This article was downloaded by: [University of Colorado at Denver] On: 24 February 2013, At: 20:16 Publisher: Routledge

Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Reading & Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ urwl20

LITERACY EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY: IT'S TIME TO CLOSE THE FACTORY
Christine H. Leland & Wendy C. Kasten Version of record first published: 07 Jan 2011.

To cite this article: Christine H. Leland & Wendy C. Kasten (2002): LITERACY EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY: IT'S TIME TO CLOSE THE FACTORY, Reading & Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 18:1, 5-15 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/105735602753386315

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/ page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Downloaded by [University of Colorado at Denver] at 20:16 24 February 2013

Reading & Writing Quarterly, 18: 515, 2002 Copyright # 2002 Taylor & Francis 1057-3569 /02 $12.00 + .00

LITERACY EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY : ITS TIME TO CLOSE THE FACTORY
Downloaded by [University of Colorado at Denver] at 20:16 24 February 2013
Christine H. Leland Indiana University, Indianapolis, IN, U S A Wendy C. Kasten Kent S tate U niversity, Kent, OH, U S A

M uch of what is done in literacy education today re ects the philosophy of the industrial (or factory) model of education, which evolved during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. This article examines the historical and theoretical foundations of the factory model and contrasts it to the more recently developed inquiry model. Vignettes provide glimpses of how each model plays out in a contemporary classroom. We argue that the factory model of education is no longer useful since democracy in the twenty- rst century requires citizens who are able to think critically and use learning and language exibly to construct knowledge in a number of ways and contexts.

While it sometimes seems that the raging national debate over education is a phenomenon exclusively endemic to our time and culture, we should remember that this is not the case. A similar national debate that took place in Japan in the 1880s determined that countrys educational thought and political action for the next fty years (Bethel, 1973). In that case, debate centered on the goal of educationspeci cally, whether education in Japan should seek to build subjects or citizens. One group argued that a strong Japan could be built only by citizens, only by people educated to be independent and self-assured ( p. 28). Another group, however, believed that it was more important to have obedient and loyal subjects in Japan, and that this should be the main goal of education. The latter group won the debate, and, at the risk of sounding trite, the rest was history.

Address correspondence to Christine Leland, 902 West New York Street, Indianapolis, IN 4620275155. E-mail: cleland@iupui.edu 5

C. H. Leland and W. C. Kasten

Having just crossed the threshold of the twenty- rst century, American educators are at a similar juncture today. The major difference is that the question has changed. While there is now general agreement in this country that the goal of education is to help people become active and informed citizens (as opposed to obedient subjects), the debate rages on about how schools can best accomplish this goal. Some people believe that maintaining traditional school practices is the best way to inculcate good citizenship. They argue that traditional ways worked for them and will work for their children as well. Others, like Gardner (1991) and Eisner (1994), believe that American education is at a turning point. Gardner describes one tension as a movement towards uniformity and conformity. He argues that this view is rooted in a faulty understanding of human cognition that focuses on basic competencies, the mastery of minimal standards, and the identi cation of essential core knowledge ( p. 203). This view, Eisner notes, is often embraced in the name of educational equity as if sameness and equity were identical ( p. 4). According to Eisner, this paradigm appeals to many politicians interested in school reform because it reinforces the theory that all schools should be uniform. The problem is that once standardization has been achieved, it is possible to rank schools and note that some have achieved excellence while others have not. This ultimately leads to seeing education as a race or competition that does not serve all learners equitably in a tacit meritocracy ( p. 4). The contrasting paradigm is that of education for individuality, the recognition of diversity, and multiple ways of knowing. Gardner explains that this movement is based on the premise that individuals have different minds and educators need to respond to them in different ways. Tools for lifelong learning are more critical and less dependent on standards and minimums (Gardner, 1991). Both Eisner and Gardner see the need for sweeping changes in the structure and milieu of schooling. They argue that our educational system is built on a model that is no longer appropriatea model that is better suited for making subjects than citizens. This criticism arises from the fact that much of what is done in education today re ects the philosophy of the industrial model, which became popular during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.

Downloaded by [University of Colorado at Denver] at 20:16 24 February 2013

EVOLUTION OF THE INDUSTRIAL M ODEL

A review of the literature dealing with the industrial model of education is helpful in understanding how and why it evolved. Like now, schools at the turn of the last century were expected to do many things. In addition to providing students with basic skills of literacy and mathematics,

Literary Education for the 21st Century

Downloaded by [University of Colorado at Denver] at 20:16 24 February 2013

schools were seen as the nations rst defense against the great waves of immigrants arriving during this time. Education provided a vehicle for the efforts of one class to civilize another and thereby ensure that society would remain tolerable, orderly, and safe (Katz, 1971, p. 9). An emphasis on explicit rules and regimented behavior helped to invest the poor with the values of compliance, punctuality, cleanliness, and knowing ones place in society (Cuban, 1972, p. 8). In addition, a primary goal of public education was to prepare young people for factory jobs that required them to perform some relatively simple task over and over again. Young people being prepared for such cog jobs had to be trained to comprehend and accept instructions, and then to implement them conscientiously. Discipline and reliability were the core virtues (Reich, 1989, p. 97). When public education tacitly accepted the tasks of civilizing the immigrant masses and preparing future factory workers, it simultaneously assumed the role of maintaining the status quo. Our present system of public education was not designed, as many of us were taught, to be the great social and economic equalizer and the promoter of our democratic values. It was designed rst and foremost to be the Great American Academic and Social Sorting Factory (Clinchy, 1993, p. 606). Although educational literature and spokespeople have claimed that schools are symbols of opportunity, their slitted or windowless walls say clearly what their history would reveal as well: they were designed to re ect and con rm the social structure that erected them (Katz, 1971, p. xviii).

Syst em at izing Schools

As schools struggled to keep law and order and prepare an industrial workforce, they were criticized for not doing the job ef ciently. One response to this criticism was that educators looked to science to improve their image. If one is under re, the appeal of scienti cally proved methods for increasing productivity is great. By wrapping themselves in the mantle of science, school administrators could protect themselves from criticism and, at the same time, appear up to date (Eisner, 1994, p. 12). A number of leading educators became convinced that there must be one best system of education for urban populations and made it their lifework to identify and implement this system. Tyack (1974) reports that some educators were impressed with the order and ef ciency of the new technology and forms of organization they saw about them. The division of labor in the factory, the punctuality of the railroad, the chain of command and coordination in modern businessesthese aroused a sense of wonder and excitement in men and women seeking to systematize the schools ( p. 28). These educators described their school systems as

C. H. Leland and W. C. Kasten

factories and called themselves superintendents, as in industry. They studied the hierarchy, the division of labor, and the intensive professional supervision in the industrial model and worked to design similar structures and practices for schools. If those methods worked in industries as diverse as textiles and railroads, why would they not work in education (Katz, 1971, p. 68)?

Downloaded by [University of Colorado at Denver] at 20:16 24 February 2013

THE CHILD AS PRODUCT

Reimagining the school as a factory led to reconceptualizing students as products on the assembly line. In 1916, in uential educator E. Cubberly wrote: Our schools are, in a sense, factories in which the raw products (children) are to be shaped and fashioned into products to meet the various demands of life (in Kliebard, 1971, p. 75). Students were initially assessed to determine what they lacked, then were drilled until skilled (Fosnot, 1989, p. 5). Teachersthe production workershad little discretion over what they could do to each batch that passed through; students passively received whatever was doled out. Inspectors tried to weed out the defects, sometimes returning them to an earlier step for reworking (Reich, 1989, p. 100). Since the content of what an educated person should learn was assumed to be universal, all learners received the same curriculum and were expected to achieve the same understanding. An empowered learner in this model was both unwanted and dangerous (Fosnot, 1989, p. 5). There was also a widely held belief at this time that operating schools like factories would increase their ef ciency and lead to nancial savings. Within grammar schools, the system of age-grading had begun in 1847. Ten years later, the superintendent of the Boston schools recommended that each teacher take a different class each year rather than remain with the same group of pupils throughout its entire school career. Reformers argued that graded schools yielded enormous increases in educational ef ciency, and effectiveness, and their blueprints featured carefully designed sequences of schools of which a high school formed the apex (Katz, 1971, p. 35). The platoon school was another idea that resulted from the effort to increase ef ciency and save money. According to this plan, savings resulted from departmentalizing classes and keeping the rooms in constant use. Precision timing was accomplished through the use of a bell system as children moved from class to class. The day was broken into two 90-minute classes of basic skills and six 30-minute classes of special subjects. At the peak of its popularity in 1929, 1,000 schools in 41 states were operating on this plan, although there was never any evidence that platoon schools had any educational advantages over other schools (Callahan, 1962).

Literary Education for the 21st Century

THE INDUSTRIAL M ODEL TODAY

The cult of ef ciency is still alive in the contemporary controversy over the issue of accountability (Oliver, 1976, p. 18). To reward or penalize individual teachers on the basis of their students test scores is to judge their ef ciency in turning out a satisfactory product. It is no accident that modern schools are run like businesses and even employ many of the same terms: production performance, output gures, projected increased rates of success, effectiveness of teachers, and student standardized test outcomes (Van Manen, 1991, p. 511). Another vestige of the industrial model is the continued reliance on what Goodlad and Anderson refer to as grouping by litter, the practice of assigning children of the same age to the same grade (cited in Eisner, 1994). Children who do not make the required amount of progress during a speci ed amount of time are treated much as rejects on the assembly line: they are pulled out and sent through again. The industrial model also fosters a spirit of competition. Much like competing business associates, children soon learn that there is more to be gained from working alone than from sharing ideas. Finally, the type of literacy required by the industrial model is still evident in the focus of many teachers and instructional materials on decoding and analyzing the smallest parts of language: According to Myers (1996), one of the new literacy demands that occurred during the early part of the twentieth century was the treatment of language as an object to be analyzed into objective parts . . . separate from the responses of readers and from the intentions of the author ( p. 89). Vignette 1 shows what the industrial model looks like in a contemporary, racially diverse urban classroom:
Although it was very quiet when I entered Ms. Webbs rst grade classroom, it seemed that every head turned to look in my direction. Ms. Webb was standing at the chalkboard, leading the class in the Daily Oral Language exercise. She pointed to a sentence on the board that contained a number of errors and asked who would be the rst to identify what was incorrect. The sentence read: mr and mrs brown will go to phoenix on tuesday Afternoon. Several children raised their hands immediately, and when the teacher nodded in her direction, Kate said that mr and mrs both needed to start with a capital letter. Another student added that mr and mrs also needed to have a period. As I looked around the room, I noticed a child (Kevin) who was intently focused on removing a knot from one of his shoelaces. He looked neither at the teacher nor the chalkboar d and appeared to be paying no attention to the Daily Oral Language exercise. Ms. Webb must have seen me watching him because she called on him to nd another error in the sentence. Kevin glanced at the board and said that he had a Mr. and Mrs. Brown in his neighborhood and one day their dog got loose and attacked the man

Downloaded by [University of Colorado at Denver] at 20:16 24 February 2013

10

C. H. Leland and W. C. Kasten

Downloaded by [University of Colorado at Denver] at 20:16 24 February 2013

who lived in the big brick house on the corner. The teacher responded by telling Kevin now is not the time for stories and asking if he could point out another error in the sentence. When Kevin simply shrugged, she shook her head and asked Brian to help Kevin. Brian gave Kevin a scornful look and announced that of course the b in brown needed to be capitalized since brown was a name in this sentence. When the teacher turned her gaze to another part of the classroom, Kevin continued working on the shoelace. After the sentence had been dissected to the teachers satisfaction, each student was given a worksheet with similar examples to correct independently. Kevin looked at the paper brie y and then turned his attention back to the knot. Ten minutes later, when the teacher collected the worksheets and found that Kevins was still blank, she sighed and told him that he would have to miss recess again.

This vignette illustrates many important characteristics of the industrial models legacy to education. First, in terms of organization, this was a graded classroom. Everybody was about the same age and was supposed to be learning=doing the same thing. The expectations were the same for everyone, and Kevin, the struggling learner, was allowed to fail. Literacy and curriculum, contextualized by the teacher as sets of predetermined skills, were operationalized in this instance as conventions to be learned. The sentence in the lesson was presented as a decontextualized piece of language that served no purpose other than a starting point for dissection. Kevins attempt to personalize the grammar exercise by relating the sentence to the Mrs. and Mrs. Brown in his own life was seen by the teacher as engaging in off-topic behavior. In factory terms, Kevin could not be allowed to stray from the assembly line (Newkirk & McClure, 1996). By asking who would be the rst to answer her question, the teacher stressed competition more than collaboration. This focus was later reaf rmed by the type of help she provided for a student who was not meeting her criteria for success. Throughout the interaction, the teacher assumed the role of manager (or factory foreman) rather than facilitator.

ALTERNATIVE TO THE FACTORY: SCHOOL AS VILLAGE, STUDENT AS INQUIRER

Goodlad (1984) rejects the relatively simplistic input7output factory model and argues that schools are better understood as little villages in which individuals interact on a part-time basis within a relatively constrained and con ning environment ( p. 113). In accordance with Goodlads analogy, Reich (1989) argues that students (inhabitants of the village) should learn how to share their understandings and build on each others

Literary Education for the 21st Century

11

insights rather than being trained for a type of high-volume standardized production ( p. 102). Another point of connection between a classroom and a village can be made in terms of how the people in the village conduct their lives. Put in simple terms, they pursue what they nd interesting. A villager might decide to sh for a living if s=he has a consuming desire to go shing every day. Similarly, a villager might decide to become a cook if s=he loves to mess around with ingredients and utensils and often comes up with tasty results. Generally speaking, villagers have some degree of choice relating to how they will spend their time. Dewey (1916) supported the same line of thinking when he described school as primarily a social institution that should represent real life. He viewed schools as institutions that functioned best as authentic social communities (Archambault, 1964). This, then, differs greatly from classrooms based on the factory model, where few real choices are offered. Students like Kevin, who choose to spend their time in ways that the teacher has not sanctioned, are seen as de cient in terms of both their behavior and their development of essential skills. A classroom based on the inquiry model of education, however, is more like a village, as Dewey also proposed. Because the teacher has not predetermined the entire curriculum, students are invited to participate in making decisions about how they and others in the class will spend their time. In addition, classrooms based on the inquiry model exist not to silence students but rather to provide opportunities for hearing their voices (Harste, 1994). This model evolved from constructivist learning theory, which states that humans construct knowledge for themselves, drawing from their experiences, and with or without the guidance and support of others (Weaver, 1994, p. 341). Teachers in inquiry classrooms see their role as facilitating students learning rather than directing it. Copenhavers (1993) description of Explorers Club in a fth-grade classroom and Harste and Lelands (1998) description of an inquiry-based teacher education program are instances of this model in practice. These examples support Eisners (1990) argument that while uniformity of outcome was regarded as a major educational virtue in traditional models, the cultivation of productive differences is an important goal in an inquiry model. Vignette 2 shows how the inquiry model plays out in a contemporary racially diverse urban classroom:
My rst observation upon entering Ms. Hills multiage classroom was that nobody looked up or paid the slightest attention to my arrival. The room was not quiet as children were working in groups and talking about the research for their chosen inquiry projects. I joined a group that included two eightyear-old boys (Sam and Joe) and a six-year-old girl (Holly). These children were working together because they were all interested in learning more

Downloaded by [University of Colorado at Denver] at 20:16 24 February 2013

12

C. H. Leland and W. C. Kasten

Downloaded by [University of Colorado at Denver] at 20:16 24 February 2013

about the brain. As I pulled up a chair, the boys were taking turns reading from a reference book and Holly was listening and sketching a diagram of the brain from a different book. The technical text was challenging for Joe, but with Sams help, he was able to gure most of it out. Every few minutes, the reading stopped and all three children discussed a point that had been made or a question that they had. Although their conversations sometimes strayed from the topic (as when Sam said that his uncle liked to eat cows brains and he thought that was really gross but wondered what they tasted like), none of the children seemed to think this was a problem, and eventually the group got itself back on track. After a while, Holly said that she wanted a turn reading and Joe assumed the role of helper for her. Sam moved over and leafed through another reference as he listened and made occasional comments. When Ms. Hill stopped by to check their progress, all three children chimed in with what they had learned about the brain that day. The teacher took notes as they talked and didnt interrupt when Joes observations about parts of the brain were somewhat confused. Instead, she suggested that they might want to construct a model of the brain next time and asked them to gure out what materials would be best for doing this. As the time for cleaning up and going to lunch approached , the three collaborators decided that Play Doh would work for the model, and that each of them would take a book home that afternoon to continue nding out stuff about the brain.

This vignette illustrates many components of the inquiry model. Instead of showing a graded classroom where children are grouped by age, this classroom shows the learning that can occur when older and younger children work together. Curriculum in this instance is built around the interests and inquiry questions of the learners, and choices have been provided for them. Literacy in this classroom is contextualized as a way to explore topics of personal interest while building and negotiating meaning with others. In terms of individual difference, there are different expectations for each child and struggling learners are supported. Instead of competing with each other, the learners engage in a form of collaboration that bene ts all of them. The teacher in this classroom serves as a facilitator, not a manager. Her major role of interaction is to provide the means for enabling the students to learn from engaging in activities that pose problems to be solved (Wells & Chang-Wells, 1996, p. 158) . The two vignettes highlight the major differences between the factory model and the inquiry model of education. These differences are summarized in Table 1. What remains to be determined is the potential long- and short-term effects of each of the two models. One result that seems clear is that many children, especially struggling readers and writers, are left behind in the factory model. While a case can be made for the ef cacy of providing

Literary Education for the 21st Century

13

TABLE 1 Characteristics of Factory and Inquiry Models

Industrial Model Purpose of education Conformity, obedience Prepare learner for factory job Behaviorism Classes graded by age Homogeneous groups Inquiry Model Critical thinking, creativity Prepare learner for information=technology Social constructivism Multiage classes Heterogeneous groups

Learning model S tructure

Downloaded by [University of Colorado at Denver] at 20:16 24 February 2013

Curriculum Instruction Assessment Role of Learner Role of Teacher Role of Parents Role of Administrator Type of literacy required

3 Rs, narrow, fact-based Text-based, transmission Uniform, standardized

Multi-faceted, problem solving Multiple sources, transaction Authentic, diverse Active, construct knowledge

Passive, receive knowledge Foreman, clerk

Follow dictates of school Supervisor, manager

Co-learner, facilitator Instructional leader, co-learner Translation, critical

Partner in decision-making

Decoding, defining, analyzing

outside help for struggling learners like Kevin, the fact remains that this help must be molded to t the demands of the classroom. As long as the classroom experience is unengaging and unconnected for Kevin, he most likely will not look like a successful learner. Replacing the factory model with the inquiry model, on the other hand, provides more opportunities for all children to succeed.

WHAT DO WE REALLY WANT?

As early as 1904, people like Margaret Haley were already well aware of the problems that would inevitably result from the movement to make schools more like factories. Almost a century later, her words are still ironically relevant:
Two ideals are struggling for supremacy in American life today: one the industrial ideal, dominating through the supremacy of commercialism, which subordinates the worker to the product and the machine; the other, the ideal of democracy, the ideal of the educators, which places humanity above all machines, and demands that all activity shall be the expression of life. (cited in Myers, 1996, p. 85)

14

C. H. Leland and W. C. Kasten

Downloaded by [University of Colorado at Denver] at 20:16 24 February 2013

Perhaps the ideal of democracy is where our conversations and plans all need to begin. It seems safe to assume that the future holds many challenges and that citizens of the twenty- rst century will have to work together to meet these challenges. In addition, it became increasingly clear during the waning years of the twentieth century that memorizing facts doesnt solve problems, and that people need to be able to use knowledge exibly in different contexts. If this is true, then the factory model has outlived its purpose and cannot provide what we now need. As Clinchy (1993) notes, asking an educational system based on that old model to take on the task of preparing our children for twenty- rst century life is like asking a Model T Ford to compete in the Indianapolis 500 ( p. 608). None of us wants to drive a car that was engineered with technology from 100 years ago; none of us wants to have surgery based on medical knowledge from 100 years ago. As educators, we know that the industrial model has been and still is the source of myriad problems both for us and our students. It is time to reinvent the factories that charade as schoolsand the schools that charade as factories. What do we want for our childrenall of our children? Can we serve all our children with an archaic model that was intended for manufacturing merchandise? How can we provide a setting designed to nurture the growth, development, and education of human beings? These are some of the questions that are addressed in this issue. The answers lie in how successful we are in removing factory-type expectations from schools and replacing them with expectations to teach, assess, and value children as individuals. As educators who are dedicated to all of our students, this is something we must do.

REFERENCES
Archambault, R. D. (1964) . J ohn Dewey on education: S elected writings. New York: The Modern Library. Bethel, D. M. (1973) . M akiguchi: The value creator. New York: Weatherhill. Callahan, R. E. (1962). Education and the cult of ef ciency. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Clinchy, E. (1993) . Needed: A Clinton crusade for quality and equality. Phi Delta Kappan, 74, 6057612. Copenhaver, J. (1993). Instances of inquiry. Primary Voices K76, 1, 6712. Cuban L. (1972) . The managerial imperative and the practice of leadership in schools. Albany, NY: SUNY. Dewey, J. (1916) . Democracy and education. New York: McMillan. Eisner, E. (1990) . Implications of artistic intelligences for education. In W. J. Moody (Ed.), Artistic intelligences: Implications for Education ( pp. 31742). New York: Teachers College Press. Eisner, E. (1994) . The educational imagination: On the design and evaluation of school programs. New York: Macmillan.

Literary Education for the 21st Century

15

Downloaded by [University of Colorado at Denver] at 20:16 24 February 2013

Fosnot, C. T. (1989) . Enquiring teachers, enquiring learners. New York: Teachers College Press. Gardner, H. (1991) . The school of the future. In J. Brockman (Ed.), Ways of Knowing (2017217) . New York: Prentice-Hall. Goodland, J. I. (1984) . A place called school: Prospects for the future. New York: McGrawHill. Harste, J. C. (1994) . Literacy as curricular conversations about knowledge, inquiry, and morality. In R. Ruddell, M. Ruddell, & H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical M odels and Processes of Reading ( pp. 122071242) . Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Harste, J. C., & Leland, C. H. (1998) . No quick x: Education as inquiry. Reading Research and Instructions, 37(3), 1917206. Katz, M. B. (1971) . Class, bureaucracy, and schools: The illusion of educational change in America. New York: Praeger Publishers. Kliebard, H. (1971) . Bureaucracy and curriculum theory. In V. Haubrich (Ed.), Bureaucracy and schooling ( pp. 74793). Washington, DC: ASCD. Myers, M. (1996) . Changing our minds: Negotiating English and literacy. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Newkirk, T., & McClure, P. (1996) . Telling stories. In B. Power & R. Hubbard (Eds.), Language development: A reader for teachers ( pp. 1327138) . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Merrill. Oliver, D. W. (1976) . Education and community. Berkeley, CA: McCuthan Publishing Corp. Reich, R. B. (1989) . The resurgent liberal (and other unfashionable prophecies). New York: Random House. Tyack, D. B. (1974) . The one best system: A history of American urban education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Van Manen, M. (1991) . Re ectivity and the pedagogical moment: The normativity of pedagogica1 thinking and acting. J ournal of Curriculum S tudies, 23(6), 5077536. Weaver, C. (1994) . Reading process and practice: From socio-psycholinguistics to whole language (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Wells, G., & Chang-Wells, G. (1996) . The literate potential of collaborative talk. In B. Power & R. Hubbard (Eds.), Language development: A reader for teachers ( pp. 1557167). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Merrill.