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.
March 16, 2009
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)