1
Immigrant pupils’ literacy practices
and construction of identity
Research Plan
Sari Pöyhönen, Ph.D.
University of Jyväskylä
Centre for Applied Language Studies
1Background and aims
Immigrant pupils are an everyday phenomenon in Finnish elementary schools. According to the National Board of Education (2004) the number of immigrant pupils in comprehensive schools hastripled during the last decade.In 1992 there were 4945 immigrant pupils is comprehensive schools, but in 2002 there were already 15105 of them.There has been some research on learning Finnish as a second language and bilingualism (see e.g. Lehtinen 2002), as well as on immigrants pupils’ integration into Finnish school community (see e.g. Talib 1999; 2002; Matinheikki-Kokko 1999; Mikkola 2001; Laihiala-Kankainen 1999; 2001). However, learning of mother tongue and foreign languageshas not been studied. In addition, we do not have any research information on to what kind of literacy practices or literacy skills Finnish education system socializes immigrant pupils (see also Luukka & Leiwo 2004). Does it offer them the information and skills with the help of which they can operate in new, multimodal environments? What kinds of media and textsschoolsoffer in teaching languages to pupils with immigrant backgrounds?Moreover, no research has been done on schools’literacy practices from the point of view of bilingualism and multilingualism. Are schools’ literacy practices multilingual? Do they, perhaps, prefer the mainstream institutional practices at the expense of minority groups? How the power relations between home and school can be accommodated in language teaching? Do the literacy practices of home and school meet?
In order to function in a knowledgesociety, one has to understand what kind of literacy practices society values (e.g. critical literacy) and how to show competencies in order to gain affirmation and recognition (Hall 2002, 178). If school is not able to offer immigrant pupils enough knowledge and skills to function in a society, learning of those skills is left to the responsibility of the pupils and their communities. In order to become members of Finnish society immigrant pupils usually have to change literacy practices that they have learned at home (Blackledge 2000), which can lead to assimilation of the mainstream culture. There is also a risk of displacement and inequality (Warschauer 2003).
However, the migration processes and increasing mobility of labour in the past decades have fundamentally changed Finnish schools into becoming plurilingual and multicultural. This holds challenges to schools and especially teachers in understanding different values, interests and literacy practices of pupils who do not only represent diverse national, ethnic and linguistic groups but also heterogeneous subcultures and communities of practice (Wenger 1998; Barton & Hamilton 2000). Schools as institutions have the power to categorise social identities. These categories are inscribed in cultural models of schooling and transmitted through teachers’ interactions with pupils, but also through, e.g., curriculum and materials design (Hawkins 2005, 79). It will be even more crucial for teachers to be able to acknowledge and support pupils’ identity work and negotiate the boundaries between school and out-of-school literacies in offering access to varieties of languages, speech genres and literacy practices (Hull & Schultz 2002, 3). In this study, instead of seeing school and out-of-school literacies as opposite competitors, I am looking for overlaps and complementary functions in the two domains.
This study is a part of a larger project Towards Future Literacy Pedagogies, which is launched at the University of Jyväskylä. The purpose of the study is to describe and interpret mother tongue and foreign language literacy practices in school and out-of-school contexts from the viewpoint of pupils and language teachers in Finland. The study aims are also to evaluate, to what extent the practices in schools and communities intertwine and whether school is able to meet the challenges of the knowledgesociety. Questions and issues about media choices, ways of using and producing texts, assessment practices, curriculum planning, and teacher education are also discussed in order to shape theories and pedagogies of literacy that dynamically respond to social, cultural and technological change.
Studying literacy practices and their meanings inconstructing identities of immigrant pupils is quite challenging. Pupils differ from each other in language and culture, reasons for immigrating (for example, refugees, returnees) and the time of staying in the country. Every pupil has its own language background as well as ethnical and cultural backgrounds. All of that needs to be taken into consideration not only in planning the curriculum but also in planning the study. In addition, for example, teachers of mother tongue (e.g. Russian, Dari, Kurdish) for immigrant pupils are often immigrants themselves.
Curriculum, textbooks, tests and classroom practices have a position in specifying what will count as literacy and what kind of literacy practices are valued in society and what are marginalized (Luke 1996). Therefore, literacy can never be understood as objective and ideologically neutral. Every use of text is shaped in and by its social context, which means that even the most established and institutionalized conceptions of literacy can be traced back to social and cultural conventions, needs and values (Gee 2000).
Literacy practices are not observable units of behaviour since they also involve values, attitudes, feelings and social relationships (Barton & Hamilton 1998). Reading, writing and talking about texts are all social practices (Barton & Hamilton 1998: Street 2000; Pitkänen-Huhta 2003) that define individual’s identity. In other words, language and literacy practices work as symbolic resources in negotiating the identity (Martin-Jones 2000, 153).Throughparticipation in different literacy practices individuals define their identities, manifest their membership to groups, and ownership and authorship to texts (Gee 1990; Cope & Kalantzis 2000; MacCleod 2004; Bartlett 2005). Thus, literacy practices are situated intosocial and cultural acts of identity (Ivanič 1998; Lankshear 1997). Consequently, identities can be seen as dynamic – multiple, changeable, interactive and contextual. Identities are not, however, constructed or changing in a random or arbitrary manner but include a socio-cultural dimension that provides them with constancy and continuity (Holland et al. 1998; Pöyhönen 2004).
2Research questions
I will study literacy practices and their meanings in constructing identitiesof immigrant pupils with the help of the following research questions:
1.What are the literacy practices of an immigrant pupil in and out-of-school?
2.To what kind of literacy practices an immigrant pupil is socialized in language (mother tongue, Finnish and foreign languages) learning?
3.To what kind of literacy practices an immigrant pupil is socialized at home?
4.How an immigrant pupil produces his/her identity in literacy practices?
5.How does an immigrant pupil construct and manifest his/her authorship, ownership and expertise in different domains?
6.What is the meaning of literacy practices in constructing a multicultural identity of an immigrant pupil?
7.What kind of support an immigrant pupil needs for fulfilling his/her multicultural identity?
3Data and methods
The focus group of the study consists of 7th-9th grade pupils with refugee backgrounds, who participate in HELMI project in Jyväskylä. HELMI project is sponsored by the European refugee fund, the City of Jyväskylä, the city church of Jyväskylä and theUniversity of Jyväskylä and aimsat comprehensive integration of the refugee children and adolescents and their families. The main support that HELMI offers, consists of homework clubs for children and adolescents, groups for parents and mentoring.
Homework clubsare meant for pupils from elementary and secondary schools as well as from vocational schools andpupilsattaining special programmes for immigrant students. Homework clubs meet two times a week for each school level in three different parts of the town. HELMI project is a very interesting learning environment, because it takes place during adolescents’ free time but involves instructed preparation of school homework. Homework clubs are organised on the neutral territory, outside of school buildings. The instructors of the homework study groups are not school teachers butuniversity and polytechnic students, who work in these groups as part of their studies.Therefore, the power relations between pupils and teachers are not as definite as in schools.
Parent groups meet in conjunction with the homework clubs. In the parent groups immigrant parents are given information, guidance and support in questions related to parenthood, education and integration. The aim of these groups is not only to instruct parents but also to help them find their own strengths and give them the possibility to meet other people in the same situation and assist each other. Receiving information about the school system helps parents monitor their children’s schooling and maintain school motivation.
The mentoring programme links more experienced immigrant adolescents with newcomers in order to aid the integration of these newcomers. This is an opportunity for those who have settled down to share their experiences and support those who have newly arrived and may thus be having difficulties.
I will study pupils’ literacy practices and their constructing of identities also from the point of view of school teachers (of mother tongue, Finnish and foreign languages) and parents. My research data will consist of the following:
HELMI-project: homework clubs, parent groups, mentoring programme:
observations of instruction periods
interviews with pupils, instructors and parents
homework and other texts
project’s written documents
In School:
observations of lessons (mother tongue, Finnish and foreign languages)
interviews with pupils and teachers
texts produced at school
text books and other teaching material
curricula, policies and other strategic texts
At home:
observations of home literacy practices
home texts
interviews with pupils and parents
homework and its management at home.
I will apply ethnographic approach to data collection and its analysis. Even though it is not possible to define one single ontological, epistemological or methodological presumption in ethnography, it is usually connected to interpretative approach in which the goal of a study is to add to understanding the phenomenon under the study (Guba & Lincoln 1998; Atkinson & Hammersley 1998).Ethnography holds social, cultural and contextual viewpoint to the researched community and its actions central (Piirainen-Marsh & Huhta 2000). The aim of ethnographic research is to not only to increase understanding of a phenomenon but also to make it possible that all the participants of the study have an active, research-moulding role (Pöyhönen 2004). Therefore, the views of the subjects of the study, their experiences and contexts are significant to this study.
To support the ethnographic research, I will use the shared data of the survey that aims to collect information on current literacy practices, prevailing attitudes, and existing materials that will allow generalising the findings to all 9th grade students and language teachers in Finland. The survey will function as an explanatory overview and provide the basis for micro level analyses in the next stages of the projectTowardsFuture Literacy Pedagogies. The survey will be carried out in ca 40 Finnish-speaking lower secondary schools in Finland. The numbers of respondents will be 1200 students and 500 teachers. The survey consists of three parts: background of respondents; literacy practices, materials and media choices in out-of-school contexts; literacy practices, materials and media choices at school. The survey will be piloted and carried out in 2006.In addition to the survey, other type of macro level data is to be gathered in the Towards Future Literacy Pedagogiesand will consist of various documents and teachingmaterials, such as national and school specific curricula, text books, and national tests and examinations. I will also use these data in the study of immigrant pupils.
Analysis framework of the present study consists of five contexts (see figure 1). By culturally political context I mean the factors that are related to the status of language and ethnic minorities and factors that relate to language and teaching policies.Institutionally pedagogical context consists of schools for immigrant pupils and learning environments as well as of pedagogical cultures. Language-ethnical context consists of home communities of immigrant pupils and factors that are related to language identity and ethnicity. Individually biographical context is formed from immigrant pupils’ personal biographical factors. Those contexts are partly overlapping and they all are connected by time-and-place context. That is where literacy practices occur and identities are produced.
Figure 1 Literacy practices and identities of an immigrant pupil: contexts of the analysis
The analysis of data is based on dialogical content analysis, which was developed in my doctoral thesis (Pöyhönen 2004). Dialogism does not aim at coherency or cohesion of interpretation. Instead, the basis of studying the meaning of language expression is the diversity of the meaning, i.e. there is no one ultimate meaning but only approximations of meaning, several points of view and contradictory interpretations. Dialogical point of view recognises the ideology and value-boundness of different discourses as well as social context, where the meanings are generated. In the analysis of the dataI will also apply methods of analysis developed in narrative research.
5Timetable
The research is a three-year-project (2005-2007). In table 1 there is a short description of the stages of the present study.
Table 1: The timetable of the study
STAGES OF THE RESEARCH / dataLaunching of the study
Research plan, contacts with HELMI project
9/2005
1st fieldwork stage
Homework clubs, parent groups and mentoring programmesof HELMI project
11/2005-5/2006
Processing and analysis of the data,
specifying of the study
Survey (Towards Future Literacy Pedagogies)
Pupils’ and teachers’ literacy practices in school and out-of-school
10/2005-12/2006
Processing and analysis of the data,
reporting
2ndfieldwork stage
school and homework clubs in HELMI
8/2006-12/2006
Processing and analysis of the data,
reporting
3rd fieldwork stage
home, homework clubs, parent groups in HELMI
1/2007-6/2007
Processing and analysis of the data,
final reporting and evaluation
6/2007-12/2007 / Field notes, observations of instruction periods, interviews with pupils, instructors and parents, homework and other texts, written documents of HELMI project
Planning, conducting, analysis and reporting of the survey
Field notes, classroom observations, interviews with pupils and teachers, texts produced at school, text books and other teaching material, curricula, study plans, strategies and other texts, HELMI: see above
Observations of home literacy practices, tests, interviews with pupils and parents, homework and its management at home, HELMI: see above
6Research results
The research results can be used in evaluatinglanguage and educationalpolicies in Finland and theeffect that they have on teaching mother tongue and Finnish language to immigrant pupils, as well as evaluating integration of those pupils into the Finnish society. The results of the study can be applied and used, for instance, in planningminority language teaching in Finland. I consider especially important the fact that my research gives means for supporting the multicultural identity of immigrant pupils.
Research results will be reported in both national and international conferences and publications. One of the most important aims of the study is that the results would be acknowledged among teachers and developers of curriculum as well as in language communities of pupils with immigrant backgrounds.
References
Atkinson, P. & M. Hammersley 1998. Ethnography and participant observation. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (eds.) Strategies of qualitative inquiry.London: Sage, 111–136.
Bartlett, L. 2005. Identity work and cultural artefacts in literacy learning and use: a sociocultural analysis. Language and Education 19 (1), 1–9.
Barton, D. & M. Hamilton 1998. Local literacies. Reading and writing in one community. London: Routledge.
Barton, D., M. Hamilton & R. Ivanic (eds.) 2000. Situated literacies: Reading and Writing in Context. London: Routledge.
Blackledge, A. 2000. Power relations and the social construction of ‘literacy’ and ‘illiteracy’. The experience of Bangladeshi women in Birmingham. InM. Martin-Jones & K. Jones (eds.) Multilingual literacies. Reading and writing different worlds.Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 55–69.
Cope, B. & M. Kalantzis (eds.) 2000. Multiliteracies: literacy learning and the design of social futures. London: Routledge.
Gee, J.P. 1990. Social linguistics and literacies.London: Falmer.
Gee, J.P. 2000. Identity as an analytic lens for research in education. Review of Research in Education 25, 99–125.
Guba, E.G. & Y.S. Lincoln 1998. Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (eds.) The landscape of qualitative research. Theories and issues.London: Sage, 195–220.
Hall, K. 2002. Co-constructing subjectivities and knowledge in literacy class: an ethnographic-sociocultural perspective. Language and Education 16 (3), 178–194.
Hawkins, M.R. 2005. Becoming a student: identity work and acacemic literacies in early schooling. TESOL Quarterly 39(1), 59–82.
Holland, D., Lachicotte Jr., W., Skinner, D. & C. Cain 1998. Identity and agency in cultural worlds. London: HarvardUniversity Press.
Ivanič, R. 1998. Writing and identity. The discoursal construction of identity in academic writing.Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Laihiala-Kankainen, S. 1999. Opetuskulttuurien kohtaaminen: venäjänkieliset maahanmuuttajaoppilaat suomalaisessa koulussa. Teoksessa S. Laihiala-Kankainen, I. P. Lysakova & S. A. Rasčetina (toim.) Perspektiivejä – kulttuuri, kieli ja koulutus [Perspektivy – kul’tura, jazyk, obrazovanie]. Jyväskylän yliopisto: Soveltavan kielentutkimuksen keskus, 196–221.
Laihiala-Kankainen, S. 2001. Huomioita suomalaisesta ja venäläisestä koulukulttuurista. Teoksessa K. Perho (toim.) Kahden kulttuurin väkeä. Suomalaiset ja venäläiset koulussa. Joensuun yliopisto. Kasvatustieteiden tiedekunnan selosteita 82, 8–31.
Lehtinen, T. 2002. Oppia kieli kaikki. Maahanmuuttajalasten suomen kielen kehitys ja kaksikielisyys peruskoulun ensimmäisellä luokalla. Turun yliopisto. Scriplta Lingua Fennica 181.
Luke, A. 1996. Genres of power? Literacy education and the production of capital. In. R. Hasan & G. Williams (eds.) Literacy in society. London: Longman, 308–338.
Luukka, M.-R. & M. Leiwo 2004. Opetussuunnitelma äidinkielenopetuksen suunnannäyttäjänä. In K. Sajavaara & S. Takala (eds.) Kielikoulutus tienhaarassa. Jyväskylän yliopisto: Soveltavan kielentutkimuksen keskus, 13–36.