Teachers' Perceptions of Advocacy and Voice in

188 Pages·2017·1.56 MB·English

UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff AArrkkaannssaass,, FFaayyeetttteevviillllee
SScchhoollaarrWWoorrkkss@@UUAARRKK
Graduate Theses and Dissertations
12-2014
""WWee ccaann''tt rreeccllaaiimm wwhhaatt wwee ddoonn''tt uunnddeerrssttaanndd"":: TTeeaacchheerrss''
PPeerrcceeppttiioonnss ooff AAddvvooccaaccyy aanndd VVooiiccee iinn aa RRuurraall IInnssttiittuuttee ooff tthhee
NNaattiioonnaall WWrriittiinngg PPrroojjeecctt
James Anthony Anderson
University of Arkansas, Fayetteville
Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.uark.edu/etd
Part of the Literature in English, North America Commons, Rhetoric Commons, and the Teacher
Education and Professional Development Commons
CCiittaattiioonn
Anderson, J. A. (2014). "We can't reclaim what we don't understand": Teachers' Perceptions of Advocacy
and Voice in a Rural Institute of the National Writing Project. Graduate Theses and Dissertations Retrieved
from https://scholarworks.uark.edu/etd/2080
This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UARK. It has been accepted for
inclusion in Graduate Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UARK. For more
information, please contact [email protected].
“We can’t reclaim what we don’t understand”:
Teachers’ Perceptions of Advocacy and Voice in a Rural Institute of the
National Writing Project
“We can’t reclaim what we don’t understand”:
Teachers’ Perceptions of Advocacy and Voice in a Rural Institute of the
National Writing Project

A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy in English

by

James A. Anderson, Jr.
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Bachelor of Arts in English, 1997
East Carolina University
Master of Arts in English, 2002

December 2014
University of Arkansas

This dissertation is approved for recommendation to the Graduate Council.

__________________________________ _________________________________
Dr. David A. Jolliffe Dr. Christian Z. Goering
Co-Dissertation Director Co-Dissertation Director

__________________________________
Dr. Patrick J. Slattery
Dissertation Committee Member
Abstract

This study examines teachers’ perceptions of advocacy and voice in a summer institute of
the National Writing Project. The Rural Advocacy Institute, a first-time initiative through the
Northwest Arkansas Writing Project, offered three weeks of professional development centered
on rural education and teaching English language arts in rural public schools. The study is a
grounded theory study; grounded theory forces the researcher to stay “close to the data,”
compare data sets, and use reflective writing to identify conceptual categories in the data. Data
collection in the study included semi-structured interviews with six K-12 teachers participating
in the Institute and twenty-seven hours of video-recordings of all whole-group discussions and
writing activities. The grounded theory generated in this study incorporates Robert Brooke’s
work with “underlife” and Homi Bhaba’s concept of “third space” in maintaining that
researchers, teacher educators, and professional development coordinators must consider the
ways teachers negotiate the “hybrid” discourses created in professional development
opportunities. For example, participant-teachers in this study demonstrate an affinity for
discourses of advocacy for rural schools, while demonstrating an “underlife” discourse that often
resists the role of advocate. Through Peter Elbow’s concept of “resonant voice” and Bakhtin’s
concept of “answerability,” the grounded theory also explains the role of voice in the teachers’
discourses on writing and how teachers perceive advocacy. The study argues that analyzing how
teachers discuss and view voice, and its relationship to writing and professional agency, is a
means of better understanding how and if teachers are able to perceive themselves as advocates.
Acknowledgements
Each member of my dissertation committee has been a mentor and friend in my journey
to research literacy and language arts. David Jolliffe has worn many hats as a scholar and teacher
over the years. I am fortunate to have caught the “literacy bug” from him. Through David, I met
Chris Goering, who has offered me many chances to work alongside future and current teachers
of English. Pat Slattery has been a major supporter since I arrived in Fayetteville and has been
integral in advising me on how to finish this process. I cannot thank all them enough.
Many other colleagues at the University of Arkansas have been there to offer their time
and advice. Jenn Mallette has been a great friend to read so much of my work. Our informal
meetings were vital to a series of drafts. Leigh Pryor helped me stay calm and on track.
My family offered their patience and love throughout. Dusty, my wife, and Mirabelle, my
daughter, kept the home fires burning while I was often away. They always help me place all
other things in perspective.
Lastly, my mother, Joan Smith Anderson, has been my greatest role model. As a mother
and teacher, she has taught me about hard work and how to help others.
I thank my mother and all of my teachers throughout the years.
Table of Contents

Chapter One. Exigence, Situating the Study and Rural Public Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Situating My Own Experiences with Rurality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Problematic and Productive: Further Revealing Exigence for Rural Places . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Defining Key Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Research Questions and the Dissertation Chapters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Chapter Two. Review of Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

The Conceptual Argument as Framework for the Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

What Do We Mean when We Talk about “Rural” Education? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
“anything but stimulating”: National School Reform and Rural Deficit Models . . . . . 16
Developed and Developing Rural Identities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Standards in “Place”: Approaches to Rural Literacy Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Place-Conscious Pedagogies and Writing the Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Advocacy in Education and Teachers as Advocates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Teachers at the Center: The NWP Approach to Professional Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Social Contexts for Learning in NWP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Authorization: Bringing Out Teachers’ Voices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Social-Epistemic and Expressivist Rhetorics: Looking at NWP
with Additional Lenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Teacher Transformation and Teachers’ Writing in NWP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
The Power of Personal and Professional Exigencies in NWP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Making a Place for the Current Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Chapter Three. Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Table of Contents (continued)
What is Grounded Theory? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Adapted Case Study Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Research Site and Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Barbara . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Clara . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Karen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Linda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Martha . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Valerie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Donna . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Tim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
My Role as Participant-Observer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Data Collection and Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Gathering Rich Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
The Interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
The Audio-Video Recordings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Participant-Teacher Writing and Sharing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Data Analysis in Grounded Theory. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Coding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Memo-Writing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Saturation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Table of Contents (continued)
Data Storage and Sorting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Writing the Grounded Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Chapter Four. “You end up having to go it alone”: Tensions in Teacher Advocacy in
Rural Schools” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Theoretical Frameworks: “Underlife” and “Third Space” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
“We can’t reclaim what we don’t understand”: Cultivating Perceptions of Rurality and
Rural Schooling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
“The further you get from the kid, the harder it is to advocate”: Defining and Coming to
Terms with Advocacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
Moving the Piano Slowly: Tensions between Advocacy and Community Norms . . . . . . . . . . . 80
Going It Alone: Tensions in Teacher Autonomy and Isolation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
Implications of Third Space and Hybrid Discourses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
Chapter Five. “The spark that kindles the spark in someone else”: Taking Up Voice,
Writing Self and the Collective in the Rural Institute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
Voice(s) at the Center: The “Demo” as Catalyst . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
Developing Voice in the National Writing Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
Expressivist Pedagogy and Rhetoric, Peter Elbow, and Resonant Voices in Writing . . . . . . . . 108
Hello, Is There Anybody in There? Bakhtin, Answerability, and Voice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
Teachers’ Perceptions of Themselves as Writers and Voice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
Voice as a “Way of Connecting” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
“It’s like swearing at God”: Cathartic Writing and Voice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
“Telling a story is telling a life”: Sharing, Listening, and Resonant Voice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
Table of Contents (continued)
Chapter Six. In the Highways, In the Hedges: From Grounded Theory to Practice . . . . 129
Works Cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133

Figures
Figure 1. Front of church . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Figure 2. Boulders, “benches” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Figure 3. Back deck of church . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Figure 4. View of woods from deck . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Figure 5. The Third Space of the Rural Advocacy Institute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
1

Chapter One.
Exigence, Situating the Study and Rural Public Schools

“A greater interest in the best things pertaining to country life needs to be awakened, and to this
end rural communities should be better organized, socially, economically, and educationally.”
–Joseph Kennedy, Rural Life and the Rural School (originally published in 1915)

We presume to know the rural. By “we” here, I refer to most Americans, those of us who
do not currently or have never lived for extended periods in rural areas. We presume to know the
isolated, vast stretches of plains or mountains or swamps or hills where rural people live. We
sometimes drive through these rural areas on our way to anyplace else. This is “flyover” and
“drive over” country. We have seen rural areas and rural residents portrayed on our televisions or
in various news media. Too often, it seems, we see rural areas on the news after catastrophic
environmental tragedies, such as tornadoes or floods. Most recently in Arkansas, the world saw
the effects of an EF4 tornado (a 4 out of 5 on the Enhanced Fujita Scale that rates a tornado’s
devastation) ravage the communities of Mayflower and Vilonia in the central part of the state.
President Obama visited the storm-devastated areas and offered these comments to residents of
Vilonia: “I’m here to make sure that they [the media/the world] know, and that everybody who’s
been affected knows, that the federal government is going to be right here until we get these
communities rebuilt. Because when something like this happens to a wonderful community like
this one, it happens to all of us, and we’ve got to be there for them” (Goldfarb). Often, what is
created by these images, and our collective imagination, is a mix of rustic simplicity, isolation,
unfortunate despair, and otherness. As this study will attempt to show, these perceptions are
more than simple stereotypes and are not limited to those who live outside of rural areas.
Arkansas is a state that is defined as much by its rurality as anything else. Apart from
Little Rock’s role in the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s or the University of Arkansas