Analyzing the language of struggle in search of hope for teachers

Schmidt, Renita, & Whitmore, Kathryn F. (2010). Analyzing the language of struggle in search of hope for teachers. Journal of Literacy Research, 42(4), 385-417.

I struggled with this article, but perhaps it is because I am not as familiar with discourse analysis as I ought to be. As I read, my perspective of the focus and purpose of the article kept changing. At times, this case study of the language of one ELL teacher seemed like a political statement, an anti-No Child Left Behind (NCLB) statement, to be specific. I certainly could agree with that political statement, particularly when it comes to the issue of how NCLB stresses a deficit view of learners, especially English Language Learners. I could see how Ms. Meyer, the case study teacher, was working to maintain her personal theoretical stance in the face of a governmental mandate that worked against that stance at every turn. I found myself applauding her when she spoke out in defense of her students, and when she devised rigorous, meaningful inquiry that enabled those students to grow cognitively as they learned English. All of this was interesting to me, but then I wondered, so what? What do we do with what we see in this outstanding, courageous, exemplary teacher?

Clearly, Ms. Meyer is a strong writer, and clearly, Schmidt and Whitmore were passionately engaged in the analysis of her writing. The authors point out numerous examples of Ms. Meyer’s “art-full” uses of language in various professional contexts. Their analysis seems quite exhaustive, especially the portions where they look at Ms. Meyer’s use of specific pronouns to convey various positions and stances. I find such analysis interesting, and it is intriguing to think of the intentional ways this teacher used language. Even so, I still kept wondering where the discussion of all this was headed, in practical terms. How can I use what Schmidt and Whitmore learned about teacher Discourse (with a capital D) in my practice as a teacher educator? Is this kind of writing something my future teachers need to learn? What about teachers who do not have the same level of writing ability that Ms. Meyer has? What about teachers who may not have the seniority and positioning to question mandates that go against what they believe good literacy teaching is? Meyer is an interesting case, but she most certainly is not a typical case. The authors say they selected her because of what they could learn from her. I still am not sure what I can learn from her, and where the authors would want me to go with it. Perhaps I need to read more of this kind of research, to get a better idea of the kinds of questions it is best at answering, and of the kinds of implications it has for practice.