Theoretical Framework
From a theoretical point of view, Wohlwend tries to cover too much: a mention of Mediated Discourse Theory, Social Development Theory, Feminist Theory, Sociocultural Theory, Structuralist Theory, and Activity Theory and then a mention of theories of class distinction (theory of practice), and cultural studies of media contribute to a multiple theory mayhem. As noted under the section ‘Situating the Article’, it is an unnecessary labyrinth for this particular study. What must be considered is that "different theories will [always] shape different views" (Knobel and Lankshear, 2008, p.61). An understanding of theory lays the foundational beginnings of studies, but the foundation of Wohlwend's study is simply too large and is never fully unpacked for the audience for whom it was intended to reach. This is Wohlwend's error and thus the fuel of this critique. If good research seeks and needs to be "elegant" and "fit" seamlessly, then Wohlwend's theoretical approach fails because of the hybridity. Wohlwend's push for the amalgamated academic schools of thought in her work and her use of name dropping tactics, lists a who's who of specific fields (Scollon, Vygotsky, Gee, and Foucault) while leaving out others, ultimately leads the intended audience to question the relevance of this study’s foundation and possibly her results. "Research must always be informed by some theory or other... [and] the theories we draw on influence how we use the data that exists in documents to address our research question and what we see as relevant data in the first place" (Lankshear & Knobel, 2008, p. 61). Thus, a narrower but deeper scope theoretically would have elevated Wohlwend's credibility. Placing an emphasis on feminist theory and sociocultural theory by unpacking areas of relevance would elevate her status as an author and academic as well as support her interpretation of results.
Feminist theory is identified in waves. Perhaps if Wohlwend had identified with second wave theorist, Simone De Beauvoir instead of third wave theorists Davies and Butler, her position would have laid a stronger foundation in feminist theory. Every Wave of Feminism has theorized and contributes to the study of gender and identity, but it is the voice and work of Simone De Beauvoir, that has become the foundation of contemporary feminism. Thus, the feminist theoretical framework must begin here, with this voice who Wohlwend unfortunately ignores because as De Beauvoir (1989) stated "one is not born, but rather becomes, a woman" (p. 267). Essentially, De Beauvoir tells us that the society in which a girl is reared is responsible for ultimately shaping and developing a woman's femininity. Wohlwend's study certainly exemplifies this as we see young girls act and reenact Disney princess play. Although, boys and girls use their bodies in childhood as instruments or texts to understand the world, it is what they learn from the world that established the notion of what De Beauvoir identifies as the OTHER. "The passivity that is the essential characteristic of the "feminine" woman is a trait that develops in her from the earliest years... it is in fact a destiny imposed upon her by her teachers and by society" (De Beauvoir, 1989, p. 280). If we are to understand the struggle a young girl would face to rewrite a familiar text that is ingrained in her mind because of being socialized and exposed to popular culture then we need to understand De Beauvoir's (1989) message as she noted that "games and daydreams orient [a] little girl toward passivity" (p. 293). If young girls strive to emulate the princess text modeled by Disney then they stifle their voices and conform to the position of OTHER. Strength is not typically associated with the Disney feminine, passivity is; this is the difficulty young girls face as they negotiate boundaries of femininity. "To be feminine is to appear weak, futile, docile... any self-assertion will diminish her femininity and her attractiveness" ( de Beauvoir, 1989, p. 336). The text of OTHER is familiar to both young girls and boys.
"Woman is the Sleeping Beauty, Cinderella, Snow White, she who receives and submits.
In song and story the young man is seen departing adventurously in search of woman; he
slays the dragon, he battles giants; she is locked in a tower, a palace, a garden, a cave, she is chained to a rock, a captive, sound asleep: she waits"(De Beauvoir, 1989, p. 291). What makes Wohlwend's work both fascinating and worth exploring is that her subject broke free of the familiar story line and oppressive identity and found a voice that allowed the text to be rewritten and as De Beauvoir argued for feminism to progress as a movement, the male as superior ideal must be set aside.
December 22, 2009
September 25, 2009
July 11, 2009
The Art of Critical Pedagogy... My Questions
Do I challenge the banking model?
Am I aware of the challenges of false generosity?
Am I reflective so as to avoid becoming a sub-opressor?
Do I challenge the "zero paradigm"?
Am I a living example of my politics?
Do I use my social mobility to uplift?
Am I aware of the challenges of false generosity?
Am I reflective so as to avoid becoming a sub-opressor?
Do I challenge the "zero paradigm"?
Am I a living example of my politics?
Do I use my social mobility to uplift?
The Art of Critical Pedagogy... Challenges
Society perpetuates the belief that someone has to fail academically. We buy into the “largely unchallenged pedagogical system of grading and testing that by its very design guarantees failure for some” (Andrade & Morrell, 2008, p. 2). Academic failure and success hinge on culture and as Andrade and Morrell (2008) noted, schools are where the socio-economic sorting begins because of deemed economic failure. “To a large degree, the public discourse recognizes but leaves unchallenged the fact that wealthier communities have better educational opportunities… The few exceptional students who… succeed play an important role in this myth making.. publicizing rags-to-riches stories” (Andrade & Morrell, 2008, p. 3). If these stories exist, than opportunity exists, and the lie of equal opportunity can continue. Schools are systems of “inequality by design” (Andrade and Morrell, 2008), “academic apartheid” (Akom, 2003), and a “crisis of civil rights” (Harvard Civil Rights Project, 2005). Essentially, our school systems perpetuate the false narrative of opportunity for all.
References:
Andrade, D. A., and Morrell, E. (2008) The Art of Critical Pedagogy: Possibilities for Moving from Theory to Practice in Urban Schools. New York, N.Y.: Peter Lang Publishers.
References:
Andrade, D. A., and Morrell, E. (2008) The Art of Critical Pedagogy: Possibilities for Moving from Theory to Practice in Urban Schools. New York, N.Y.: Peter Lang Publishers.
July 10, 2009
Critical Pedagogy
Freire's critical pedagogy is cyclical and asks that first that the problem be identified then analyzed. A plan of action has to be created to address the problem and of course the plan must then be implemented. Finally, the action must be analyzed and evaluated before the cycle is repeated again.
Engaging Sexual-Minority... Cultural Literacy Matters!
Cultural literacy is crucial if we are to engage all our students in the classroom. It heteronormativity is culturally engrained what are we prepared to do for our students to both support and enlighten them about the world around them?
Quotes of importance to me:
“Youth who grow into sustainable resilience value self-knowledge and have self-understanding that enables them to be reflexive as they make casual connections between their experiences and their resulting emotional impact” (Grace, 2009, p. 4).
“A transformation of heterosexualizing schools that have traditionally maintained the heteronormative status quo is necessary if there is to be systemic change to make learning and life better for sexual minorities” (Grace, 2009, p. 5).
“With school culture and the larger Canadian culture lagging behind legislation and the law in this inclusive approach, it is no wonder that more and more students feel the need to realize these legal and legislative protections in their everyday schooling and lives through their own efforts to fight heterosexism and homophobia in classrooms, corridors, and communities” (Grace & Wells, 2009, p. 28).
“Schooling has historically been about preserving the status quo and tradition, which, in regard to sex, sexuality, and gender, means assuming the exclusive morality of heterosexuality and the limited ontology of two biological sexes as cultural imperatives” (Grace & Wells, 2009 p. 29).
“Coming out is a lifelong process that involves consideration of individual comfort, safety, vulnerability, and perceived levels of support and acceptance” (Grace & Wells, 2009, p. 33).
"In reality, changes in law and legislation accepting and accommodating sexual minorities have been slow to permeate Canada’s dominant culture and society. In general, sexual orientations and gender identities that lie outside the confines of heteronormativity remain problematic and often unacceptable, especially to social conservatives” (Grace & Wells, 2007, p. 102).
References:
Grace, A. P. (2006). Writing the queer self: Using autobiography to mediate inclusive teacher education in Canada. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22, 826-834.
Grace, A. p. (2009, June 23-26). Resilient sexual minority youth as fugitive lifelong learners: Engaging is a strategic, asset-creating, community-based learning process to counter exclusion and trauma in formal schooling. Proceedings of the 2009 International Lifelong Learning Conference of the Scottish Centre for Research in Lifelong Learning Stirling, UK: CRLL, University of Stirling.
Grace, A.P. & Wells, K. (2009). Gay and bisexual male youth as educator activists and cultural workers: The queer critical praxis of three Canadian high-school students. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 13:1, 23-44.
Grace, A. P. & Wells, K. (2007a). Using Freirean pedagogy of just ire to inform critical social learning in arts-informed community education for sexual minorities. Adult Education Quarterly, 57:2, 95-114.
Quotes of importance to me:
“Youth who grow into sustainable resilience value self-knowledge and have self-understanding that enables them to be reflexive as they make casual connections between their experiences and their resulting emotional impact” (Grace, 2009, p. 4).
“A transformation of heterosexualizing schools that have traditionally maintained the heteronormative status quo is necessary if there is to be systemic change to make learning and life better for sexual minorities” (Grace, 2009, p. 5).
“With school culture and the larger Canadian culture lagging behind legislation and the law in this inclusive approach, it is no wonder that more and more students feel the need to realize these legal and legislative protections in their everyday schooling and lives through their own efforts to fight heterosexism and homophobia in classrooms, corridors, and communities” (Grace & Wells, 2009, p. 28).
“Schooling has historically been about preserving the status quo and tradition, which, in regard to sex, sexuality, and gender, means assuming the exclusive morality of heterosexuality and the limited ontology of two biological sexes as cultural imperatives” (Grace & Wells, 2009 p. 29).
“Coming out is a lifelong process that involves consideration of individual comfort, safety, vulnerability, and perceived levels of support and acceptance” (Grace & Wells, 2009, p. 33).
"In reality, changes in law and legislation accepting and accommodating sexual minorities have been slow to permeate Canada’s dominant culture and society. In general, sexual orientations and gender identities that lie outside the confines of heteronormativity remain problematic and often unacceptable, especially to social conservatives” (Grace & Wells, 2007, p. 102).
References:
Grace, A. P. (2006). Writing the queer self: Using autobiography to mediate inclusive teacher education in Canada. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22, 826-834.
Grace, A. p. (2009, June 23-26). Resilient sexual minority youth as fugitive lifelong learners: Engaging is a strategic, asset-creating, community-based learning process to counter exclusion and trauma in formal schooling. Proceedings of the 2009 International Lifelong Learning Conference of the Scottish Centre for Research in Lifelong Learning Stirling, UK: CRLL, University of Stirling.
Grace, A.P. & Wells, K. (2009). Gay and bisexual male youth as educator activists and cultural workers: The queer critical praxis of three Canadian high-school students. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 13:1, 23-44.
Grace, A. P. & Wells, K. (2007a). Using Freirean pedagogy of just ire to inform critical social learning in arts-informed community education for sexual minorities. Adult Education Quarterly, 57:2, 95-114.
July 9, 2009
What lens is used?
Who's literacy should matter? Who should get to set the standards or frames of literacy?
Being a Woman... The Underside of Schooling
This article was hard to read because of who I am… a woman, a student, a teacher and soon to be a single mother. Could my soon to be single-parent family be defective in comparison to the “normal” family? Will the preknowledge of my daughter be questioned because of it?
Quotes that made me think:
“A key component of this engine of inequality is an educational system that relies on supplementary unpaid work in the home to produce its curriculum objectives” (Smith, 1998, p. 24).
“An engine of inequality has been described, interlocking the unpaid labor of (middle-class) women in the home and the local practices of schools. What a teacher can achieve in the classroom depends on the general level of the background educational work contributed by the home” (Smith, 1998, p. 24).
“Reassembled or retooled, the pieces of the old engine pull parents who have time, resources, and skills into intensifying their unpaid labor to supplement the work of schooling while dumping the children of those who don’t into an educational underclass” (Smith, 1998, p. 27).
References:
Smith, D. (1998) The Underside of Schooling. Restructuring, Privatization, and Women’s Unpaid Work. Journal for a Just and Caring Education, 4:1, 11-29.
Quotes that made me think:
“A key component of this engine of inequality is an educational system that relies on supplementary unpaid work in the home to produce its curriculum objectives” (Smith, 1998, p. 24).
“An engine of inequality has been described, interlocking the unpaid labor of (middle-class) women in the home and the local practices of schools. What a teacher can achieve in the classroom depends on the general level of the background educational work contributed by the home” (Smith, 1998, p. 24).
“Reassembled or retooled, the pieces of the old engine pull parents who have time, resources, and skills into intensifying their unpaid labor to supplement the work of schooling while dumping the children of those who don’t into an educational underclass” (Smith, 1998, p. 27).
References:
Smith, D. (1998) The Underside of Schooling. Restructuring, Privatization, and Women’s Unpaid Work. Journal for a Just and Caring Education, 4:1, 11-29.
July 8, 2009
Literate Citizenship
Both Phillis Wheatley and Helen Keller struggled to have their voices heard by a society that deemed them voiceless. Both these literate women were thought to be unable to grow mentally and they were perceived as less than or not part of normal society. Wheatley's colour of skin and Keller's deafness and blindness were enough to have their literate selves questioned.
July 7, 2009
What is missing?
This cartoon gives us something to think about. The medical model gives us plenty of information to use but at what cost? When discussing the future of education and taking differences into account, do we not need to use a social model to dialogue effectively and do what is best for our students?
Dewey's Contributions
There is a divide in the view of special education. Is special education to be viewed under the lens of medical model or social model? The models contrast and for the most part it is the medical model which has taken precedence.
Danforth clearly presents John Dewey as a major contributor to the educational philosophy of intellectual disability and promoter of the social model.
Consider the following quotes:
“Rather than conducting an evaluation based on the actual activities that an individual undertakes in daily life, intelligence tests simple classify a person based on a series of contextually disconnected activities, thereby providing no insight into the current or potential talents of an individual” (Danforth, 2008, p. 48).
“Given that different purposes or outcomes would require different standards of evaluation, it struck Dewey as illogical that one test could conduct a universal scale of value that somehow applied to all life’s contests and goals. Additionally, he noted that, given the difference social positions and cultures of various ethnic and racial groups, a test that demonstrates the superiority of one over another is merely failing to evaluate life activities engaged in by the supposedly inferior group” (Danforth, 2008, p. 49).
“Within a society cultivating a deep commitment to equality and an appreciation for the unique individuality of each citizen, a so-called universal test the creates hierarchical classes of citizens is as useful as a porous soup bowl” (Danforth, 2008, p. 50).
References:
Danforth, S. (2008) John Dewey’s Contributions To An Educational Philosophy Of Intellectual Disability. Educational Theory 58:1, 45-62.
Danforth clearly presents John Dewey as a major contributor to the educational philosophy of intellectual disability and promoter of the social model.
Consider the following quotes:
“Rather than conducting an evaluation based on the actual activities that an individual undertakes in daily life, intelligence tests simple classify a person based on a series of contextually disconnected activities, thereby providing no insight into the current or potential talents of an individual” (Danforth, 2008, p. 48).
“Given that different purposes or outcomes would require different standards of evaluation, it struck Dewey as illogical that one test could conduct a universal scale of value that somehow applied to all life’s contests and goals. Additionally, he noted that, given the difference social positions and cultures of various ethnic and racial groups, a test that demonstrates the superiority of one over another is merely failing to evaluate life activities engaged in by the supposedly inferior group” (Danforth, 2008, p. 49).
“Within a society cultivating a deep commitment to equality and an appreciation for the unique individuality of each citizen, a so-called universal test the creates hierarchical classes of citizens is as useful as a porous soup bowl” (Danforth, 2008, p. 50).
References:
Danforth, S. (2008) John Dewey’s Contributions To An Educational Philosophy Of Intellectual Disability. Educational Theory 58:1, 45-62.
Experiences with Paraprofessional Support
Broer, Doyle and Giangreco’s (2005) study examines the perspective of students with intellectual disabilities experiences with paraprofessional support.
Four themes emerged from the study:
1. Paraprofessional as Mother
2. Paraprofessional as Friend
3. Paraprofessional as Protector From Bullying
4. Paraprofessional as Primary Teacher
Each theme is interrelated and has both positive and negative aspects for the consumer, the student. Thus, there are implications for practice.
“What these students sought was so simple and yet foundational to quality education. They wanted to belong. They wanted to feel that they were worthy of the teacher’s time. They wanted to have friends. They wanted to go about their school day without fear or embarrassment. They wanted to learn. In too many cases they did not experience these basics, despite the fact that the attended general education classes and had the support of the paraprofessionals” (Broer, Doyle & Giangreco, 2005, p. 427).
References:
Broer, S., Doyle, M.B. & Giangreco, M. (2005) Perspectives of Students With Intellectual Disabilities About Their Experiences With Paraprofessional Support, Exceptional Children, 71:4, 415-430.
Four themes emerged from the study:
1. Paraprofessional as Mother
2. Paraprofessional as Friend
3. Paraprofessional as Protector From Bullying
4. Paraprofessional as Primary Teacher
Each theme is interrelated and has both positive and negative aspects for the consumer, the student. Thus, there are implications for practice.
“What these students sought was so simple and yet foundational to quality education. They wanted to belong. They wanted to feel that they were worthy of the teacher’s time. They wanted to have friends. They wanted to go about their school day without fear or embarrassment. They wanted to learn. In too many cases they did not experience these basics, despite the fact that the attended general education classes and had the support of the paraprofessionals” (Broer, Doyle & Giangreco, 2005, p. 427).
References:
Broer, S., Doyle, M.B. & Giangreco, M. (2005) Perspectives of Students With Intellectual Disabilities About Their Experiences With Paraprofessional Support, Exceptional Children, 71:4, 415-430.
Social Model of Literacy and Disability
Quotes of importance:
“Where the autonomous model regards literacy as an individual achievement, the medical model views disability as an individual problem” (Brewster, 2004, p. 46).
“The social model of disability acknowledges the oppression shared by all disabled people despite the widely differing nature of their intellectual, sensory or physical impairments” (Brewster, 2004, p. 47).
“If one adopts a social model of disability, the barriers to certain activities are often revealed to be not as a result of the impairments themselves” (Brewster, 2004, p. 49).
“A social perspective provides a useful framework for the study of disability and literacy. The approach brings into sharper focus the shortcomings of the traditional conceptualizations of the ‘medical model’ and of literacy being merely a set of cognitive skills. If these traditional models are retained, practitioners in both the disability and literacy fields will not be equipped to address these coexisting sources of disadvantage” (Brewster, 2004, p. 51).
References:
Brewster, S. (2004) Insights from a Social Model of Literacy and Disability. Literacy, UKLA
“Where the autonomous model regards literacy as an individual achievement, the medical model views disability as an individual problem” (Brewster, 2004, p. 46).
“The social model of disability acknowledges the oppression shared by all disabled people despite the widely differing nature of their intellectual, sensory or physical impairments” (Brewster, 2004, p. 47).
“If one adopts a social model of disability, the barriers to certain activities are often revealed to be not as a result of the impairments themselves” (Brewster, 2004, p. 49).
“A social perspective provides a useful framework for the study of disability and literacy. The approach brings into sharper focus the shortcomings of the traditional conceptualizations of the ‘medical model’ and of literacy being merely a set of cognitive skills. If these traditional models are retained, practitioners in both the disability and literacy fields will not be equipped to address these coexisting sources of disadvantage” (Brewster, 2004, p. 51).
References:
Brewster, S. (2004) Insights from a Social Model of Literacy and Disability. Literacy, UKLA
Competence
Biklen and Kliewer’s (2006) perspective of Blatt (1966) is powerful. I too know of no one who wants to be labeled in a way that disenfranchises them from society but yet I know people who will label others in a way to do so.
“Mainstreaming or integration were not for science to anoint. Whether or not to support integration was a matter of morality, not of science” (Biklen & Kliewer, 2006, p. 174).
Consider the idea of intelligence. Consider the idea of competence. Who sets the “norm” and what set of competences are being looked at? To often performance is the judged factor for intellect and competence.
Biklen and Kliewer (2006) present three principles so that we may consider that dis/ability and competence are socially constructed:
1. Disability Professionals have used labels that have become fixed with “medical abnormality” and are therefore loaded labels.
2. To understand the labelled person we need to understand the social context the label is being used in.
3. It is important to presume competence and abandon the negative lens of incompetence.
References:
Biklen, D. & Kliewer, C. (2006) Constructing Competence: Autism, Voice and the ‘Disordered’ Body. International Journal of Inclusive Education, Vol. 10:2, 169-188.
“Mainstreaming or integration were not for science to anoint. Whether or not to support integration was a matter of morality, not of science” (Biklen & Kliewer, 2006, p. 174).
Consider the idea of intelligence. Consider the idea of competence. Who sets the “norm” and what set of competences are being looked at? To often performance is the judged factor for intellect and competence.
Biklen and Kliewer (2006) present three principles so that we may consider that dis/ability and competence are socially constructed:
1. Disability Professionals have used labels that have become fixed with “medical abnormality” and are therefore loaded labels.
2. To understand the labelled person we need to understand the social context the label is being used in.
3. It is important to presume competence and abandon the negative lens of incompetence.
References:
Biklen, D. & Kliewer, C. (2006) Constructing Competence: Autism, Voice and the ‘Disordered’ Body. International Journal of Inclusive Education, Vol. 10:2, 169-188.
Inclusion
Biklen (2000) challenges us to consider how we “conceptualize and practice inclusive schooling in light of critical disability narratives” (p. 337). Disability, after all, can be socially constructed.
Four themes to consider:
•resisting a static understanding of disability
•creating and finding context for experiencing competence
•resistance to normate narratives
•honouring the experiences of disability
“The good teacher always sees his or her task as that of finding a better strategy, where the teacher is a coach rather than a judge, someone who looks for and fosters dialogue, and where demonstrated ability evolves through a reflective process rather than a contested one” (Biklen, 2000, p. 345). This is not a new idea… so why hasn’t beneficial inclusion become the norm or happened? Do we as educator’s help perpetuate the educational bias?
The one thing I am certain about is that fostering self advocacy in our students is very important.
References:
Biklen, D. (2000) Constructing Inclusion: Lessons from Critical, Disability Narratives. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 4:4, 337-353.
Four themes to consider:
•resisting a static understanding of disability
•creating and finding context for experiencing competence
•resistance to normate narratives
•honouring the experiences of disability
“The good teacher always sees his or her task as that of finding a better strategy, where the teacher is a coach rather than a judge, someone who looks for and fosters dialogue, and where demonstrated ability evolves through a reflective process rather than a contested one” (Biklen, 2000, p. 345). This is not a new idea… so why hasn’t beneficial inclusion become the norm or happened? Do we as educator’s help perpetuate the educational bias?
The one thing I am certain about is that fostering self advocacy in our students is very important.
References:
Biklen, D. (2000) Constructing Inclusion: Lessons from Critical, Disability Narratives. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 4:4, 337-353.
June 20, 2009
Special Topics in Literacy: Communication and Mathematics Eductation
This picture is too funny! How many times have we seen this face in a Math class as student works to find his or her Literacy?
June 16, 2009
Special Topics in Literacy: Equity Issues in Mathematics Education
There are always issues of equity in any classroom or learning community. Having been first a learner, and then a teacher, in a mixed gender classroom, I experienced the stereotypical boys are math students and girls are language students. I feel I never truly questioned this stereotype until I began teaching at an all girls’ school. I do know that there were always girls in my class who were strong math students, just as there were always boys who were strong language students, but for the most part gender stereotypes did exist within subjects. Longstanding questions still exist that ask teachers to consider subjects, and aspects of teaching and learning, based upon issues of gender. How do you engage girls in math is just as relevant as how do you engage boys in language today as it was when I was a student in primary school.
As a learner, I found math classes typically competitive. Whoever knew the answer first was good at math. Typically it was a boy! I also found that typically math questions were set up as personal challenges. Boys seemed to like the competitive dynamic in the challenge and possessed the confidence to both answer and ask questioned. They appeared to me to not be afraid to be wrong while I couldn’t bring myself to shared my thoughts publicly. I didn’t have the confidence nor did I have the mathematical processing speed the boys to have.
As a teacher of the early years, I found my math classes competitive because of my students. Boys seemed to want to take control of manipulatives and want to verbally share their answers. They were quick to respond and took academic risks. They wanted to work independently. This seemed to validate my experiences as a learner. Girls were the opposite. They were more comfortable working in collaborative groups and did not exhibit that competitive confidence the boys did. What I know now is that boys and girls benefit form different instructional approaches to math explorations.
I am now teaching at an independent single gender school, a girls’ school. The stereotype of gender and predisposed ability cannot exist in this environment. At my independent girls school, girls excel in all subjects not because of their gender but regardless of the gender: gender in not a variable to be considered here. We program with girls in mind and professional development is always gender and brain focused. Dr. Deak’s work on what makes girls tick has been explored. Deak’s understanding of brain research along with Dr. Cox’s work on executive control has helped my teaching and learning community continue to consider gender and brain research as important to student success.
Most recently, an investigative report from UCLA’s Graduate School of Education & Information Studies found that “48 percent of female graduates of independent single-sex schools rate their math ability as either “above average” or within the “highest 10 percent” compared to 37 percent of independent coeducational graduates” (Sax, 2009, pg. 7). The report also found that girls, coming from a single gender classroom, are three times more likely to consider a career in Engineering. What I find most fascinating and important in Dr. Sax’s report was that girls in an independent single-sex school environment feel they have higher academic self-confidence.
I am committed to my students. I program appropriately for them considering their learning styles and I insist on group explorations to build confidence. We “talk the math” in my class. Everyone contributes, right or wrong, because they feel safe to take academic risks. A wrong answer is always a learning opportunity and in safe and collaborative environment girls will take mathematical risks.
Work Cited:
Sax, L. J., Arms, E., Woodruff, M., Riggers, T., & Eagan, K. (2009). Women Graduates of Singe-Sex and Coeducational High Schools: Differences in the characteristics and the Transition to College. Los Angeles: The Sudikoff Family Institute for Educational & New Media UCLA Graduate School Studies & Information Studies.
www.gseis.ucla.edu/sudikoff
As a learner, I found math classes typically competitive. Whoever knew the answer first was good at math. Typically it was a boy! I also found that typically math questions were set up as personal challenges. Boys seemed to like the competitive dynamic in the challenge and possessed the confidence to both answer and ask questioned. They appeared to me to not be afraid to be wrong while I couldn’t bring myself to shared my thoughts publicly. I didn’t have the confidence nor did I have the mathematical processing speed the boys to have.
As a teacher of the early years, I found my math classes competitive because of my students. Boys seemed to want to take control of manipulatives and want to verbally share their answers. They were quick to respond and took academic risks. They wanted to work independently. This seemed to validate my experiences as a learner. Girls were the opposite. They were more comfortable working in collaborative groups and did not exhibit that competitive confidence the boys did. What I know now is that boys and girls benefit form different instructional approaches to math explorations.
I am now teaching at an independent single gender school, a girls’ school. The stereotype of gender and predisposed ability cannot exist in this environment. At my independent girls school, girls excel in all subjects not because of their gender but regardless of the gender: gender in not a variable to be considered here. We program with girls in mind and professional development is always gender and brain focused. Dr. Deak’s work on what makes girls tick has been explored. Deak’s understanding of brain research along with Dr. Cox’s work on executive control has helped my teaching and learning community continue to consider gender and brain research as important to student success.
Most recently, an investigative report from UCLA’s Graduate School of Education & Information Studies found that “48 percent of female graduates of independent single-sex schools rate their math ability as either “above average” or within the “highest 10 percent” compared to 37 percent of independent coeducational graduates” (Sax, 2009, pg. 7). The report also found that girls, coming from a single gender classroom, are three times more likely to consider a career in Engineering. What I find most fascinating and important in Dr. Sax’s report was that girls in an independent single-sex school environment feel they have higher academic self-confidence.
I am committed to my students. I program appropriately for them considering their learning styles and I insist on group explorations to build confidence. We “talk the math” in my class. Everyone contributes, right or wrong, because they feel safe to take academic risks. A wrong answer is always a learning opportunity and in safe and collaborative environment girls will take mathematical risks.
Work Cited:
Sax, L. J., Arms, E., Woodruff, M., Riggers, T., & Eagan, K. (2009). Women Graduates of Singe-Sex and Coeducational High Schools: Differences in the characteristics and the Transition to College. Los Angeles: The Sudikoff Family Institute for Educational & New Media UCLA Graduate School Studies & Information Studies.
www.gseis.ucla.edu/sudikoff
May 10, 2009
Special Topics in Literacy: Assessment Knowledge and Beliefs
As an early years teacher I know the importance self-esteem plays in my classroom. Students need to feel safe and part of the learning community to take academic risks and celebrate their personal achievements. In my grade one classroom our motto is be the best you can be. As an intermediate special education teacher and tutor I know the importance that self-esteem can and continues to play in students’ lives and the evident need for assessment for learning plays in preparing for assessment of learning tasks. I’m always saying things live give it a go and what a smart mistake. I believe students do need to give it a go and that mistakes are smart; they are opportunities for learning. Mistakes show thinking, right or wrong; the student that is willing to give an answer, right or wrong, I can help be the best they can be.
Primary teachers are use to scaffolding concepts for their little learners and recognize that classroom talk or discourse is important. I know that a teacher’s observations are very important. Teachers are leaders of the curriculum in the classroom but they are also the adult and in many ways the parent in the room. The role of teacher has expanded and evolved and the curriculum that calls for skill and drill can appear outdated or archaic by today’s socio-standards. “Yesterdays education for tomorrow’s kids” (Pensky, 2005, pg. 62) seems ridiculous. In my early years classroom, teaching and learning depends greatly on two things: student self esteem and student engagement. Prensky noted that “All the students we teach have something in their lives that’s really engaging-something that they do and that they are good at, something that has an engaging, creative component to it” (2005, pg. 62). I would add, students we teach need to feel safe and valued in a classroom if they are to reach their full potential and share their literacies while learning new ones.
I ask, why change classroom assessment? I answer, because society changes, and the learning and motivation of our students change. Assessment needs to be looked at differently so that all students benefit, differentiated learning can assist in bringing about quality in classroom assessment. As teachers what have we looked at in the past?
1. Credentials
2. Manufacturing the lie: 75.8% is better than 75.4%
3. Socio-economic background: the doctor’s kids
4. Automatic reactions
Learning needs to be the higher priority and learning happens when those things we believe to be true are challenged with new evidence. Adults seem to find this harder than children.
I ask if assessment is so important, why were we not taught how to do this effectively in our teacher education programmes? I feel cheated in some ways. I really should have had a solid grasp of assessment as a graduate from an education programme! “Lacking specific training, [we] rely heavily on the assessments offered by the publisher of their textbooks or instructional material… [we] treat assessments as evaluation devices to administer when instructional activities are completed and to use primarily for assigning students’ grades” (Guskey, 2003, p. 6). It shouldn’t be this way at all! Assessment should be a large component of teacher training programmes and teachers should feel that assessment is valuable because it improves student learning, it services the students needs. Assessment should be meaningful, on going, and achievable. Do we, as teachers, really need to include the “gotcha” question on a test if our goal is to watch our students succeed? NO. There is no need for test secrecy. Students should know what is expected of them clearly so that they can meet their full potential.
We, teachers, have perpetuated the lie. Changing assessment and assessment practices is a huge shift. High quality education for all is about excellence and equity; we should not comprise this! We need to come away from excellence and equity as a privilege as it is not fair to our students. When did we move from teacher as coach to teacher as judge? “Assessment can be a vital component in our efforts to improve education. But as long as we use them only as a means to rank schools and students, we will miss their most powerful benefits” (Guskey, 2003, p. 11). There is much, I still need to learn. I recognize that education cannot stay static. Just as society continues to evolve, so must our education system for administrators, teachers and students alike. There is much to gain if we support a change in assessment practices, think of the possibilities!
Work cited:
Guskey, T. R. (2003) How classroom assessments improve learning. Eductional Leadership, 60(5), 6-11.
http://pdonline.ascd.org/pd_online/teachbehave2/el200302_guskey.html
Prensky, M. (2005). “Engage me or enrage me”: What today’s learners demand. EDUCAUSE Review, 40(5), 60, 62, 64. http//www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERM0553.pdf
Primary teachers are use to scaffolding concepts for their little learners and recognize that classroom talk or discourse is important. I know that a teacher’s observations are very important. Teachers are leaders of the curriculum in the classroom but they are also the adult and in many ways the parent in the room. The role of teacher has expanded and evolved and the curriculum that calls for skill and drill can appear outdated or archaic by today’s socio-standards. “Yesterdays education for tomorrow’s kids” (Pensky, 2005, pg. 62) seems ridiculous. In my early years classroom, teaching and learning depends greatly on two things: student self esteem and student engagement. Prensky noted that “All the students we teach have something in their lives that’s really engaging-something that they do and that they are good at, something that has an engaging, creative component to it” (2005, pg. 62). I would add, students we teach need to feel safe and valued in a classroom if they are to reach their full potential and share their literacies while learning new ones.
I ask, why change classroom assessment? I answer, because society changes, and the learning and motivation of our students change. Assessment needs to be looked at differently so that all students benefit, differentiated learning can assist in bringing about quality in classroom assessment. As teachers what have we looked at in the past?
1. Credentials
2. Manufacturing the lie: 75.8% is better than 75.4%
3. Socio-economic background: the doctor’s kids
4. Automatic reactions
Learning needs to be the higher priority and learning happens when those things we believe to be true are challenged with new evidence. Adults seem to find this harder than children.
I ask if assessment is so important, why were we not taught how to do this effectively in our teacher education programmes? I feel cheated in some ways. I really should have had a solid grasp of assessment as a graduate from an education programme! “Lacking specific training, [we] rely heavily on the assessments offered by the publisher of their textbooks or instructional material… [we] treat assessments as evaluation devices to administer when instructional activities are completed and to use primarily for assigning students’ grades” (Guskey, 2003, p. 6). It shouldn’t be this way at all! Assessment should be a large component of teacher training programmes and teachers should feel that assessment is valuable because it improves student learning, it services the students needs. Assessment should be meaningful, on going, and achievable. Do we, as teachers, really need to include the “gotcha” question on a test if our goal is to watch our students succeed? NO. There is no need for test secrecy. Students should know what is expected of them clearly so that they can meet their full potential.
We, teachers, have perpetuated the lie. Changing assessment and assessment practices is a huge shift. High quality education for all is about excellence and equity; we should not comprise this! We need to come away from excellence and equity as a privilege as it is not fair to our students. When did we move from teacher as coach to teacher as judge? “Assessment can be a vital component in our efforts to improve education. But as long as we use them only as a means to rank schools and students, we will miss their most powerful benefits” (Guskey, 2003, p. 11). There is much, I still need to learn. I recognize that education cannot stay static. Just as society continues to evolve, so must our education system for administrators, teachers and students alike. There is much to gain if we support a change in assessment practices, think of the possibilities!
Work cited:
Guskey, T. R. (2003) How classroom assessments improve learning. Eductional Leadership, 60(5), 6-11.
http://pdonline.ascd.org/pd_online/teachbehave2/el200302_guskey.html
Prensky, M. (2005). “Engage me or enrage me”: What today’s learners demand. EDUCAUSE Review, 40(5), 60, 62, 64. http//www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERM0553.pdf
May 4, 2009
Special Topics in Literacy: Language Literacy
There are few issues that have emerged for me from my readings that “burn” me: race, gender, and inclusion. Inclusion, I feel, bothered me most because I can discuss inclusion from perspectives of race, gender, ability, economics and the list goes on.
As a teacher who deals with special needs of students, I become frustrated by the exclusion my students’ experiences. I cannot count the number of times I have had to approach a colleague to say Mary’s IEP states this or that so that she can better complete the task you have assigned. They do not always agree with me. Sometimes, I wonder if this is how my students feel, 15 and taking on a 50 year adult as to why the process has to be changed if they are to meet their personal best and full potential as students! It is frustrating to discuss and/or debate the need for change with someone who is not ready to listen, or someone who believes teaching is a top-down process. Sometimes when a teacher stops talking is when the learning really begins. The dialogue that occurs in a classroom, the questions that are asked and the responses given, is important for a teacher to observe and use when planning. How are we to challenge our students to think critically if we don’t listen to them? How are we to know what critical tools to plan for introduction? How are we to discover the tools that we may be missing critically?
I really do believe everyone has something to contribute to the discussion and that the classroom has to be a safe place where students can be encouraged to do so. I have discovered as a teacher that I have had similar experiences as some of my students and some experiences I will never have. I have had many experiences. I have been the English as a second language student and the Latin student but I have not been the student of colour, physical disability or learning disability. I have something to share, my experiences, but also have something to learn about, the experiences of others.
In the last 3 years I have worked to foster self-advocacy in my students. I want my students to know and understand who they are and what they need to be successful and present. I want them to feel and know they are “someone”. I want them to read the world around them, examine it and question it. I do not want my IEP students to accept things as they are; they should know that in our school setting they can and should examine the world and how they fit into it, and are part of it, while being supported. They should feel that their teachers are on their side, that teachers want the best for them. When students do feel that their teachers are on their side, the classroom becomes inclusive, becomes accepting and safe. Teachers have the opportunity to be positive role models of inclusion; I feel they have the responsibility to be the best role models possible.
As a teacher who deals with special needs of students, I become frustrated by the exclusion my students’ experiences. I cannot count the number of times I have had to approach a colleague to say Mary’s IEP states this or that so that she can better complete the task you have assigned. They do not always agree with me. Sometimes, I wonder if this is how my students feel, 15 and taking on a 50 year adult as to why the process has to be changed if they are to meet their personal best and full potential as students! It is frustrating to discuss and/or debate the need for change with someone who is not ready to listen, or someone who believes teaching is a top-down process. Sometimes when a teacher stops talking is when the learning really begins. The dialogue that occurs in a classroom, the questions that are asked and the responses given, is important for a teacher to observe and use when planning. How are we to challenge our students to think critically if we don’t listen to them? How are we to know what critical tools to plan for introduction? How are we to discover the tools that we may be missing critically?
I really do believe everyone has something to contribute to the discussion and that the classroom has to be a safe place where students can be encouraged to do so. I have discovered as a teacher that I have had similar experiences as some of my students and some experiences I will never have. I have had many experiences. I have been the English as a second language student and the Latin student but I have not been the student of colour, physical disability or learning disability. I have something to share, my experiences, but also have something to learn about, the experiences of others.
In the last 3 years I have worked to foster self-advocacy in my students. I want my students to know and understand who they are and what they need to be successful and present. I want them to feel and know they are “someone”. I want them to read the world around them, examine it and question it. I do not want my IEP students to accept things as they are; they should know that in our school setting they can and should examine the world and how they fit into it, and are part of it, while being supported. They should feel that their teachers are on their side, that teachers want the best for them. When students do feel that their teachers are on their side, the classroom becomes inclusive, becomes accepting and safe. Teachers have the opportunity to be positive role models of inclusion; I feel they have the responsibility to be the best role models possible.
April 7, 2009
March 16, 2009
Seminar 9: Literacy and Teachers' Work
Literacy and instruction are often over sold according to Frank Smith. Literacy is promoted as the key to success in our communities and society at large as if were a set of prescribed essential basic skills. Literacy, as Smith notes “is an attitude toward the world. A literate attitude makes learning to read and write possible and productive.” (p. 55).
We know that prepackaged instruction has a history of failure for our students and Smith knows “the only rationale for the new material and approaches that are introduced every year must be the inadequacy of everything produces previously” (p. 57). How many times have we, as teachers, followed the prescribed program, designed by professionals, only to witness our students alienated and frustrated by the program itself? I agree with Smith, the personal relationship that exists between student and teacher may very well “determine whether a student learns to read” (p. 56). We cannot minimize the role a teacher has in the classroom, a role that can greatly impact a student’s conscience and collaborative spirit and empower and engage a student in their learning. Is there really a prescribed program that can do all that? Programs have failed to acknowledge that a social phenomenon occurs with learning. Smith is right that “learning is a simple consequence of the company you keep” (p. 57) and “learning is produced by mutual participation in interesting activities” (p. 58).
As a teacher I know that literacy is powerful. I know that when I model my literacy behaviour for children it makes a difference. For example, I offer my students twenty minutes of uninterrupted independent reading time every day. During this time, I read because I feel it is important for them to see me reading! Sometimes I may be enjoying Fancy Nancy or a good Junie B. book other times I may be reading an assigned MSVU reading. The dialogue that occurs after an independent reading session is also just as important. Students may express that they didn’t the like the book they read because it was too hard, or they prefer something else because they were disinterested in the topic or story. Sometimes a student might conclude that the book wasn’t really for them because of something but perhaps so and so might enjoy it because of they are interested in such and such thing. Students will express that they found their books funny, interesting, factual, or magical and help hook other students into exploring the literature; students may enjoy a book because they have made a connection to the text. It is a powerful moment when another child says I think I might like to read that or try that or has a flood of questions or comments based on the in class talk that is occurring. So I do believe that the modeling of good reading and dialogue are valuable and essential to my classroom practice. No prescribed program can plan or do what I do in 40 minutes because it takes away from the authenticity of the moment. “All the prescribed programs, all the pre-specified and detailed objectives, and all the mandated assessments are impositions from outside. They interfere not only with the autonomy of teachers but [also] with the ability of teachers and students to act together in pursuit of learning” (Smith, 1995, p. 62).
Allan Luke also believes that literacy is a social practice. It is one that is “constrained and enabled by the changing economics and politics of schooling and communities” (p. 305-6). He argues that literacies are shaped and that the teaching of literacy has favoured advantaged groups. The world is changing and literacies are changing along with it. We need to stop with the nostalgic debates about the instruction of reading and writing and start discussing the literacies of tomorrow and work to help aide all our students in being literate members of their communities. What will the literacies of tomorrow look like? How will we, as educators, help reshape the teaching of literacy so that all students are treated equitably, not just the advantaged groups?
When examining remedial programs we have to be careful of the lens we use. In one instance, a student’s success with a remedial program narrows the reading (and learning) gap: a positive. Under a different lens, that same student is helping to preserve the archaic status quo: a negative. Dudley- Marley and Murphy (1997) noted that remedial reading programs “emerged to contain school failures” (p. 461) and although such programs support students who struggle to meet curriculum expectations, they also perpetuate that the set curriculum and expectations by the ministry and school are correct. Reading Recovery helps narrow the gap for our struggling students but it also “satisfies the needs of the dominant group… by sustaining structures of schooling” (Dudley-Marley and Murphy, 1997, p. 462). This is a double-edged sword! We, as teachers, want our students to be successful but what does it cost us all in the end if the discourse stays the same and the status quo is never challenged? This takes me back to September, all that is certain is uncertainty but where there is uncertainty there is hope. Long term change is what is needed.
References:
Smith, Frank, (1995) “Overselling Literacy”, Chapter 5, Between Hope and Havoc, p. 53-64.
Luke, Allan, (1998) “Getting Over Method: Literacy Teaching as Work in “New Times”, Language Arts, Vol. 75, p 305-313.
Dudley-Marling, Curt, and Sharon Murphy, (1997) “A Political Critique of Remedial Reading Programs: The Example of Reading Recovery”, The Reading Teacher, Vol. 50, p. 460-468.
We know that prepackaged instruction has a history of failure for our students and Smith knows “the only rationale for the new material and approaches that are introduced every year must be the inadequacy of everything produces previously” (p. 57). How many times have we, as teachers, followed the prescribed program, designed by professionals, only to witness our students alienated and frustrated by the program itself? I agree with Smith, the personal relationship that exists between student and teacher may very well “determine whether a student learns to read” (p. 56). We cannot minimize the role a teacher has in the classroom, a role that can greatly impact a student’s conscience and collaborative spirit and empower and engage a student in their learning. Is there really a prescribed program that can do all that? Programs have failed to acknowledge that a social phenomenon occurs with learning. Smith is right that “learning is a simple consequence of the company you keep” (p. 57) and “learning is produced by mutual participation in interesting activities” (p. 58).
As a teacher I know that literacy is powerful. I know that when I model my literacy behaviour for children it makes a difference. For example, I offer my students twenty minutes of uninterrupted independent reading time every day. During this time, I read because I feel it is important for them to see me reading! Sometimes I may be enjoying Fancy Nancy or a good Junie B. book other times I may be reading an assigned MSVU reading. The dialogue that occurs after an independent reading session is also just as important. Students may express that they didn’t the like the book they read because it was too hard, or they prefer something else because they were disinterested in the topic or story. Sometimes a student might conclude that the book wasn’t really for them because of something but perhaps so and so might enjoy it because of they are interested in such and such thing. Students will express that they found their books funny, interesting, factual, or magical and help hook other students into exploring the literature; students may enjoy a book because they have made a connection to the text. It is a powerful moment when another child says I think I might like to read that or try that or has a flood of questions or comments based on the in class talk that is occurring. So I do believe that the modeling of good reading and dialogue are valuable and essential to my classroom practice. No prescribed program can plan or do what I do in 40 minutes because it takes away from the authenticity of the moment. “All the prescribed programs, all the pre-specified and detailed objectives, and all the mandated assessments are impositions from outside. They interfere not only with the autonomy of teachers but [also] with the ability of teachers and students to act together in pursuit of learning” (Smith, 1995, p. 62).
Allan Luke also believes that literacy is a social practice. It is one that is “constrained and enabled by the changing economics and politics of schooling and communities” (p. 305-6). He argues that literacies are shaped and that the teaching of literacy has favoured advantaged groups. The world is changing and literacies are changing along with it. We need to stop with the nostalgic debates about the instruction of reading and writing and start discussing the literacies of tomorrow and work to help aide all our students in being literate members of their communities. What will the literacies of tomorrow look like? How will we, as educators, help reshape the teaching of literacy so that all students are treated equitably, not just the advantaged groups?
When examining remedial programs we have to be careful of the lens we use. In one instance, a student’s success with a remedial program narrows the reading (and learning) gap: a positive. Under a different lens, that same student is helping to preserve the archaic status quo: a negative. Dudley- Marley and Murphy (1997) noted that remedial reading programs “emerged to contain school failures” (p. 461) and although such programs support students who struggle to meet curriculum expectations, they also perpetuate that the set curriculum and expectations by the ministry and school are correct. Reading Recovery helps narrow the gap for our struggling students but it also “satisfies the needs of the dominant group… by sustaining structures of schooling” (Dudley-Marley and Murphy, 1997, p. 462). This is a double-edged sword! We, as teachers, want our students to be successful but what does it cost us all in the end if the discourse stays the same and the status quo is never challenged? This takes me back to September, all that is certain is uncertainty but where there is uncertainty there is hope. Long term change is what is needed.
References:
Smith, Frank, (1995) “Overselling Literacy”, Chapter 5, Between Hope and Havoc, p. 53-64.
Luke, Allan, (1998) “Getting Over Method: Literacy Teaching as Work in “New Times”, Language Arts, Vol. 75, p 305-313.
Dudley-Marling, Curt, and Sharon Murphy, (1997) “A Political Critique of Remedial Reading Programs: The Example of Reading Recovery”, The Reading Teacher, Vol. 50, p. 460-468.
March 14, 2009
Discourse, Language and Learning and Teaching and Learning
Books and talk were always readily available in my home growing up. I remember looking forward to receiving my monthly Dr. Seuss selection in the mail and visiting the local public library with Daddy. I also remember that the books that were read to me as a child were not the ones I selected at the library or received via mail. The literacy of home was predominately Portuguese. The literacy of school would be in English. I came to know the world around me, first in Portuguese, second in English. There were many similarities between my worlds but there were also differences.
The dominant discourse at home, with my parents, was, and still is today, Portuguese. The dominant discourse of all my formal schooling was obviously English. What I actively participated in at home and in social contexts within my local community as a young child did eventually translate into my school settings and English speaking community; I feel home helped start to prepare me for sharing my knowledge. Many literacy events from home prepared me for events at school; I would however have to be taught or assisted to translate these events and add on to them using at first a lingua franca. If I were going to succeed in my school career, I would have to become literate at school. You see, I had literacy, my Portuguese language and culture, my school teachers did not!
Heath wrote “Familiar literacy events for mainstream preschoolers are bedtime stories, reading cereal boxes, stop signs, and television ads, and interpreting instructions for commercial games and toys” (259). These at home literacy events are deemed normal and mainstream in many places around the world. Heath points out that these events are sometimes similar for students at school and other times may be in conflict with them. We, as teachers, know that not all our students come to school with the same set of skills or literacies. We may see this daily in our classrooms when dealing with ESL students, LD students, gifted students and for the lack of a better world “average” students. In fact, we may have experienced this ourselves when we began school. Heath notes that “as school-oriented parents and their children interact in pre-school years, adults give their children, through modeling and specific instruction, ways of taking from books which seem natural in school and in numerous institutional settings” (258). Parents help to foster and develop their children’s literacies and thus these literacies are dependent on what is being modeled and specifically instructed. Everything stems from something, every understanding and every misconception.
I agree with Heath’s belief that “children growing up in mainstream communities are expected to develop habits and values which attest to their membership in a “literate society” (260). However, it is important that we understand that children growing up in mainstream communities will be exposed to many things that will help develop their literacies. Social situations call for different discourses to be used and we know that discourses are related to the distribution of social power. Gee, in Discourses and Literacies, points out that “a person’s primary Discourse serves as a ‘framework’ or ‘base’ for their acquisition and learning of other Discourses later in life” (141).
There is and always will be sociocultural differences in the use of Discourse between speakers of the same language. Therefore, it is important that we, as educators, understand that the literacies of our students at home may differ from the literacies that are expected of them within their school community. Also the literacies we may understand personally and socially may differ from the literacies we are exposed to professionally. Therefore, what is important? Shouldn’t students learn in meaningful ways? As educator, we can agree that students need to be engaged in their learning so that different practices of literacies are understood and truly valued.
Teaching and learning are not the same thing. The role of a teacher is an important one. Barnes, in Transmission and Interpretation, compares the teacher as transmitter versus the teacher as student aid to interpretation. The literacies we, as educators, are comfortable with will place us in one of these two categories. What literacy is valued when it is the teacher under the microscope rather than the student? Does a good teacher transmit or does a good teacher aid? We as educators are divided! If learning is to be meaningful to students, if the goal is to engage students in their learning, then it becomes evident to me that a good teacher should step away from the transmission model and engage students and aid them interpreting the world around them. A good teacher will do all they can to understand the literacies their students will bring to a school setting to engage them in learning.
The dominant discourse at home, with my parents, was, and still is today, Portuguese. The dominant discourse of all my formal schooling was obviously English. What I actively participated in at home and in social contexts within my local community as a young child did eventually translate into my school settings and English speaking community; I feel home helped start to prepare me for sharing my knowledge. Many literacy events from home prepared me for events at school; I would however have to be taught or assisted to translate these events and add on to them using at first a lingua franca. If I were going to succeed in my school career, I would have to become literate at school. You see, I had literacy, my Portuguese language and culture, my school teachers did not!
Heath wrote “Familiar literacy events for mainstream preschoolers are bedtime stories, reading cereal boxes, stop signs, and television ads, and interpreting instructions for commercial games and toys” (259). These at home literacy events are deemed normal and mainstream in many places around the world. Heath points out that these events are sometimes similar for students at school and other times may be in conflict with them. We, as teachers, know that not all our students come to school with the same set of skills or literacies. We may see this daily in our classrooms when dealing with ESL students, LD students, gifted students and for the lack of a better world “average” students. In fact, we may have experienced this ourselves when we began school. Heath notes that “as school-oriented parents and their children interact in pre-school years, adults give their children, through modeling and specific instruction, ways of taking from books which seem natural in school and in numerous institutional settings” (258). Parents help to foster and develop their children’s literacies and thus these literacies are dependent on what is being modeled and specifically instructed. Everything stems from something, every understanding and every misconception.
I agree with Heath’s belief that “children growing up in mainstream communities are expected to develop habits and values which attest to their membership in a “literate society” (260). However, it is important that we understand that children growing up in mainstream communities will be exposed to many things that will help develop their literacies. Social situations call for different discourses to be used and we know that discourses are related to the distribution of social power. Gee, in Discourses and Literacies, points out that “a person’s primary Discourse serves as a ‘framework’ or ‘base’ for their acquisition and learning of other Discourses later in life” (141).
There is and always will be sociocultural differences in the use of Discourse between speakers of the same language. Therefore, it is important that we, as educators, understand that the literacies of our students at home may differ from the literacies that are expected of them within their school community. Also the literacies we may understand personally and socially may differ from the literacies we are exposed to professionally. Therefore, what is important? Shouldn’t students learn in meaningful ways? As educator, we can agree that students need to be engaged in their learning so that different practices of literacies are understood and truly valued.
Teaching and learning are not the same thing. The role of a teacher is an important one. Barnes, in Transmission and Interpretation, compares the teacher as transmitter versus the teacher as student aid to interpretation. The literacies we, as educators, are comfortable with will place us in one of these two categories. What literacy is valued when it is the teacher under the microscope rather than the student? Does a good teacher transmit or does a good teacher aid? We as educators are divided! If learning is to be meaningful to students, if the goal is to engage students in their learning, then it becomes evident to me that a good teacher should step away from the transmission model and engage students and aid them interpreting the world around them. A good teacher will do all they can to understand the literacies their students will bring to a school setting to engage them in learning.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)