Race and Ability Talk in Early Childhood: Critical Inquiry into Shared Book Reading Practices with Pre-Service Teachers

Abstract

In early childhood contexts, reading literature to engage children in critical discussions about ability and race – and how it impacts their daily lives – is a promising practice. Indeed, critical literacy scholars see the use of language, text, and discourse structures as powerful ways to address inequity in educational settings (Gainer, 2013; Luke, 2012; Rodriguez & Cho, 2011). However, research investigating the ways in which teachers and young children participate in dialogue about ability and race through shared-book reading is sparse. Further, research on ways pre-service teachers’ identities and experiences mediate these classroom interactions is limited (Aboud et al., 2012; Yu, Ostrosky, & Fowler, 2012). This study investigated how four pre-service teachers constructed identities and transformed their practice as they facilitated dialogue about ability and race with young children during shared-book reading in preschool fieldwork placements. Grounded in a humanizing stance (Paris, 2011) and conceptually framed through sociocultural theory (de Valenzuela, 2013; Rogoff, 2003; Vygotsky, 1978), discourse theory (Alim, 2005; Gee, 2014; Fairclough & Wodak, 1997; Rogers, 2011), and Disability Critical Race Theory (Annamma et al., 2013), this qualitative multiple-case study aimed to inform future early childhood educators in facilitating critical conversations about ability and race with young learners. Data collection sources included: interviews with pre-service teachers, mentor teachers, and children; shared-book reading video data; and pre-service teachers’ Critical Conversation Journey Maps (adapted from Annamma, 2017). Results from Critical Discourse Analysis and across-case thematic analysis demonstrated that pre-service teacher participants controlled the amount of child talk and ways children could contribute to talk during shared book reading. When topics of ability and race were discussed, pre-service teachers constructed themselves as experts, focused on naming physical differences, and emphasized universal sameness. In doing so, pre-service teachers conveyed the notion that individual differences of ability and race are neutral and did not engage in conversations about the consequences of ability and race in children’s lives. Given what they gleaned from their early educational experiences, experiences in university coursework, and fieldwork, pre-service teachers had few means by which to enter critical conversations about ability and race with young children during shared book reading. Co-analyses of discursive interactions led pre-service teachers to consider young children’s conceptualizations of ability and race, and pre-service teachers recognized the need to talk about ability and race with young children. Even as pre-service teachers felt challenged by the conversations they had with children throughout the study, reflecting on ability and race talk allowed them to see new possibilities for their future practice. Implications for teacher education and future research are discussed. By examining the multifaceted nature of pre-service teachers’ social, professional, and discursive identities in practice, this study contributes to understanding how to support pre-service teachers with engaging young children in critical dialogue about ability and race in early childhood classrooms.