| The purpose of this study was two fold: (1) to describe the metalinguistic awareness of three culturally diverse first grade boys and (2) to examine the relationship between evidence of metalinguistic awareness and success in classroom literacy learning. Literacy learning discourse and two sets of interviews were analyzed for evidence of metalinguistic awareness. One set was conducted by the researcher and one set by a five year old male. Success in literacy learning was displayed via construction of a profile which combined teacher evaluations, results on reading series criterion tests, Clay's Concepts About Print Survey, Sand, (1972) Clay's (1972) written language evaluation scale, and observed classroom literacy behavior.;The Mehan (1979) discourse analysis format was utilized to display teacher and student subject turns in discourse. Clark's (1977) points of metalinguistic awareness evidence from "What Children Say and Do" was used to analyze evidence of metalinguistic awareness in literacy learning discourse. Both instructor conducted and near-to-peer conducted interview responses were utilized as descriptive data, and were, therefore, summarized for each subject.;Interpretation of the data yielded the following answers to the research questions addressed in this study.;In the classroom context of this study, metalinguistic awareness was reflected in literacy learning discourse.;This descriptive research effort was based in a first grade classroom in a recently desegregated urban school. The literacy learning discourse that occurred between and among an experienced first grade teacher from the mainstream culture and three of her male students, one each from the mainstream culture, Appalachian culture, and inner-city Black culture, was collected via the use of audio and video tapes.;Metalinguistic awareness was evidenced differently in classroom literacy learning discourse and interview procedures. These differences related to range of metalinguistic awareness, specific areas of metalinguistic misconceptions, and awareness of pragmatic rules for language use in the classroom.;Differences in evidence of metalinguistic awareness were evidenced by the Appalachian, inner-city Black, and mainstream cultures. The differences, however, did not follow the differences anticipated on the basis of cultural differences.;A mismatch existed in the nature of metalinguistic awareness demonstrated by the subjects to be operant for them in literacy learning and the aspects of metalinguistic awareness demonstrated by the teacher to be operant in literacy learning instruction. This mismatch concerned concepts of words and letters, aspects of the Language Instruction Register, and the relationship of synthetic phonics to reading.;Each of the individual subjects demonstrated increased evidence of metalinguistic awareness in classroom discourse as they progressed in becoming literate. However, the subject having the lowest literacy success profile displayed evidence of a high level of metalinguistic awareness, while the subject with the highest level of literacy success displayed specific areas of metalinguistic confusion, as did the subject with moderate to low literacy success. A complex relationship, therefore, apparently exists between metalinguistic awareness and literacy learning.;A degree of resolution is offered to the question of whether metalinguistic awareness is a prerequisite, facilitator, or result of successful literacy learning and suggestions are made for future directions for study in this field. |
