chandler, 1990;

326 Vol. 13, No. 4, November 1990

Golden, 1988; Green, W e a d e & Graham, 1988; Handerhan, 1990;
Harker, 1988). This variability influences the opportunities students have
to experience reading, what 'counts' as reading, and the models of
reading students can and do develop (see for example Cochran-Smith,
1984; Green, Kantor, & Roger, in press). From this perspective, method
is not s o m e idealised phenomenon; rather, method is what students
actually experience as 'Reading' in instructional contexts of classroom
life. In addition, what is negotiated and constructed in the face-to-face
interactions of teacher, students, and texts is more than mere method.
It is the social construction of reading.
In this article, we present an overview of an approach to the study
of reading that seeks to define reading not in s o m e abstract form but
as it is accomplished within and across the everyday events of
classroom life. From this perspective, reading is a social process (see
also Baker & Luke, in press; Bloome, 1984; Green, 1990). A s part of
this discussion, w e will describe the theoretical premises underlying
this perspective; present examples to illustrate h o w this approach can
inform the study of reading in classroom settings; and suggest h o w this
approach can be used by classroom teachers, researchers,
administrators, and policy makers to shape research and practice in the
1990s.
Beyond method: Reading is socially accomplished: The view that
reading is a social process accomplished in the face-to-face interactions
of teacher and students with and about texts is grounded in work on
the social construction of knowledge. The particular view that grounds
our perspective draws from work in cognitive anthropology, ethno-
methodology, enthnography of communication, sociolinguistics, and
classroom processes a m o n g others (i.e. see Baker & Luke in press;
Bloome 1987, 1989). From these bodies of work, w e draw a series of
theoretical orientations and premises that frame the w a y in which w e
view life in classrooms and explore learning in classroom settings.
Classrooms as cultures: Contributions from cognitive anthropology:
Central to our approach to the study of reading and learning in class-
room settings is a view of classrooms as cultures (Collins & Green,
1990; Cochrane-Smith, 1984; Green, Kantor & Rogers, in press; W e a d e
& Green, 1989). In classrooms, a group of people c o m e together and
affiliate for a particular period in time for particular purposes. These
people assume a set of institutional roles (teacher and student) and
establish a series of relationships that entail particular rights and
obligations as they construct life together over time. The ways in which
members of the group interact in social situations (the events of
classroom life — whole class; small group; teacher-individual student;
student-student; student group; formal and informal) establishes
patterned ways of acting and interacting together, of a cultural behaviour

Australian Journal of Reading 32 7

(Collins, 1990; Spradley, 1980). That is, over time, a group develops
patterned w a y s of communicating about objects (cultural artifacts); and
so constructs cultural knowledge about what to do (say), to (with) w h o m ,
w h e n , where, under what conditions, and for what purpose. Through
participating in and across social situations, the group also develops
c o m m o n beliefs about what is possible; w a y s of interpreting and
evaluating what is occurring; and h o w actions, interactions, and
artifacts that comprise life in this social group will be perceived (Collins
& Green, 1990;Goodenough, 1981; Spradley, 1980; Zaharlick& Green,
in press).
From this perspective, culture refers to the 'patterns of behavior
artifacts, and knowledge that people have learned or created' (Spradley,
1980, p.86). A classroom, therefore, is a bounded place where a group
of people (a 'mini' society — a class) constructs, for as Spradley (1980)
states, 'every h u m a n society is culturally constituted' (p.86). By defining
culture in this way, classes can be viewed as cultures and the process
of creating culture as dynamic.
Finally, culture is a group level phenomenon and not held by
individuals. Access to cultural knowledge, therefore, depends on the
opportunities m e m b e r s have for participating in particular types of social
situations (such as high or low reading groups, science club). In addition,
each subgroup within the classroom develops a subculture that reflects
the patterned w a y s of engaging in life within thatgroup (see for example
Collins, 1986).
Reading (writing and literacy), therefore, is defined as a cultura
patterned process with particular norms and expectations for 'looking
and talking like a reader' (Cochran-Smith, 1985). Thus, the activity of
reading in classroom contexts consists of socially negotiated
performances that m a y or m a y not reflect competence and/or ability
of individuals (i.e. see H y m e s 1974). That is, students in a group
'perform' reading in w a y s appropriate to group membership. These
performances m a y or m a y not reflect what they can and will do under
different conditions (Bloome, Puro, & Theodorou, in press; Green,
Kantor, & Rogers, in press; Grumperz 1986).

Classroom communication and classroom processes: Contributions

from sociolinguistics, ethnomethodology, and ethnography of
communication: A s indicated above, classrooms are communicative
environments. Through spoken and written discourse, teachers and
students interact to construct meaning and to accomplish everyday life
in classrooms. To help understand h o w reading is socially accomplished
in and through classroom communication, w e draw on work in socio-
linguistics, ethnomethodology, ethnography of communication and
classroom processes. From this work, w e derive an understanding of
the nature of discourse so that w e m a y better understand the nature

328 Vol. 13, No. 4, November 1990

of classroom communication and classroom processes. The purpose
of exploring classroom communication is not to understand language
per se. Rather, w e explore classroom discourse and communication
to understand the communicative requirements of participating in
instructional and social events of classrooms, such as reading
instruction, and to locate factors that support and/or constrain meaning
construction, interpretation of spoken and written text, and access to
learning (i.e. see G u m p e r z 1984, 1986; Van Dijk 1985).
Five premises selected from a broader set will be used to construct
a general framework for understanding classroom discourse:
1. Face-to-face interaction is culturally patterned
2. Meaning is situation specific
3. Frames of reference help to guide individual and group members'
interpretation and construction of meaning
4. Complex communicative d e m a n d s are placed on teacher and
students
5. Communicative performance can lead to positive and negative
assessment of ability.
(Cazden, 1986; Erickson, 1986; Green, 1983).
To 'contextualise' the premises and to show their interrelatedness, two
examples from reading instruction in classrooms will be used. The first
is drawn from the work on second grade by Heap (1980) and the second
from work on secondary school reading by Rogers (1988; Green, Kantor
& Rogers, in press).

A primary example: Heap 1980: The first example involves a brief

excerpt from a second grade reading lesson. This example illustrates
the ways in which an understanding of the five premises can help us
'make sense' of reading as it occurs in classroom settings. Heap (1980)
begins the example by giving its context:
The reading group consisted of six second-graders. The following
interaction, excerpted from the transcript of that lesson, occurs afte
part of the story has been read aloud. Comprehension is being
assessed.
Without this contextual information, we cannot understand when and
where the talk occurred, w h o w a s involved, what the conditions were,
or what the purpose of the talk was. The example will be presented
turn by turn (teacher, student, teacher) in order to m a k e visible what
is occurring and what information is available in the discourse.
The teacher begins the excerpt:
Teacher: No. Who helped her Mineen?
Without the contextual information, it impossible for those of us who
are observers (outsiders) to determine w h o the speaker is, w h o is

Australian Journal of Reading 329

involved, and to what the message refers. For example, to what does
the 'no' refer? Even with the information presented by Heap, w e cannot
determine what this 'free morpheme' means. M e m b e r s of the group,
as indicated by their actions and reactions, do have this information
(insider knowledge). W h a t becomes evident in the remaining turns,
however, is that having insider information does not provide insurance
that students will contribute the 'expected' information in the local
situation.
Before leaving this 'bit of discourse' w e need to consider what other
information is visible in this example from the perspective of social
construction. First, a question w a s posed placing an obligation on the
listeners for a response. Second, a responder w a s designated (Mineen).
The designation of the responder by the questioner (teacher) signals
a style of discourse that is governed by a controlled exchange of turns
rather than a style that permits multiple or open responses (Green,
Weade, & Graham, 1988).
With this information as background, w e will n o w explore the next
turn:
Student: Rumpelstiltskin.
Wth this reponse, we have further information. First, the conversat
is about a written text and not social actions of members of the group.
Second, the response indicates that the text is 'potentially' a classic fairy
tale, Rumpelstiltskin. Whether this is the expected, correct, and/or
appropriate answer could not be determined without considering the
teacher's (the initiator's) final turn (response) in this chain of action:
Teacher: Yeah, the little man. We don't know his name is Rumplestilts
yet, do we? The little man. OK, what was the first thing the Prince
— sorry, that the little girl gave to Rumpelstiltskin, to the lit
We better call him the little man because we don't know really h
Rumpelstiltskin yet(p.279).
The teacher's response indicates to the students and to us, as obse
that the student did not give the 'expected or preferred' response.
Without further contextual information about what preceded this bit of
discourse, h o w this event related to prior events, or insights into
students' background knowledge, w e are limited to what more w e can
say about this exchange. Heap, however, provides further information
gleaned from the ethnographic phase of his research:
From one perspective, the teacher's assertion that "we don't know his
name is Rumpelstiltskin yet" is wrong, if not absurd. The word
Rumpelstiltskin was introduced and discussed during the first part of
the lesson, along with other "new words". As well, we later learned
that five of the six children in the group last year were in the teacher'
first-grade class where two different movies ofthe Rumpelstiltskin stor
were shown (p.269).

330 Vol. 13, No. 4, November 1990

Heap argues that from a lesson organisation level, the teacher's
response is correct, but from the notion of prior knowledge it is not.
Nothing in the talk itself provided information to the participants about
what w a s desired; yet, the teacher's response sent signals to students
about what w a s preferred as a response and what w a s appropriate
knowledge to display as a response to the question.
This example has illustrated the five premises put up as a framework
in the discussion above. First, it s h o w s the situated and constructed
nature of meaning in the face-to-face interactions of teacher and
students. Second, it illustrates that students and teachers bring with
them 'frames of reference' composed of perceptions, expectations,
beliefs, intentions, values, abilities (social, cognitive, linguistic,
psychomotor), as well as prior knowledge and background experiences.
Third, it illustrates the problematic nature of communication that often
leads to 'frame clashes' a m o n g participants.
These misunderstandings or clashes often form the basis of negative
assessment of student ability (Cook-Gumperz, 1986). Fourth, it
illustrates the relationships of parts of lessons to larger entities (such
as, prior events, earlier parts of the lesson). Fifth, it illustrates the
complexity of communicative d e m n a d s facing both teacher and
students. Finally, in s u m m a r y it suggests that to look and sound like
a reader in this classroom and to be asessed as comprehending, the
students must not only have the correct information bt must present
it in a correct form at the right point in the story.

A secondary example: Rogers 1988: The next examples make visible

the consequences for students of participating in the patterns of reading
in classroom settings. The examples from Rogers' study of teaching
literature illustrate that students learn a model of reading not the model,
and that the school model m a y not support their personal
understandings of text.
Rogers (1988) interviewed secondary level students (junior high) after
working with them in a study of literary response. In their voices, the
need to m o v e beyond method to consider what is actually constructed
in the face-to-face activity within and across events, teachers, and time
becomes evident. Examples 1 and 2 are excerpts from extensive
interviews with the students:
Example 1: Whose voice counts?
Susan: Basically, everyone's theme gets changed a littlebitso weall hav
one idea of what the theme is, and that's a lot easier for the teacher
also. So when she grades something, she can just say she has
established the main theme.
Gary: Usually, there is a class theme. Everyone gets the same idea.

Australian Journal of Reading 331

Bob: Usually, you find out what the themes are from the teacher. They hav
to tell you before a test. In class discussions, we sort of have our
opinions, but they sort of get pushed aside. When the teacher focuse
on something, we usually pay attention to her. (p.356)
Example 2: Long term learning
Karl: In the first grade, they teach you. they ask you, "How did you like
this story?"and then you tell them you don't have to give them evidence
so from the second grade on they say, "I want you to give hard evidence
and support your ideas," and before you know it you're writing fiv
paragraph essays and they say, "well, don't use your opinions in your
thesis, now". And gradually they allow you to use less and less of you
emotions until it's not allowed. That's where we are now. I don't g
any emotional reaction out of my reading anymore. All teachers want
you to do is tell them how this relates to the theme they've given y
What the tests essentially say is, "This is the theme, give me evidenc
It's like, okay, that was fun. Instead of saying, "How did you feel
the story? Give examples in your answers." (p.358)
The voices of these secondary students support the arguments
presented in the earlier sections. These students capture the patterns
of life and suggest that these patterns, rather than method, become
'currency' in the classroom for those w h o perceive them. These
students w e r e gifted secondary students. They were able to identify the
patterns, to understand the requirements for group participation (the
teacher's voice counts), and thus, to succeed. W h a t Rogers (1986) found
w a s that even though the students felt that the n e w approach she used
w a s better and more interesting, it w a s not h o w you 'do' school, and
therefore, rejected this approach as not 'counting'.

Beyond discussion and description: Implications for the future: In

this article, w e argued that the focus on method that has dominated
education for more than a century has masked issues that influence
w h a t students actually have an opportunity to learn and to develop as
models of reading in the face-to-face activity of classroom life. The
examples illustrated h o w the face-to-face interactions of teachers and
students influence both the short term involvement and participation
of students, and long term learning. Further, this article raises questions:
about whether w e see 'learning' or socially appropriate participation in
the actions of students in classroom contexts; about what counts as
'learning' within and across classroom events, teachers, and levels of
schooling; and about w a y s in which classroom communication can
support and/or constrain access to learning.
In addition, we suggested that students in different classrooms and
in different groups within a classroom do not have equal access to the
s a m e model of reading. Rather, participation in these different groups
leads to the construction of particular or situated models and ways of
engaging in 'reading' in classrooms that m a y or m a y not support the

332 Vol. 13, No. 4, November 1990

display of reading competence under other conditions. These
suggestions were supported by the voices of the students from the
Rogers study.
This article supports the need for research by teachers,
administrators, and policy makers that is sensitive to the ordinary
practices of classroom life and to the perceptions of these practices by
members of the different groups most directly concerned with them
(students, teachers). Further, it suggests the need to expand our concern
beyond method to an understanding of the opportunities w e provide
for students, the w a y s in which the opportunities support the types of
student knowledge or models of reading/literacy w e desire, and the
ways in which the opportunities are perceived and interpreted. The
arguments presented in this article also suggest the need to examine
the relationship between stated method/curriculum and what becomes
the curriculum (Chandler, 1990; Weade, 1987).
Finally, the article provides a general framework that can be used
to help teachers, administrators, researchers, parents and students
explore the requirements of schooling and located factors that support
and/or constrain not only what and h o w students learn to read but
what and h o w learning occurs across all events of classroom life. This
approach, grounded in cultural theory and theories of communication,
makes visible elements of group life that influence what individuals
display as knowledge as well as what is "possible" to be known from
living in classrooms.

References

Anderson, R., Hiebert, E., Scott, J, & Wilkinson, l„ Becoming a nation of

The report ofthe commission on reading. Washington, D C : NIE, 1985.
Baker, C. & Luke, A. (in press) Towards a critical sociology of reading pedagogy.
The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Barr, R., 'Classroom interaction and curricular content' in D. Bloome (Ed),
Literacy and Schooling. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 150-168, 1987.
Bloome, D. 'Reading as a social process' in B.A. Hutson (Ed), Advances in
reading/language research. Greenwich, Conn.: JAI, 1984.
Bloome, D., (Ed), Literacy and schooling. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1987.
Bloome, D, (Ed), Classrooms and literacy. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Carbo, M., 1988,
'Debunking the great phonics myth." Phi Delta Kappan. 70, 3, 1989,
226-240.
Bloome, D. & Green, J.L, 'Directions in sociolinguistics." in D. Pearson, R. Barr,
M. Kamil, & P. Mosenthal (Eds), Handbook for Research in Reading. N e w
York: Macmillan, 1984.
Bloome, D., Puro, P. & Theodorou, E. (in press) 'Procedural display' Curriculum
Inquiry.

Australian Journal of Reading 333

Cazden, C, 'Classroom discourse', in M. Wittrock (Ed), Handbook of Research
on Teaching. N e w York: Macmillan, 432-463, 1986.
Chall, J., 'Learning to read: The great debate twenty years later — a response
to "debunking the great phonics myth" Phi Delta Kappan. 70, 7. 1989, 521-
536.
Chandler, S., Curriculum as socially constructed: A study of classroo
curriculum in three seventh grade reading classes. Dissertation, The Ohio
State University, Columbus, Ohio, 1990.
Cochran-Smith, M. The making of a reader. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1984
Cochran-Smith, M. 'Looking like readers, talking like readers' Theory Into
Practice. 24, 1, 1985,22-31.
Collins, E., Content as constructed: Two contrasting units of instruction
fourth-fifth grade classroom. Dissertation. The Ohio State University,
Columbus, Ohio, 1990.
Collins, E. & Green, J. 'Constructing a metaphor'. Theory Into Practice 29 2
1990,71-77.
Collins, J., 'Differential instruction in reading groups." in J. Cook-Gumperz(Ed),
1986, The social construction of literacy. London: Cambridge Universi
Press, 117-138, 1986.
Cook-Gumperz, J., (Ed.) The social construction of literacy. Cambridge
Cambridge University Press, 1986.
Davidson, J.L. (Ed), Counterpoint and Beyond: A response to becoming a nation
of readers. Urbana, III. NCTE, 1988.
Emihovich, C, (Ed.) Locating learning: Ethnographic perspectives on classro
research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1989
Erickson, F„ 'Qualitative methods in research on teaching' in M. Wittrock (Ed),
Handbook of Research on Teaching. N e w York: Macmillan, 119-161, 1986.
Gilmore, P. & Glatthorn, A. Children in and out of school. Norwood, NJ: Ablex
1982.
Golden, J.M., (Guest Ed.) 'Learning through text." Theory Into Practice, 1989.
Golden, J.M., T h e construction of a literary text in a story-reading lesson." in
J.L. Green & J.D. Harker (Eds), Multiple perspective analyses of classroo
discourse. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 71-106, 1988.
Goodenough, W , Culture language and society. Menlo Park, CA: Cummings,
1981
Green, J.L. Teaching as a linguistic process: A state of the art' in E. Gordon,
(Ed.) Review of research in education. 10, Washington, D C : American
Educational Research Association, 151-254, 1983.
Green, J.L. 'Reading is a social process." in the Proceedings of the Australian
Reading Association Annual Conference. Canberra: Australian Reading
Association, 1990.
Green, J.L. & Harker, J.O. (Eds), Multiple perspective analyses of classroom
discourse. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

334 Vol. 13, No. 4, November 1990

Green, J.L., Kantor, R., & Rogers, T (in press) 'Exploring the complexity of
language and learning in classroom contexts.' in L. Idol and B.F. Jones (Eds.),
Educational Values and Cognitive Instruction: Implications for Reform, Vol. 11.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Green, J.L. & Merger, LA. (in press) T h e embeddedness of reading in classroom
life', in C. Baker & A. Luke (Eds), Toward a critical sociology of reading
pedagogy. The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Green, J.L, Weade, R., & Graham, K, 'Lesson construction and student
participation: A sociolinguistic analysis.' In J.L Green & J.O. Harker (Eds),
Multiple perspective analyses of classroom discourse. Norwood, NJ: Ablex,
11-48,1988.
Gumperz, J„ 'Interactional sociolinguistics in the study of school.' in J. Cook-
Gumperz, 'Ed.) 77ie social construction of literacy. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 45-68, 1986.
Gumperz, J., Discourse strategies. London: Cambridge University Press, 1984
Handerhan, E C , 'Reading instruction as defined by "successful" teachers and
their first grade student within an early intervention program." Dissertation,
The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, 1990.
Harker, JO., 'Contrasting the content of two story-reading lessons: A
propositional analysis.' in J.L. Green & J.O. Harker (Eds), Multiple
perspective analyses of classroom discourse. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 49-78,
1988.
Heap, J., "What counts as reading: Limits to certainty in assessment."
Curriculum Inquiry. 10, 3, 1980, 265-292.
Heap, J., (in press) 'A situated perspective on what counts as reading." in C.
Baker & A. Luke (Eds), Toward a critical sociology of reading pedagogy. The
Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Mehan, H., T h e structure of classroom discourse." in T Van Dijk, (Ed), Handbook
of discourse analysis. Volume 3: Discourse and dialogue. London: Academic
Press, 120-132, 1985.
Mehan, H„ Learning lessons. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1979.
Rogers, T, 'Students as literary critics: The interpretive theories, processes and
experiences of ninth grade students.' Dissertation, University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign, 1987.
Rogers, T, 'Exploring a socio-cognitive perspective on the interpretive processes
of junior high school students.' English Quarterly 20, 3, 1988, 218-230.
Shannon, P. & Goodman, K. (Guest Eds.) 'Perspectives on basal readers." Theory
Into Practice. 28, 4, 1989.
Spradley, J. Participant observation. N e w York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, 1980.
Stubbs, M., Discourse analysis: The sociolinguistic analysis of natural language.
Chicago, III: University of Chicago Press, 1983.
Swinton, W , Swinton's Primer and First Reader. N e w York: Ivison, Blakeman
and Company, 1983.
Taylor, D., Toward a unified theory of literacy learning and instructional
practices." Phi Delta Kappan. 71 3, 1989, 184-193.

Australian Journal of Reading 335

Van Dijk, T, (Ed), Handbook of discourse analysis.. Volumes 1-4. London
Academic Press, 120-132, 1985.
Weade, R., 'Curriculum 'n' instruction: The construction of meaning." Theory
Into Practice. 26, 1, 1987, 15-25.
Weade, R. and Green, J., 'Reading in the instructional context: A n interactional
sociolinguistic/ethnographic perspective,' in C. Emihovich (Ed.) Locating
learning: Ethnographic perspectives on classroom research. Norwood, NJ
Ablex, 17-56, 1989.
Weade, R. and Green, J., Talking to learn: Social and academic requirements for
classroom participation.' Peabody Journal of Education. 62, 3, 1985, 6-19.
Zaharlick, A. & Green, J. (in press) 'Ethnography and Education.' in J. Squire,
J. Flood, J. Jensen (Eds), Handbook for Research in the Teaching of the
English Language Arts. N e w York: Macmillan.

336 Vol. 13, No. 4, November 1990

View publication stats