Collaborative research into the “hidden worlds” of children’s peer reading

Abstract

Children’s peer social worlds as part of language and literacy learning are often “hidden” from researchers and teachers alike. This article reports on collaborative research between a researcher and veteran kindergarten teacher into these hidden worlds. We draw upon ethnographic documentation (videos, interviews, field notes) and video microanalysis with two aims for our inquiry. For one, we are interested in the teacher’s perspective on children’s peer reading behaviors and what children are learning as part of these practices. Secondly, we reflect on how using video to look closely into hidden classroom life contributes to teacher learning. The result is a detailed analysis from the teacher’s perspective of how children acquire both the character and skills for learning to read when reading with a peer. Findings contribute to literatures on the sociolinguistic features of children’s peer reading and teacher development in literacy education.

Keywords

collaborative research early literacy communication pedagogy peer-reading sociolinguistic characteristics talk and interaction teacher reflection

I always knew intuitively something special was happening in these peer partnerships, but until now I didn’t know quite what it was. (Ms. Avetisian)

Introduction

The research that veteran teacher Ms. Avetisian and I researcher, Sarah Jean Johnson present in this paper examines the “hidden worlds” of kindergarten children’s peer reading—the aspects of classroom life and learning that are hidden due to the multiple and complex demands on teachers’ attention (Enciso, 1998; Finders, 1996). The head note expresses Ms. Avetisian’s surprise about what she observed during our initial viewing of classroom videos of the peers reading together. This viewing incited our shared curiosity to explore further the specific qualities of the “something special” she felt was happening.

Using methods of microanalysis (Erickson, 2006a), we reveal the spontaneous, intuitive, multimodal, and improvisational ways children participate in peer reading while (most often) conforming to classroom expectations for the activity. Drawing on Dewey’s (1928/1959) characterizations of learning, we argue children are developing the character of a learner and literacy skills while reading together. In other words, children are contributing to one another’s literacy development in multiple ways and teachers benefit when they understand the peer processes behind this learning.

This paper is organized as follows: In the introduction we discuss relevant research; we next present the research context and our methodology; we then present our findings and conclude with a discussion of their implications for practice.

“Practice-based” framework for understanding children’s cultural learning

The marriage of culture and cognition within sociocultural theory (Vygotsky, 1978) has important implications for the theorizing and study of child development (Saxe, 1994). “Practice based” theorists within the sociocultural tradition, view culture as “the organization of the conduct of everyday life” and situate the locus for culture in the “‘practices’—behavior and actions—of local communities of practice” (Erickson, 2000: 303). Learning thus is conceived as increasing one’s participation within cultural activities important to a local community (Lave and Wenger, 1991).

This interactional turn in education research creates a need to capture the intricacies and complexity of social interaction so as to understand learning processes. Microethnography (Erickson, 2006a) responds to this need. It relies on video analysis to attend to moment-by-moment verbal and nonverbal interaction as well as the material environment that creates and constrains learning. The underlying assumption is humans behave in culturally patterned ways that continually change and evolve and the analyst can gain insights by examining how people structure their behaviors.

It is this lens of cultural learning that frames the current study with the further premise that children are not only cultural appropriators of adult traditions but also cultural producers whose literacy practices are worthy of study (Kyratzis and Goodwin, 2017). This viewpoint as it relates to young children’s reading development is expanded on in the next section.

Children’s cultural forms of participation in peer reading

Sociolinguistic research of reading (Green and Meyer, 1991) in the last several decades has shifted analytic interest from the traditional focus of an adult reading to a child to that of child peers reading together. A variety of contexts have been examined, including peer group reading, dyadic reading, and reading as part of pretend play in settings in the home, school or nursery school, and playground.

One critical aspect of peer book reading is mutually establishing alignment, whether more symmetrical (peer-like), or more asymmetrical (teacher-like). This positioning is achieved through a combination of emulating teaching practices from the adult culture and enacting child forms of participation (Blum-Kulka et al., 2004). The result is children become fluid in how they mutually position one another; for example, they are able to be teachers, learners, co-teachers, co-learners, or playmates. They draw upon diverse resources in creating these multiple alignments, such as the use of stance displays, assessments, bald imperatives, “teacher voice,” gestures, and disputes (Kyratzis, 2017; Wohlwend, 2015). Children negotiate a delicate balance as each must achieve a measure of authority to be a credible helper to a peer (Cazden et al., 1979); yet, if perceived as “acting smarter,” the peer might take offense (Johnson, 2017b). Research by Gregory (2001), however, suggests that when one child has clear authority due to being older and the activity of reading is in a play frame a child does not need to engage in positioning work. She examines the role of siblings, who are relatively close in age, in one another’s literacy development, demonstrating their achievement of “synergy,” whereby each mutually stimulates one another’s learning in age-specific ways as they play school.

For children to read effectively with a partner or reading group they must be able to enact culturally appropriate means of participation. Research demonstrates the emphasis children place on their participation; for example, children use embodied and emotive directives (e.g. vocal cries) to enforce participation norms dictated by the teacher for peer reading, such as reading side-by-side (Johnson, 2017a). Or in the case of pretend play, children will use a range of embodied resources, including “reading voice” and the enactment of a teacher reading posture (e.g. holding the book outwards) to demonstrate to a peer the activity frame of reading. Likewise, the “listener” will draw upon diverse resources, such as gazing at the book, to exhibit that they are attending to the reading (Kyratzis, 2017). Children do not treat participation norms as static or unchanging, but rather as something to be continually recalibrated through their ongoing interaction (Johnson, 2017a, 2017b; Kyratzis, 2017). When they role play reading to one another during play activities, they effectively initiate, organize, and accomplish the literacy activity without adult guidance (Goodwin and Cekaite, 2018).

Children’s forms of help are often sophisticated, agentive, and creative and are unique to their peer culture (Souto-Manning and Yoon, 2018). A child might withhold a correction in a manner similar to an adult, scaffolding a peer to a solution through the use of clues while simultaneously employing peer-like forms of correction (e.g. telling a peer she is wrong in an initial turn) (Johnson, 2017b). Children’s shared frames of reference and playful teaching interactions prove effective in scaffolding a child’s literacy (De la Piedra and Romo, 2003) and they are able to adjust their teaching in ways that are sensitive to context and the reading ability of their partners (Goodwin and Cekaite, 2018).

As a whole, this research argues children are cultural producers who reinterpret adult literacy practices while also creating those that are uniquely their own. Schools, unfortunately, often do not make the most of the ability of peers to be teachers, with teachers and administrators misunderstanding or denigrating children’s forms of cultural expression (Gilmore, 1983; Sterponi, 2007).

Teacher noticing

Notably the above research we cited on children’s interactions as they read with peers is based on researchers’ interpretations. By offering the teacher’s perspective, we are influenced by research on teacher noticing (Sherin et al., 2011).

Teacher noticing involves two primary processes. The first is that of attending to particular events in an instructional setting. With many things happening at any time in a classroom, the teacher chooses to pay attention to some things and not to others. The second is for teachers to make sense of the events to which they are attending. When teachers notice, they are not passive observers; rather, they are actively interpreting what they see based on their instructional knowledge, prior experience of teaching, guiding theory, pedagogical commitments, and/or their familiarity with their students, classroom, and school (Erickson, 2011). The two aspects of this process are interrelated and cyclical. Teachers will develop a response to what they notice and this will shape subsequent instructional events from which teachers attend and make sense.

What do teachers notice? Initially when introduced to the method of video observation teachers tend to be preoccupied with themselves and their practice (Kagan and Tippins, 1991). Gibson and Ross (2016) describe comprehensive professional development designed to help experienced teachers develop advanced levels of noticing, whereby they are able to attend to the particulars of students’ thinking in literacy and make a thoughtful teaching response. Similar findings are reported in other studies of literacy (Barrett et al., 2002) and mathematics (Goldsmith and Seago, 2011).

Neglected in this research is teachers’ attention to peer learning processes, including the embodied and relational characteristics of learning to read (Lysaker, 2019). We ask what are children’s hidden literacy practices? And what are they learning as part of these practices?

Research context

Setting and participants

The setting for this study was the UCLA Laboratory School, a private school located on the campus of UCLA. At the time of this study, the 2011–2012 school year, the school enrolled approximately 450 children, ages 4–12 years. The kindergarten classroom of this study had 22 students enrolled, aged 5–6 years, and was led by two co-teachers as well as a teaching assistant. Ms. Avetisian was the main teacher of the literacy component of the curriculum. She had taught at the school for 19 years and was recognized by the school community as an expert and dedicated teacher.

The student body was diverse in terms of terms of race, ethnicity, class, academic aptitude, as well as language and religious background. The classroom of this study, however, did not have second language learners as they typically enrolled in dual language classes.

Ethical conduct of research

As the elementary school houses a research institute, all families signed an informed consent form for participation in research through the affiliated university’s IRB office at the time of their child’s enrollment. Families were informed of our research study and had the option to withdraw their children from participation at any time. Children were also informed of the research and we received verbal assent for their participation. Families agreed to varying specifics in regards to filming (e.g. whether the child could be filmed, whether images could be used). We observed two children’s behaviors using field notes rather than filming. When setting up the camera to filming peers, we asked their permission to be filming in an ongoing manner. The two teachers consented to participation in a non-confidential manner, which was their preference. They were professional development teachers, meaning their class was open to teachers who visited as part of a professional development institute from schools citywide, and the teachers viewed this research as another meaningful opportunity to share their practice. IRB additionally approved the identification of the school setting.

Peer reading curriculum

The peer reading activity we focus on in this paper is part of the Reading Project curriculum developed by Lucy Calkins (Calkins and Mermelstein, 2003). The children begin reading with peers in January as part of unit five, “We can be reading teachers: Teach yourself and your partners to use all you know how to read.” Ms. Avetisian taught behaviors for reading with a peer, such as how to take turns, find a partner, help a peer, arrange sitting positions, and hold a book. (Her approach closely resembled the The Daily 5 method see Boushey and Moser’s (2014: 92) read-to-someone foundation lessons for teaching strategies for partner reading.) These expectations were modeled in daily minilessons and reinforced during the reading activity. While Ms. Avetisian emphasized children should be able to work with any peer, she would occasionally need to ask children to change partners, read with an adult, or read to a soft animal toy.

Methods

Data

This paper draws from a year-long video ethnography of children’s peer cultural practices in literacy learning. I performed the field work from fall 2012 to the spring of 2013 in Ms. Avetisian’s kindergarten classroom. I documented peer literacy activities using video, conducted in-depth interviews with Ms. A vetisian, and wrote field notes to contextualize the video. The 43 hours of video captures children engaging in a range of activities, including writing at their tables, reading with a peer, listening to the teacher read aloud, and reading in the library and at recess.

The focus of this paper is peer reading. The data are approximately 5 hours of video recorded on different days. I asked Ms. Avetisian to watch a one-and-half hour selection of the video of peer reading; these selected sequences include 11 different peer partnerships. In selecting video for this sample, I identified video in which children were interacting, editing some of the sections in which children were individually engaged in the reading itself. I made this choice so as to focus the teacher’s attention on the peer processes rather than the individual child’s reading (e.g. fluency, errors).

Analysis

Ms. Avetisian and I took a collaborative approach to analyzing the hidden worlds of children’s peer reading (Erickson, 2006b). The analysis was done in two stages. The aim of the first stage of analysis was to address our research question regarding what children are learning when reading with a peer. Ms. Avetisian watched the video and wrote journal entries about the behaviors she observed. I next categorized her journal entries into primary typologies. At the time I was doing this coding, I was reading John Dewey’s essay “Progressive education and the science of education” (Boydston, 2008). I recognized how Ms. Avetisian’s descriptions of children’s reading aligned with what Dewey describes as the “three chief aspects of learning”—character, skills, and knowledge. I applied Dewey’s framework in my naming of the two primary categories that applied to this study: acquiring the character of a learner and developing reading skills and strategies. I coded the teacher’s notations related to children’s learning behaviors within these two domains. Conflicts related to turn taking, helping one another, securing a distracted peer’s attention, and other problem-solving issues fell within the domain of “acquiring the character of a learner” with an emphasis on acquiring. Synoptic descriptions of learning behaviors she described appear before each of the vignettes in the analysis section of this manuscript.

The second stage of analysis was to perform a microanalysis of video segments (Erickson, 2006a) to address our research question regarding children’s “hidden literacy” practices, or the interactive processes through which children develop both the skills and the character of a learner. Microethnography shares with general ethnography an aim to examine the processes through which people make meaning as part of their everyday lives. It differs, however, from general ethnography in that its purpose is to “document those processes in even greater detail and precision” (Erickson, 1992: 205). The use of video as a primary data source, in addition to participant observation and interviews, makes this possible. Another difference is that whereas the analytic focus of general ethnography is to report overall narrative descriptions of what is happening in an event, microethnography aims to identify how routine processes of interaction are organized that make up the event. In this research, this level of specificity is important in identifying the interactional processes through which children apprentice one another in reading.

We chose brief episodes from two different partnerships for microanalysis, one of two girls, Angie and Monica, and the second composed of mixed gender peers, Alice and Carter. These students were of different racial/ethnic backgrounds: Angie was White; Monica was mixed race, having a Black father and White mother; Alice was Black, with immigrant parents from Ethiopia; and Carter was Chinese-American. The children in both these partnerships were friends and had chosen to read together. Ms. Avetisian and I selected these brief episodes, as they were fairly typical illustrations of phenomena related to our primary analytic categories of character and skill that we witnessed among the children more generally during the year of this study and which Ms. Avetisian had documented in her journal. Secondly, they happened to occur in a fairly compressed span of time making them useful examples. Thirdly, one of the two examples was of students working out problems, which we felt was important to highlight.

Race and ethnicity are clearly central features of human interaction; however, in our analysis of our data, race and ethnicity did not appear to be primary in governing these children’s interactions, nor did their teachers, given all they knew about the families and their children, feel they were. While race may have played more of a role in the children’s interactions than I account for, I could not find evidence in the data to indicate specifically how.

For these viewings, we used a video analysis protocol developed by the Chéche Konnen Center for teacher practice-based inquiry groups. The protocol explored meanings children were making, the resources they were drawing on to make meanings, and the points of view or perspectives they were taking in regard to what was happening. The purpose of analyzing these aspects of their interaction was to understand the practices by which children collaboratively build their social environment for learning to read. I explained to Ms. Avetisian I was interested in her interpretation (rather than evaluation) of the children’s activities. I prepared detailed transcripts for our analysis which depicted features of children’s talk, such as pauses, emphasis, and body language. I used these transcripts when writing the narrative descriptions presented in the analysis section of this manuscript.

The procedure we followed as part of this video-viewing protocol was to first watch the video and then, secondly, read the transcripts aloud, each voicing and enacting the mannerisms of one child. We then watched the video a second time. During the second viewing, I asked Ms. Avetisian to pause the video when she wished to comment. I did little to direct what Ms. Avetisian found of interest. She animatedly and eagerly talked about each interaction.

Findings

We begin presenting our findings with vignettes from Monica and Angie’s reading that demonstrate the theme of children developing the character of a learner. We then turn to Alice and Carter’s interaction to illustrate how children are practicing reading skills and strategies. Each theme is further illustrated with examples of other partnerships. We follow the vignettes with the teacher’s perspective.

Acquiring the character of a learner

In her journal Ms. Avetisian describes ways in which children exhibit desirable characteristics of a learner. They are kind, noticing when someone is left without a partner and helping him partner up. They are fair: Turn-taking is well coordinated; initial turns happen organically without need for deliberation, or, alternatively, the children use “paper scissors rocks” to see who reads first. Children use playful antics to make learning fun. For example, one child, in the manner of a magician producing a rabbit from her hat, pulls a book out of her bag with an exclamatory, “ta da!” In other instances, children find humor in what they are reading. A boy reads about walrus herds and shares with his peer that “female walruses are called cows!” He repeats his new learning several times with increasing exclamation as children laugh. Children find creative ways to hold one another accountable to the reading task, such as heightened vocal sounds to indicate displeasure or pulling a distracted peer’s arm so she must attend to the book. Children also help each other, behaviors Ms. Avetisian describes as “grown up,” and are respectful to differences in reading ability, not remarking on the level of book one is reading.

From my viewpoint, the work behind peer reading often appears invisible in the videos; the interactions and the reading proceed smoothly. Ms. Avetisian explains the work occurs in the extensive modeling the teachers do and in attention they give to children’s emotions. We thus examine less frequent cases where problems arise. Such cases reveal other aspect of children’s learning: They are problem solving to work out disagreements; they are being patient and kind; as well, they are learning to help. These examples additionally show children strive for fairness, collaboration, and fun, and the skill it takes to achieve this. They illustrate the ways in which peer culture is operating beneath the surface of—but often, nevertheless—in the service of school culture (Corsaro, 1985; Fernie et al., 1993; Madrid and Kantor, 2009). In other words, analyzing what is not working perfectly makes us more appreciative of the nature of peer reading: Children are negotiating, creating, and learning about the social interaction that is part of the reading activity while simultaneously learning to read (Dyson, 1993).

We illustrate the theme of children acquiring the character of a learner with an episode Ms. Avetisian refers to as a “mini-drama”: Monica “steals Angie’s thunder” when she tries to help Angie, who in turn protests: “Well I don’t need help.” The drama resolves as the girls share secrets and enjoy connecting reading to their lives.

Negotiating conflicts

Angie sits down next to her friend, Monica. Monica, who has taken a book out of her bag, tells Angie the book she is holding is the one she will read first. Angie is put off that Monica assumes that she will read first and interjects in a whiny voice that she is going to read her book first. Monica, in turn, sucks her teeth, rolls her eyes, and then throws her hands up in a “surrender gesture” as she utters under her breath, “okay.” Angie, being playful, chomps her teeth and squints, glaring at Monica. Monica again utters “Okay,” this time louder and with rising intonation.

The disagreement quickly resolves as Angie declares in a squealing voice, “that means I like you,” and Monica acquiesces with a token utterance, “oh.”

Welcoming help

Angie opens her book to the first page and begins reading the text, “Lad had a fat cat,” slowly and methodically, stretching out each vowel sound. Before Angie can read the final word, “cat,” Monica reads it. In response, Angie turns to look at Monica and then looks back at the book and reads, “fat cat.” The girls look at one another and giggle.

Contesting help

After laughing with Monica, Angie turns the page to continue reading. The text reads, “The cat is Kit.” Angie reads the word “the” with deliberate slowness as if she is savoring the letter sounds. She briefly pauses and Monica reads the next word, “cat.” Angie follows also reading “cat,” an utterance that appears ready to be spoken prior to Monica’s reading.

Angie now has a different reaction to Monica’s “turn sharking.” Whereas moments earlier the girls both laugh when Monica reads for Angie, this time Angie turns sharply to glare at Monica, a look that startles Monica, who sits up sharply. Monica draws upon the teacher to back up her actions, saying, “Ms. Avetisian said I could help you.” Defiantly, Angie tells her, “Well I don’t need help.” Monica escalates the disagreement by saying she can help if she wants and Angie, in turn, explains it’s her book to read.

Monica continues to reference the teacher’s authority, “but she told me to and she’s the teacher,” and Angie sharply rebuts saying, “I know how to read them.”

A brief stare down ensues. Monica acquiesces and looks down and Angie then also looks away and rolls her eyes.

Stories and secrets

With the teacher’s help, Monica finally gets a turn to read. Monica, however, is doing extra work to capture Angie’s interest in her reading. She reads a sentence about a rat named Zack and then checks to see if she has a listener. Angie is sitting quietly but is not looking at the book. Monica begins to turn the page to continue reading but, instead, in an animated manner, says “ r: : a: : :t ” stretching out the word, using a scary voice, and leaning in toward Angie with wide eyes and an open mouth. Angie plays along making a scared, screaming sound and then declaring “I am scared of rats. They bite me.”

Monica takes a stance on Angie’s admission of rats biting her; she scrunches up her face in a look of disgust and says, “Ew. They don’t bite me.” Shaking her head, she explains she sees rats when they are dead. This statement catches Angie’s attention; she recycles Monica’s “ew,” asking, “Ew. Why do you see them when they are dead?”

Monica heightens the drama. As if telling a secret, she places her hand near her mouth and leans toward Angie to explain her cat gets the rats. Monica laughs and continues reading.

The teacher’s perspective

Ms. Avetisian and I begin by looking at the episode where the girls are deciding who goes first. Turn taking is one of the first lessons she models when introducing peer reading. The example of Angie and Monica, however, shows it can be contentious. What Ms. Avetisian points out about this interaction, however, is the way the children continually mitigate their disagreement. She says she could imagine another scenario where the conflict escalates. Instead, Monica, through her embodied stylized moves (e.g. teeth suck, eyeball roll, surrender gesture), characterizes Angie as a little bit crazy and is thus able to maintain her sense of integrity while backing down. Ms. Avetisian points out Angie also does a couple of mitigating moves. She playfully makes a biting action, signaling to Monica she is not earnestly being aggressive. Monica repeats, “okay,” in an annoyed voice, and Angie explains, “that means I like you,” another mitigating move. There is an escalation of conflict and a subsequent de-escalation in a brief period of time. Ms. Avetisian’s opinion is the girls are tempering their interactional moves so things do not get out of control.

We next discuss the episodes in which Monica helps Angie. Angie laughs after Monica helps her the first time and the second time she objects, saying snidely, “I don’t need help” and “I know how to read them.” Ms. Avetisian describes these interactions as “fantastic” in that they vividly illustrate how helping can be welcome one moment and not the next. She says the question is whether help is helpful and also whether it is needed. She also emphasizes it is important to recognize that for a 5-year-old to determine this is no small feat. Beyond the inferences Angie and Monica are making (e.g. does she need help?), they are also negotiating power dynamics.

Why does Angie have a different reaction to Monica’s help from one moment to the next? Ms. Avetisian’s interpretation is Angie demonstrated she could read the word “cat” and, thus, does not need further help. Indeed, in Angie’s objection, “I know how to read them,” she is claiming she knows how to read the word.

We also consider why Monica helps Angie in both instances. Ms. Avetisian feels that the girls are working from two conflicting places. Angie wants to struggle to read on her own. She understands this is her book to read—something she tells Monica in their dispute. This is true; each child has her own books to read. Monica, on the other hand, is demonstrating that children are to help one another, which she voices in her protest when she says the teacher said she can help. From Angie’s slow reading it is understandable that Monica feels Angie needs help or, perhaps, is impatient for the reading to progress.

Ms. Avetisian acknowledges a teacher intervention would be helpful. Children should know they are supposed to help but they need to observe their partner. Is she asking for help? Did you give her time to try to read on her own?

Ms. Avetisian brings up another possible element taking place: one-upping a peer. She describes Monica’s behavior as “stealing Angie’s thunder”—by reading Angie’s book Monica may be showing she is a better reader. There is evidence for this interpretation in Angie’s strong objection to being helped. Ms. Avetisian is also sympathetic to Monica. Monica listens to Angie read for 9 minutes before getting a turn, and only then because a teacher intervenes.

Ms. Avetisian and I next view where Monica reads to Angie about a rat named Zack. She appreciates Monica’s animated reading, saying Angie’s hooked in. This is a term she uses frequently telling children to hook in, for example, when reading aloud to the class.

Ms. Avetisian also appreciates the moment at which Angie responded to Monica’s sharing that she sees rats when they are dead: Ms. Avetisian laughs, voicing Angie’s sense of disbelief: “Did I really just hear that!” She also enjoys Monica’s telling of a secret, saying the girls are demonstrating an important behavior of readers: they are talking about what they are reading, making text-to-life connections, and they are interacting in a way that makes reading memorable.

Considering this episode holistically along with Ms. Avetisian’s commentary, we can appreciate how within the “participation structure” (Erickson, 1982) defined by the teacher for peer reading (e.g. sitting knee to knee, reading and listening) Angie and Monica are negotiating arguably more complex and subtle forms of participation. They are taking stances on one another’s actions so as to define the boundaries of behaviors that are acceptable and to negotiate one’s social positioning (e.g. who gets to read first or who can correct the reader) (Fernie et al., 1993). They are, as well, infusing peer culture into the textual meanings they are creating together (Dyson, 1993; Kantor et al., 1992). To accomplish these social and cognitive activities, they are reading the text, reading each other, and creating bodily enactments of and in response to subjectivities found in both the text and their peer environment. As argued by Lysaker (2019), such “body readings” are critical processes of comprehending in themselves regardless of what children understand of what they are reading.

Developing reading skills and techniques

In her journaling, Ms. Avetisian describes skills she sees children practicing as they read. Children reenacting a story line, character or event is one. A girl reading the final page of a book to two girls, whispers, “I am sleeping.” The two girls, acting out the reading, recline on the floor to take a nap as the reader pats their heads affectionately.

In other cases, children question a peer about what is being read, to check comprehension or to make sure the reader is following along. One example is a boy reading about Humpty Dumpty falling off the wall; he points at a picture of a girl standing next to the wall and looks up at his peer asking, “Do you think she pushed Humpty?” His peer shakes her head. The girl listens attentively to find out who did push Humpty.

In other cases, children remark on literary conventions. A boy reads the text, “I see a fly. I see a pie.” His peer remarks, “fly, pie rhymes.” And they recognize phonetic conventions. A boy points to the word, “Shhh,” asking a girl, “What does this say?” She giggles and remarks with incredulity, “I have no idea! There are three h(s) in a row!”

Another skill is making connections between the text and children’s lives. The boy and girl reading about being quiet in order not to wake the baby talk about a baby brother who is a “cry baby.”

In other examples, children practice taught reading strategies; they talk about the pictures; they make predictions, and they explain the action or event in a story in their own words.

This is the synoptic view of how children practice reading skills and strategies. An example of an interaction Ms. Avetisian and I watch closely is that of Alice’s interaction with Carter. Here, Alice’s excitement in sharing information from what she is reading—as expressed by her spontaneous utterance, “You know what?”—sparks a lively conversation among three children about Alice’s misunderstanding of an expository text she is reading about bats.

Curiosity, sociality, and peer learning

It is Monday and children are “shopping” for five books they will practice reading for the week. Carter and Alice are beginning to explore their selected books, flipping through pages, reading short sections, and looking at the pictures. It is noisy as children find books and settle into a reading spot. Carter and Alice are, nevertheless, intently reading their separate books about walruses and bats respectively. Matt is standing, listening to them read. Carter frequently shows Matt pictures in his book and remarks on what he learns, such as walrus’ ears “don’t get cold because they are just tiny holes.” Meanwhile, Alice reads about the importance of bats eating bugs. The text reads: “Bats that eat bugs help farmers. If bats did not munch bugs, the bugs would eat up all the plants the farmers grow.” Alice stumbles on the word, “plant” (or what the bugs eat) and stops reading. That she is unable to read the word proves crucial to how this sequence, which centers on her misunderstanding of who eats whom, plays out.

Alice turns to Carter, asking, “You know what?” She tells Carter that if bats do not eat the insects the bugs will eat “them.” It is apparent from Carter and Matt’s responses the two have understood Alice to be referring to the bats when she says, “them.” Carter asks with a skeptical tone, “What?” He reads her book so as to find out about what she is telling him. He, however, starts reading mid-paragraph, and Alice, seemingly feeling that it is important to read from the beginning of the paragraph, tells him to “wait” and points to where he should begin reading. Carter complies and reads where she has indicated (with some mistakes and hesitations): “Bats that eat bugs help farmers. If bats did not munch bugs, the bugs would eat up all the plants farmers grow. Wow! That really makes bats our flying friends.” Carter has difficulty reading “munch” and Alice helps him read the word, saying “munch” and brings her hand to her mouth to make an eating gesture.

After Carter finishes reading the paragraph, Alice exclaims, “Oh! Then. . .” It appears she is about to voice her new understanding, but Carter interrupts her, explaining the bugs would eat up all the farmer’s food if the bats did not eat the bugs.

Alice’s misunderstanding gets pointed out by Matt, who says, “I thought she said if the bats don’t eat the bugs, the bugs will eat the bats!” The boys laugh and Alice smiles and objects to her error being made the object of attention, saying, “Hey!” She then turns, still smiling, back to her book.

The teacher’s perspective

Ms. Avetisian finds this interaction exciting. She describes Alice as having her “antennas up” as she is reading: Alice wants to make sense of her reading and she is open to learning something new from her book. Alice finds it fascinating if the bats don’t eat the insects then the insects will eat the bats. When looking at this moment in the transcript, Ms. Avetisian voices Alice’s sense of disbelief: “If I don’t eat them before they get to me, they’ll eat me up!” Ms. Avetisian describes this moment as a catalyst for getting her peers’ interest and for the subsequent learning.

For Ms. Avetisian it is important that children work out the quandary of “who eats whom” in a way that promotes reading comprehension skills. Talking about what is being read is something I observe her model when she reads to the class or reads with a child. In this case, it is not the teacher checking on the reader’s understanding; it is Alice’s peers. Ms. Avetisian describes this interaction as a classic “Vygotskian moment”—the zone of proximal development—where one child is able to advance the understanding of another through teaching (Vygotsky, 1978).

Ms. Avetisian is interested in how the learning is going both ways and the processes through which the children orchestrate comprehension across multiple modes (Lysaker, 2019). Alice is able to help Carter even though she is not as proficient a reader. Carter misreads the word “munch” (saying “much” instead). Alice helps him read the word, using both gesture and language, what Ms. Avetisian calls “word brokering,” thus allowing Carter to advance in his reading to the important information about the bugs eating the plants.

Ms. Avetisian also appreciates how Alice redirects Carter to begin reading from the beginning. Reading contextual information is another skill she teaches children. In this case, it is helpful to have the missing information about bats being helpful to farmers as the children are able to understand bats prevent bugs from eating the farmer’s plants.

Another integral aspect of this interaction for Ms. Avetisian is that the children are finding humor in the learning process. They laugh at the idea of bugs eating bats as well as find humor in the discovery of Alice’s misunderstanding. As part of this collaborative meaning making, Matt and Carter each repeat their revised understanding of the text (unfortunately, interrupting Alice’s own voicing) as they laugh and as Alice shyly smiles.

This episode of Alice and her friends orchestrating a new understanding of the text’s meaning illustrates how the children’s behaviors (pausing, rereading, gesturing, voicing understandings, and correcting) are critical to the children’s comprehension of text (Lysaker, 2019). Ms. Avetisian points out that the children are engaged in an inventive comprehension activity that she could not have directed for them, nor, she notes, is it likely they would experience this kind of joint interaction in an adult and child reading, where the adult can easily comprehend the text.

Concluding discussion

In this study we have collaboratively examined the hidden worlds of peer book reading using methods of video microanalysis. This conclusion summarizes our arguments around the value of peer cultural practices as part of reading, reflects on what it means to engage teachers in practices of noticing, argues for looking closely at these practices, and discusses the implications of our work in relation to teaching practice and teacher development.

Developing learning characteristics through reading with a peer

Children contribute to one another’s learning in ways that complement and extend adult-child teaching and this competence can be discovered by researchers and teachers when we closely analyze children’s interactions (Davidson, 2010). Angie and Monica are not simply goofing off as one might conclude from casual observation. Rather they are working on difficult concepts, such as fairness and cooperation, and they are learning to help and to be helped. They may not be entirely successful, but as Ms. Avetisian observes, they are exhibiting important learning behaviors, such as patience, working out disagreements, finding enjoyment in learning, and helping one another. These mature features of their interactions stand alongside the peer-like features (eye rolls, secrets), combining to form a social organization distinctive of children as well as a “zone of relevance” for literacy learning in that their practices make reading more playful, more joyful, more fun, and more connected (Martin-Beltrán et al., 2017). As well, and importantly, these behaviors—the subtle participation structures children improvise moment-by-moment—undergird the activity of reading to a peer. Bodily reading of each other is part and parcel to making meaning of text (Lysaker, 2019).

In the case of Alice and Carter, the children’s understanding is transformed through their collaborative meaning making. They are agentive in orchestrating a range of resources so as to discover the meaning of the text Alice is reading. This includes Alice’s disbelief intonation that—as Ms. Avetisian points out—recruits her peers’ interest; iconic gestures that mutually elaborate Alice’s talk when correcting Carter’s reading; the book and their gaze and gestures to the book; and their voicing and revising of their understanding of the texts’ meaning. Importantly, it also includes their shared laughter, which seems to acknowledge that the inventive work they undertake to construct meaning involves taking risks and making mistakes (Lysaker, 2019).

Teacher discovery, empirical evidence of practice, and knowledge production

Our collaborative research, with the use of video to provide empirical, concrete illustrations revealed hidden peer social worlds around reading. Ms. Avetisian witnessed what she engineers in her teaching practice plays out in ways that support peer learning. She also discovered the literacy possibilities (e.g. collaborative meaning making, enjoyment, exploration of shared interests, creative and agentive use of peer resources) when official classroom spheres meet with the unofficial spheres of peer practices (Dyson, 1993; Wohlwend, 2008).

What additionally strikes me is that her interpretations are similar to those of researchers who specialize in video analysis of interaction. She attends to the verbal and non-verbal behaviors Monica and Angie use to mitigate conflict. She considers Angie’s epistemic state by analyzing her pauses in reading. And she makes theoretical connections to children’s learning behaviors. Yet, she is adding an extra layer to these interpretations that comes from her professional insights. In other words, this collaborative endeavor results in more than self-discovery about her teaching; it contributes to knowledge about children’s learning. Moreover, the degree of specificity around peer processes and dynamics in learning she gleans from undertaking this microanalysis provides novel information about how children learn as compared to outcome-centric data (at the level of individual, classroom, school, district, etc.) on which both schools and researchers tend to rely. We are able to see, for example, how “helping” between peers unfolds moment-moment in real time.

When researchers, collaborate with knowledgeable and experienced teachers, such as Ms. Avetisian, it is important to honor the expertise they bring to the judgements they are making. There can often be a hypervigilance on the part of scholars to apply theories in a heavy-handed manner that can override or mask the teacher’s perspective when we do not possess the same breadth of knowledge of classroom practice or familiarity with the children as the teacher. While the practitioner’s statements might sometimes be brief and seemingly superficial (e.g. Ms. Avetisian attributing the concept of “fairness” to Angie’s and Monica’s interactions), they can be an abbreviation or shorthand for a deeper understanding. These seemingly simple statements are making some kind of judgement about the quality and humanity of the interaction, what it may be opening up for the children, how the children have developed, and what it predicts about their development. It is certainly the case that spending many years immersed in school culture can lead to some things being overlooked by teachers; researchers then have a valuable role in pointing out the unnoticed. It is arguably more often the case, however, that scholars do not take the time and interest to understand the teacher’s perspective. This has been the goal of this co-authored article with Ms. Avetisian with the aim of applying theory in a manner that both illuminates the work of teachers and children and advances theory.

Implications of the “hidden worlds” of peer reading

Peer reading practices offer affordances for children in acquiring 21st Century learning skills, which emphasize creativity, collaboration, and communication (Kyratzis and Johnson, 2017). For more children to experience these learning opportunities, there must be a change in policy from its current narrow conception of early childhood education as a time for children to gain rudimentary skills and basic knowledge that can be easily assessed by standardized tests (Rose, 2015). This conception disproportionately is the standard for schools in the US serving children from low-income families and children of color and limits teachers from being able to enact an imaginative pedagogy, such as Ms. Avetisian’s, that brings children together to think, relate, explore, and solve problems.

Our research additionally suggests teachers can benefit from collaborative research that involves looking closely at what happens in their classrooms and reflecting on teaching and student learning (Orellana et al., 2017). Noticing and reflecting can alter teacher’s beliefs about children’s learning. Teachers might be more willing to let students work out disagreements if they see children are capable of doing so (Madrid and Kantor, 2009). The viewing might stimulate larger questions, such as: How can I structure my classroom to make more of this happen (Owocki and Goodman, 2002). Seeing children in their peer social worlds may help a teacher make connections to what is happening elsewhere, such as the playground (Long, 2007). And, as Ms. Avetisian experienced, it might allow teachers to see evidence of the secondary effects of their practice and realize the potential and specific qualities of what happens in peer cultural spheres.

Lastly, teachers possess the analytical orientation, interest, and methods to conduct research. A barrier, however, is the structure of teachers’ work which does not provide time for them to observe and to reflect on what is happening in their classroom. We recommend of us within the field of childhood studies consider how we can partner with teachers in ways that support their professional growth and allow them to contribute to the knowledge base for teaching.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The first author received fellowship support for this research from UCLA CONNECT Center for Research & Innovation.

ORCID iD

Sarah Jean Johnson

References

Barrett

Reason

Regan

, et al. (2002) Coresearching the concept of “noticing and adjusting” in monitoring literacy learning. Educational Psychology in Practice 18: 297–311.

Blum-Kulka

Huck-Taglicht

Avni

(2004) The social and discursive spectrum of peer talk. Discourse Studies 6(3): 307–328.

Boushey

Moser

(2014) The Daily 5: Fostering Literacy Independence in the Elementary Grades. Portland, ME: Stenhouse Publishers.

Boydston

(ed.) (2008) John Dewey: The Later Works 1925-1953. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

Calkins

Mermelstein

(2003) Launching the Writing Workshop, vol. 1. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Cazden

Cox

Dickinson

, et al. (1979) “You all gonna hafta listen”: Peer teaching in a primary classroom. In: Collins

(ed.) Children’s Language and Communication: The Minnesota Symposia on Child Psychology, vol. 12. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp.183–123.

Corsaro

(1985) Friendship and Peer Culture in the Early Years, vol. 5. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Davidson

(2010) Transcription matters: Transcribing talk and interaction to facilitate conversation analysis of the taken-for-granted in young children’s interactions. Journal of Early Childhood Research 8(2): 115–131.

De la Piedra

Romo

(2003) Collaborative literacy in a Mexican immigrant household: The role of sibling mediators in the socialization of pre-school learners. In: Bayley

Schecter

(eds) Language Socialization in Bilingual and Multilingual Societies. Clevendon: Multilingual Matters, pp.44–61.

10.

Dewey

(1928/1959) Progressive education and the science of education. In: Dworkin

(ed.) Dewey on Education: Selections with an Introduction and Notes, 3rd edn. New York, NY: Teachers College Press, pp.197–204.

11.

Dyson

(1993) Social Worlds of Children: Learning to Write in an Urban Primary School. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

12.

Enciso

(1998) Good/bad girls read together: Pre-adolescent girls’ co-authorship of feminine subject positions during a shared reading event. English Education, 30(1), 44–62.

13.

Erickson

(1982) Classroom discourse as improvisation: Relationships between academic task structure and social participation structure in lessons. In: Wilkinson

(ed.) Communicating in the Classroom. New York, NY: Academic Press, pp.153–181.

14.

Erickson

(1992) Ethnographic microanalysis of interaction. In: LeCompte

Millroy

Preissle

(eds) The Handbook of Qualitative Research in Education. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, pp.201–225.

15.

Erickson

(2000) Culture and human development. Human Development 45(4): 299–306.

16.

Erickson

(2006a) Definition and analysis of data from videotape: Some research procedures and their rationales. In: Green

Camilli

Elmore

(eds) Handbook of Complementary Methods in Education Research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp.177–205.

17.

Erickson

(2006b) Studying side by side: Collaborative action ethnography in educational research. In: Spindler

Hammond

(eds) Innovations in Educational Ethnography: Theory, Methods, and Results. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp.235–258.

18.

Erickson

(2011) On noticing teacher noticing. In: Sherin

Jacobs

Philipp

(eds) Mathematics Teacher Noticing: Seeing Through Teachers’ Eyes. New York, NY; London: Routledge, pp.47–64.

19.

Fernie

Davies

McMurray

, et al. (1993) Becoming a person in the preschool: Creating integrated gender, school culture, and peer culture positionings. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 6(2): 95–110.

20.

Finders

(1996) Queens and teen zines: Early adolescent females reading their way toward adulthood. Anthropology & Education Quarterly 27(1): 71–89.

21.

Gibson

Ross

(2016) Teachers’ professional noticing. Theory into Practice 55(3): 180–188.

22.

Gilmore

(1983) Spelling ‘Mississippi’: Recontextualizing a literacy-related speech event. Anthropology and Education Quarterly 14(4): 235–256.

23.

Goldsmith

Seago

(2011) Using classroom artifacts to focus teachers’ noticing. In: Sherin

Jacobs

Philipp

(eds) Mathematics Teacher Noticing: Seeing Through Teachers’ Eyes. New York, NY; London: Routledge, pp.169–187.

24.

Goodwin

Cekaite

(2018) Embodied Family Choreography: Practices of Control, Care, and Mundane Creativity. London; New York, NY: Routledge.

25.

Green

Meyer

(1991) The embeddedness of reading in classroom life: Reading as a situated process. In: Baker

Luke

(eds) Towards a Critical Sociology of Reading Pedagogy. Amsterdam; Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp.141–160.

26.

Gregory

(2001) Sisters and brothers as language and literacy teachers: Synergy between siblings playing and working together. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy 1(3): 301–322.

27.

Johnson

(2017a) Agency, accountability and affect: Kindergarten children’s orchestration of reading picture books with a friend. Learning, Culture, and Social Interaction 12(1): 15–31.

28.

Johnson

(2017b) Multimodality and footing in peer correction in reading picture books. Linguistics and Education 41: 20–34.

29.

Kagan

Tippins

(1991) How teachers’ classroom cases express their pedagogical beliefs. Journal of Teacher Education 42(4): 281–291.

30.

Kantor

Miller

Fernie

(1992) Diverse paths to literacy in a preschool classroom: A sociocultural perspective. Reading Research Quarterly 27(3): 185–201.

31.

Kyratzis

(2017) Peer ecologies for learning how to read: Exhibiting reading, orchestrating participation, and learning over time in bilingual Mexican-American preschoolers’ play enactments of reading to a peer. Linguistics and Education 41: 7–19.

32.

Kyratzis

Goodwin

(2017) Language socialization in children’s peer and sibling-kin group interactions. In: Duff

May

(eds) Language Socialization. Encyclopedia of Language and Education, 3rd edn. Cham: Springer, pp.1–16.

33.

Kyratzis

Johnson

(2017) Multimodal and multilingual resources in children’s framing of situated learning activities: An introduction. Linguistics and Education 41: 1–6.

34.

Lave

Wenger

(1991) Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

35.

Long

(2007) Intentionality and expertise: Learning from observations of children at play in multilingual, multicultural contexts. Anthropology & Education Quarterly 38(3): 239–259.

36.

Lysaker

(2019) Before Words: Wordless Picture Books and the Development of Reading in Young Children. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

37.

Madrid

Kantor

(2009) Being kitties in a preschool classroom: Maintaining group harmony and acting proper in a female peer-culture play routine. Ethnography and Education 4(2): 229–247.

38.

Martin-Beltrán

Daniel

Peercy

, et al. (2017) Developing a zone of relevance: Emergent bilinguals’ use of social, linguistic, and cognitive support in peer-led literacy discussions. International Multilingual Research Journal 11(3): 152–166.

39.

Orellana

Johnson

Rodriguez

, et al. (2017) An apprentice teacher’s journey in “seeing” learning. Teacher Education Quarterly 44(2): 7–26.

40.

Owocki

Goodman

(2002) Kidwatching: Documenting Children’s Literacy Development. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

41.

Rose

(2015) School reform fails the test: How can our schools get better when we’ve made our teachers the problem and not the solution? The American Scholar 84(1): 18–30.

42.

Saxe

(1994) Studying cognitive development in sociocultural context: The development of a practice-based approach. Mind, Culture, and Activity 1(3): 135–157.

43.

Sherin

Jacobs

Philipp

(2011) Mathematics Teacher Noticing: Seeing Through Teachers’ Eyes. New York, NY; London: Routledge.

44.

Souto-Manning

Yoon

(2018) Rethinking Early Literacies: Reading and Rewriting Worlds. New York, NY: Routledge.

45.

Sterponi

(2007) Clandestine interactional reading: Intertextuality and double-voicing under the desk. Linguistics and Education 18(1): 1–23.

46.

Vygotsky (1978) Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

47.

Wohlwend

(2008) Play as a literacy of possibilities: Expanding meanings in practices, materials, and spaces. Language Arts 86(2): 127–136.

48.

Wohlwend

(2015) Playing their Way into Literacies: Reading, Writing, and Belonging in the Early Childhood Classroom. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.